A chef is not a concept!
Is this a provocative statement or just a truth that is often overlooked in gastronomic concept development?
Excuse me, chefs, but I am convinced that a gastronomy and food concept must be a complex and strategic decision if it is to have lasting success. It's not about personal taste.
I remember asking my chef Carsten when I first developed my own food concept: What should be on the menu? He then came up with the usual suggestions of dishes that he knew from previous stores and that were doing well. The kitchen was built and expensively furnished according to his ideas. Everything was based on his experience. It worked for a while, but then there was a change and the new chef complained, perhaps rightly, that the kitchen didn't work well like that ... The menu was changed and the game started all over again. The guest wonders: But yesterday was different? Do you have a new chef? But the old one was better ... Who hasn't been there?
The question therefore arises: how can this be avoided? What would be the right approach?
I see three basic problems in concept development, especially in the hotel industry:
- Timing
Unfortunately, gastronomy often plays a subordinate role in the hectic planning of hotels. Most of those involved in planning are also not particularly focused on gastronomy. Even among hoteliers, it is usually seen as a necessary evil and often as a loss-making service. Unfortunately, the black box of gastronomy is still too often considered too late in the construction process, and the impression is created that gastronomy is complicated and expensive to produce. Yes, gastronomy will never be able to generate the profit margin that rooms can, but it doesn't have to be the cost ditch that it sometimes appears to be. The technical demands placed on the building by gastronomy are high. The logistics areas, the floor seals for the kitchens, the grease extraction shafts, the location for grease separators, the increased energy requirements or even a gas connection, etc. are an expense. But it can be calculated in good time and integrated into the overall planning. Running a shaft for the grease exhaust air through 15 floors afterwards is expensive. Catering should be part of the planning right from the start. Above all, however, it should be a conscious strategic decision and not just an alibi. Because then gastronomy is expensive and superfluous.
- Strategy
Who plans a hotel without having determined the potential of the market, the positioning and the long-term strategy? Probably no one. But why is this approach still too often not applied to the F&B concept? Strategy is not a plan, but, as Seth Godin so aptly describes it: It is the philosophy of becoming. So the question is: what should become? What framework conditions and what setup will enable me to achieve this? Let's ask ourselves the basic questions: What function should gastronomy have? Is it a service for my hotel product or is it a profit center? Should external guests be addressed? I am convinced that gastronomy must always have a claim to economic success. Only then is it good. It helps to think about it: What USPs would the restaurant have to have so that guests would come even if there was no hotel above it? This leads to the fact that it has to be an economic unit. This means that we no longer have to think about what we want to offer, but rather what limited resources we can use to achieve the maximum. As a result, we plan a kitchen with a certain maximum number of employees and do not derive how many we need from the sum of possible sales and exceptions, but instead define a maximum output quantity with a fixed number of employees using the new technical possibilities. The measurement is not the exceptions, but the median. Omitting is the challenge. Gastronomy is not a product of chance, but a planned process.
- Consistency
Successful concepts are consistent. They follow their strategy and implement it with determination. This does not mean that there only has to be mono-product gastronomy. Variety can also be a USP, as is the case with all-day concepts. But in the background, there is a planned system of product and shopping basket portfolios that makes it possible to be efficient and, above all, economically successful. The tail doesn't wag the dog. Too often, everything is derived from the requirements. The 30 dishes determine the shopping basket, kitchen appliances, space requirements, number of employees, investment, etc. The basis is often also the exceptions, such as possible large events. This then results in a large number of conditions that are taken as given. But you should think the other way around. What are the parameters that make gastronomy profitable? How can I minimize the cost risk and how much volatility does my cost structure allow before I find myself in the red? Thinking in this way, the consequence would be to create a staff grid that reflects my cost risk and then to set yourself the task of determining what technology is necessary to serve the average number of guests per hour and with what offer I can create such an attractive offer so that I can attract guests even if there were no hotel. Consistent concepts are also easy for guests: they can decide for or against them. This bottom-up strategy also results in completely different kitchen and restaurant planning. We no longer plan for all situations, but for the one that is strategically, conceptually and economically predetermined.
What role do chefs have then?
They must fit the concept and not the other way around. A clear concept provides clarity for everyone involved. The employees know what is expected and can decide what they want. The planners and kitchen designers can plan in a targeted manner and eliminate superfluous contingency items.
A good gastronomy concept is systemic, goal-oriented and provides a clear framework within which employees can develop creatively for an emotional and successful gastronomy.
Conclusion: A chef must fit the concept.
