See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281060519

Menu Development and Analysis in UK Restaurant Chains

Article in Tourism and Hospitality Research · July 2001

DOI: 10.1177/146735840100300105

CITATIONS READS

42 2,785

2 authors:

Peter Jones Mazalan Mifli

University of Gloucestershire Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS)
84 PUBLICATIONS 1,564 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 146 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mazalan Mifli on 27 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Menu development and analysis in UK
restaurant chains
Peter Jones and Mazalan Mill!
Received (in revised form): 15th August, 2000
School of Management Studies for the Service Sector, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH. UK
Tel: +44 (0)1483 876377; Fax: +44 (0)1483 259660; E-mail: p.jones@surrey.ac.uk
Professor Peter Jones is the Charles Forte
Chair of Hotel Management at the Univer-
sity of Surrey.
Maza'an MlfII is a lecturer in Food and
Beverage Management in the School of
Business and Economics at the University
of Malaysia in Sabah. He is a graduate of
the hospitality programme at the Univer-
sity of Hawaii and has a masters degree
in International Hotel Management from
the University of Surrey.
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS: menu analysIs, menu devel-
opment, restaurant chains
This paper reports on a study of menu develop-
ment and analysis policies and practices in
seven of the top UK [oodservice chains. The
study reveals a range of alternative policies
based largely on in-house expertise rather than
any of the approaches proposed in the literature
on this subject. An analysis of these firms sug-
gests there are three alternative strategic
approaches to menu development: the 'minimal
adjustment' strategy, the menu development
strategy, and the dish (or menu item) develop-
ment strategy.
INTRODUCTION
The importance of the menu in terms of
concept development, dish selection, mer-
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 27, 2015
Tourlam and Hospitallly Research Volume 3 Number 1
chandising and pricing has been well estab-
lished (Atkinson and Jones 1994; Mooney
1994). But despite the fact that the menu
defines the product range of a food and
beverage operation and serves as a major
selling tool, very little research has been
published that identifies how restaurant
chains go about planning and developing
their menus. Furthermore, a number of
authors have provided alternative
approaches to menu analysis or menu
'engineering' (see below), but there has
been little empirical study of the industry
to see if these approaches have been
adopted.
Research in this area is not aided by the
lack of consensus on defining key terms,
such as menu planning, menu develop-
ment, menu design, menu analysis and
menu engineering. These tend to be used
indiscriminately and interchangeably. This
is partly because the word 'menu' has two
separate meanings: 'it can mean the pro-
duct range that a foodservice outlet offers;
or the piece of literature or display used to
communicate this to the customer'
(Mooney 1994). This paper therefore,
adopts the term 'menu planning' to
describe how the product range is deter-
mined at the restaurant concept develop-
ment stage, the term 'menu development' Tourism and Hospitality Reseerch.
Vol. 3. No.1. 2001.
then refers to the subsequent alteration of pp.61-71
:4; Henry Stewart Publications,
the planned menu, and the term 'menu 1467-3584
Page 61
Menu development and analysis in UK restaurant chains

design' refers to how the menu card or dis- Most of the published literature in
play is created (Bowen and Morris 1995). research journals is devoted to menu devel-
In order to engage in menu development, opment, more specifically to menu analy-
some analytical tools that report on menu sis. In a previous review, Atkinson and
and dish performance are required. Thus, Jones (1994) identify two broad categories
'in broad terms, "menu analysis" refers to of menu analysis. The first is concerned
a range of techniques and procedures that with average spend analysis and includes
enable more effective decision-making, techniques advocated by Kreck (1984)
both with respect to marketing and operat- based on comparing 'the menu average
ing the menu' (Atkinson and Jones 1994); versus the guest-check average' and by
while 'menu engineering' refers to a speci- Miller (1987) based on 'taking the average-
fic technique, based on portfolio analysis, check calculations one step further and
for comparing dish performance. converting them into frequency distribu-
This paper reports on an in-depth study tions'. The second is alternative approaches
of menu development and analysis policies to menu engineering, which include techni-
and practices in seven UK foodservice ques proposed by Miller (1980), Kasavana
chains. The study reveals a range of alter- and Smith (1982), Uman (1983), Pavesic
native policies, but few chains are adopting (1985), and Merricks and Jones (1988).
any of the approaches suggested in the lit- Menu engineering analyses the product
erature. From this analysis two interrelated range of dishes by placing each dish in a
systems are proposed. The first is the menu two-by-two matrix, usually using popular-
development system, the second is the dish ity and cost or profit performance (in a
(or menu item) development system. Some variety of forms) as the two analytical cri-
chains only adopt the former, whilst others teria. Both Hayes and Huffman (1985) and
invest a great deal in dish development. Atkinson and Jones (1994) demonstrate
that the alternative techniques proposed
LITERATURE REVIEW produce different results when applied to
There has been relatively little reported the same menu. No clear consensus has
research into the menu planning process. emerged as to the efficacy or otherwise of
Khan (1991) identifies factors that influence the alternatives. Indeed, further modifica-
the process and Mooney (1994) models tions on this approach have been advo-
stages in that process. With regards to cated, for instance by LeBruto et al. (1997)
menu design, so-called gaze-motion theory and Beran (1995). In addition a third cate-
has been identified (Miller 1980; Mooney gory of menu analysis, which can be
1994; Davis et al. 1998), although the termed profitability analysis, has emerged,
empirical work on which this theory is which takes into account other factors,
based is not sourced. The theory proposes such as labour cost. This third approach
that customers read sections of a menu card includes Hayes and Huffman's (1985) profit
in a specific order (not from top to and loss statement method and Bayou and
bottom), and that location of a menu item Bennet's (1992) methodology.
influences its level of sales, Bowen and Nearly all of the work cited above is
Morris (1995) conducted an empirical conceptual in nature. The only known
study that questioned this theory. They study of industry practice was conducted
concluded that 'the redesign of the menu by Morrison (1996), who looked into the
did not support the proposition that menu engineering approach adopted by 18
increased visibility of a menu item results upscale, independent restaurants in Austra-
in proportionally greater sales of that item', lia. This study concluded that none of the

Paytl 62 Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 27, 2015

established techniques was actually being
employed fully in this industry segment.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The aim of this study was to conduct
research into actual industry practice. A
qualitative approach to the research was
adopted, reflecting the preliminary nature
of the study and limited evidence from
previous studies. In view of the lack of
agreed definitions and the level of detail
required about policies and procedures, a
case-study approach was adopted. A
number of chains were approached and
seven agreed to participate. All of the
chains had UK-wide units and strongly
branded restaurants. Some were solely res-
taurant chains, others were hospitality
firms with a restaurant division. Most
operated stand-alone table-service restau-
rants, but one firm operated branded res-
taurants in their hotels, another was
predominantly a pub chain, and a third
was quick service.
In each case the executive or manager
responsible for the menu planning and/or
development process was interviewed in
depth. The job titles of those interviewed
were almost unique in each case: commer-
cial director, catering development man-
ager (two firms), food marketing
manager, executive chef, research and
development manager, and operations
manager. In every case a copy of the cur-
rent menu was reviewed, and wherever
possible other relevant documentation was
collected.
A semi-structured questionnaire was
developed and piloted. The final question-
naire comprised 40 questions: on the menu
planning process (six questions); menu
design (one); dish selection policy (nine);
pricing policy (five); and menu analysis
(19). Following these interviews, which
took place over a period of two months in
the summer of 1999, a case study was writ-
ten about each firm. Each interviewee was
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 27, 2015
Janeli and Mltll
sent a copy of the case about their firm and
asked to correct any errors of fact and/or
to comment on the content. Once verified,
these cases were then analysed in order to
get an overview of current industry prac-
tice.
FINDINGS
Detailed case studies were developed of the
firms participating in the study. For the
purposes of this paper, these have been
summarised to provide a brief overview of
practice in each of the firms. In some cases,
interviewees are directly quoted.
The fast-food chain
This brand is a counter-service fast-food
restaurant. It is a newly established com-
pany with relatively few outlets. The site
location of its outlets is aimed predomi-
nantly at motorway service areas, depart-
ment stores, supermarkets and other mass
market venues. A key feature of the Sun-
nyside Up concept is that it has one of the
smallest footprints of any such operation in
the UK.
The menu is based on the all-day break-
fast. It includes pancakes, bagels, freshly
baked pastries, freshly ground coffees and
other soft drinks designed to cover all parts
of the day. It has also introduced a trade-
marked signature product called 'The
Belter' (bacon, egg, lettuce and tomato in a
bun) similar to McDonald's 'Big Mac' and
Burger King's 'Whopper'. Menu display is
on an illuminated and illustrated board
over the counter.
The original planning of the menu was
largely based on management expertise,
experience and intuition. The main criteria
for selecting the dishes were purely a com-
bination of three factors: convenience,
market demands and popularity. A
number of trials were undertaken before
finalising the dishes on the menu and some
in-house research has been undertaken to
find out what customers think about the
Page D,j
Menu development and analysis in UK restaurant chams

food. For instance, the chain extended the The pizza chain
original menu mix to accommodate the This chain has over 200 outlets in the UK
trend for healthy eating by introducing and ten overseas. The planned rate of
new salad dishes. growth is 30-40 outlets a year. The con-
All menu items have a standard specifi- cept is a traditional Italian pizzeria restau-
cation and recipe. An operational manual rant with a warm, friendly atmosphere. All
and training manual have been developed the outlets within the UK are very differ-
to aid the staff in purchasing, storing, pre- ent in terms of their exterior and interior
paration and production of the food. Apart designs. For example, the restaurant in
from these manuals, a formal system of Edinburgh is in a historic old building
audit is also implemented every month to while in Milton Keynes it is ultra-modern
ensure that all products are produced in style. As the manager interviewed for
according to specification. this study stated: 'We do not believe we
The establishment of the menu selling are a chain, we think of ourselves as a
price is based on three factors: food costs, necklace.' But while the design ethos and
competition and affordability to customers. management style are individualised for
A targeted gross profit margin (GPM) is each restaurant, the food offer is highly
used to forecast the overall menu items' standardised across the chain.
target performance. So-called psychological The concept is to serve freshly cooked,
pricing is then applied so that all menu thin-crust Italian pizzas prepared to order.
items' prices last numbers had to end with The menu also includes 'guest' pizzas, pasta
either 5 or 9. Finally, the selling price is and salad choices. 'Fresh, high-quality pro-
adjusted to take into account perceived cus- duce is at the top of our shopping list. Our
tomer acceptability and affordability. chefs always use genuine mozzarella cheese
Every month menu performance is and Italian olive oil. Tomatoes are espe-
reviewed by management. The process cially selected from each season's harvest in
involves both quantitative and qualitative Italy.'
analysis. For the former, the electronic The menu has hardly been changed in
point-of-sale (EPOS) data are used to gener- the 28 years of the concept's existence; it
ate relevant reports such as sales count, GPM was developed by the founder and based
and gross profit percentage (GPP). With on his personal experience. The same is
these reports, the profitability and popular- true of the menu design. The company's
ity of the each menu item are identified. The view is 'if it is not broken then do not fix
second stage is to incorporate some qualita- it'.
tive analysis, which is based largely on the Within this company the focus is on the
subjective judgement of the operators and quality of product ingredients. Menu man-
on informal customer feedback. agers searched for premium products such
The most frequent actions adopted to as genuine mozzarella cheese, Italian olive
improve menu performance are recipe oil, Spanish anchovies and Hungarian pep-
modification with regard to ingredients, peroni sausages. Countries, notably Italy,
portion size to improve food cost, and are routinely visited to seek better pizza
some price adjustment. Poorly performing toppings, ingredients and presentation.
dishes are rarely replaced or removed, Inputs from this survey are then imple-
partly to maintain the balance of the menu mented in the UK market, but there are
and the integrity of the concept, and partly several trials before the menu items are
due to the cost of changing the overhead finalised on the menu. In this case, the
menu display. name of the dishes remains the same but

Page 64 Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 27, 2015
 , Jones and Mltl!
their description on the menu card is chan-
ged to correspond to the new ingredients
or recipes. Subsequently, the standard spe-
cifications are updated and new standard
recipes are developed. The costing of each
menu item is based on this recipe, so
prompt and reliable information on pro-
duct specifications and costs are crucial for
accurate costings.
In order to maintain this, every six
months a quality control manager is
assigned to monitor the suppliers' specifica-
tions and prices, along with site visits to
supplier premises. Products that are flown
in from overseas are consistently inspected.
Customer feedback, in the form of com-
plaints, suggestions and compliments, is
also an important consideration in the ana-
lysis and development of dishes.
'Good value for money' is what this
company uses as the basis for establishing
menu prices. The dish cost is the 'source of
guidelines' for establishing each dish price.
However, the most important element is to
make sure the price does not exceed the
range of the targeted market affordability.
It is stressed that years of experience in the
pizza business helps the firm to judge cus-
tomers' price acceptability. Thus, although
a target food cost exists, actual decision
making on what should be the selling price
is largely based on customer demand and
competitor analysis.
It is believed that the chain's highly loyal
customer base always have their favourite
pizza, so dishes that perform below average
are retained to maintain customer loyalty,
as well as to ensure menu 'balance'. So
long as the sales mix achieves an overall
gross profit performance for the chain as a
whole, no adjustments are made. There is
an annual price review that generally
increases prices in line with inflation.
A flexible computer system plays a vital
part in analysing the menu mix profitabil-
ity and popularity. With this system, the
menu sales mix reports can be generated
!
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 27, 2015
for either lunch or dinner time, daily,
weekly or monthly. Since unpopular menu
items are not removed, the process of dish
and recipe development would be applied
to these items.
The pub chain
This chain is organised into three major
divisions - retail, leisure and beer - and
currently employs 45,000 employees.
Overall, the firm has retail food sales of
over £12m per annum. In the retail divi-
sion, there are retail outlets spanning res-
taurants, pubs, cafe bars, and combinations
of these. In 1999 these had over 35 different
menus, ranging from limited menus
known as the 'Mainstream' to full menus
known as the 'Sophisticated'.
According to the food marketing man-
ager, the menu planning is based on infor-
mation obtained from the research and
development (R&D) department. The
main focus of the research is to analyse cus-
tomer trends. Menu development is con-
tinuous across the chain, although focused
on only one or two concepts at a time.
Menu design often originates as part of
the original concept development process.
This firm is familiar with 'gaze-motion'
theory and it influences their designs. Prof-
itable menu items that have not sold in the
past are repositioned to the centre of the
menu card or between other popular menu
items. Such repositioning to strategic loca-
tions on the menu cards is believed to have
increased these dish sales by 5 per cent.
The selection of the menu items is based
on a 'blueprint', which specifies the tar-
geted markets for each outlet brand. Once
selected, an 'overlaptic profile experiment'
is performed where detailed assessments of
the menu items' characteristics, such as
saltiness, colour, texture, sweetness, etc, arc
examined and modifications made when
necessary. Occasionally, customers are
invited for food tastings where a variety of
new or modified dishes are served. They
Page 05
Menu development and analysis In UK restaurant chains

are asked to express their opmion freely factor in setting menu prices, and market
about the food taste, presentation, portion assessments are conducted to find out the
size and prices. Subsequently, the standard ideal selling price. Popular dishes are
specifications and recipes of menu items are allowed to have a lower margin, and pri-
developed. cing against competitors is common. Most
All menu items are priced according to price changes are driven by inflation.
the 'relative index approach' (RIA) devel- A menu sales mix report generated by
oped by the interviewee. The purpose of EPOS is the main approach to analysing
this RIA is to assign an index value for menu performance. On an annual basis, the
every menu based on customers' value per- menu development team analyses the
ceptions of each dish. A high index repre- menu in each of the chain's brands. Low-
sents high customer value perception and performance menu items tend to be
vice versa. The firm adjusts the menu sell- retained to maintain menu balance, espe-
ing prices frequently, largely to respond to cially appetisers and desserts. The main
customer trends for better value. All the focus of such analysis is predominantly on
last numbers of menu prices end with the main-course items, which are regarded
either 5 or 9, based on psychological pri- as the 'backbone' of menu profitability and
cing theory. popularity. Fifteen to 20 per cent of menu
The chain has a comprehensive compu- items would normally be replaced by new
ter program system that is used to analyse items or modified each year, with menu
the menu sales mix for every outlet on a fatigue and increasing ingredient costs
monthly basis. The menu sales report is being the most common reasons for such
obtained to analyse each menu item's per- changes.
formance, with the emphasis on each dish
rather than on the menu. Dishes are re- The pasta restaurant chain
engineered to gain more popularity rather This chain is made up of casual dining res-
than removed from the menu. taurants with an Italian theme, offering
mostly pasta dishes. There is a very com-
The table-service restaurant chain prehensive product development process
This chain is one of the largest UK chains, (PDP). It takes a cycle of 22 weeks to
with a number of differently branded con- develop and launch a menu. Once the PDP
cepts. The food development manager uses is completed, a Gannt chart is developed
no specific criteria to select the dishes, where each of the due completion dates can
except what he calls 'mass appeal'. The be seen, along with the names of the per-
main 'source of inspiration' is identifying sons and department responsible for each
competitors' most popular dishes and cus- item. Notionally the PDP process is sched-
tomers' food preferences, and no dishes are uled every five years. In reality external
finalised on the menu without testing them forces such as changes in consumer food
in the market. Maintaining the quality preferences and the availability of ingredi-
standard of menu items is achieved by ents, and internal forces such as changes in
having standard recipes for all dishes; peri- company pricing or costing policies, cause
odic training sessions for each restaurant the PDP to be carried out more frequently.
chef; inspection of every outlet to make In the last two years, the chain has
sure all dishes are produced according to reduced the number of menu items by 30
prescribed quality standards; and poster dis- per cent. It was found that too many items
plays of dishes in each kitchen. confused the customer and delayed the
'Good value for money' is the crucial order-taking process. Secondly, too wide a

Page 66 Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 27, 2015

product range creates difficulties with sto-
rage, dish preparation and production. The
reduction was across all types of dish to
maintain the balance between appetisers,
main courses and desserts.
Menu effectiveness is also evaluated by
mystery guests. The mystery guest survey
instrument designed by the menu develop-
ment team (MDT) measures food charac-
teristics such as presentation, taste, texture,
order time and overall quality of service
given. 'Value for money' and competitor
pricing are again featured as the principal
influences on menu pricing. Every month a
sales report is generated analysing the daily
sales. Such analysis is solely used to mea-
sure performance rather than to initiate
menu development.
The cafe-bar chain
The first restaurant in this chain was
opened in 1973. There is a wide range of
menu items with a price range of £4.95-
£17.00. Dishes are based on French cook-
ing but presented in a British style and
listed on the menu in English.
In the last 18 months, the menu has been
reduced from 150 different recipes to just
over 100, to reduce complexity and speed
up production times. Items with a rela-
tively low gross profit were removed from
the menu. Soon after this change, an
American consultant was appointed to
redevelop the menu. A new computer pro-
gram system was introduced to assist the
measurement of every menu item's perfor-
mance, and standard specifications for all
products and recipes were identified and
kept in the computer system. Each dish
preparation time was measured to make
sure that the waiting time was kept to a
minimum and recorded, to establish the
standard preparation time.
The menu design has been altered several
times. The rationale for these alterations
was positioning the dish elsewhere on the
menu card and changing the dish. The
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 27, 2015
Jones and MUll
former was based on the assumption that
the position of a dish on the menu card
influenced its selection by customers, and
the latter reflected changes to recipes.
Adjustment to dishes was based on analysis
of competitors' menus, feedback from a
customer questionnaire, and the judgement
of the senior chefs in the chain. New dishes
are typically trialed by promoting them as
blackboard specials. Once the dishes are
finalised and printed on the menu, stan-
dards are maintained through specifications
and recipes, along with staff training.
Selling prices are based on the 'principle
of good value for money' and a minimum
70 per cent gross profit - all prices end in
either 5 or 9 pence. A newly installed com-
puter system generates detailed reports of
each menu item's costs, profits and sales
count in any time period. From this, the
menu development team is able to identify
the menu item's performance. Menu items
that perform below target are monitored
and alternative approaches to improving
performance are considered. Menu items
are replaced if they consistently do not
achieve the required margin, through menu
fatigue, or if they simply are not selling.
The hotel chain
This chain has recently developed new
branded concepts for its hotels. The menu
for each brand is a combination of dishes
previously offered and new dishes selected
and developed by the operations manager.
Subsequent changes to the menu are made
based on informal employee feedback, cus-
tomer feedback, competitor analysis, sales,
market trends and media.
Portion control, standard recipes, quality
control and pricing are integral compo-
nents of the menu planning process. A spe-
cially designed computer program,
developed in-house, has enabled this inte-
gration. The software provides details of
ingredient costs and generates the contribu-
tion margin and selling price of any dish.
Page 61
Menu development and analysis in UK restaurant chains

Pricing is based very largely on how However, nearly all restaurant chain
much customers are willing to pay, and operators analyse their menu effectiveness
then portion size is specified on the basis of after the menu is launched, as illustrated in
'good value for money'. Menu analysis is Figure 1. Sales volume (popularity) and
performed annually and any changes to the gross profit (profitability/contribution
menu occur after this review. Dishes that margin) are the common criteria under
have not performed well are either investigation for every menu item. None
removed or modified. The most common of the theoretical methodologies of menu
reasons for this are menu fatigue, declining analysis discussed earlier is totally adopted
popularity, or escalating costs of ingredi- by the chain operators. Many have devel-
ents. Once the menu is reprinted, prices oped their own in-house IT systems for
and dishes remain fixed until the next conducting this analysis or have installed an
review. EPOS and control system that had this
capability even though it was not specified.
DISCUSSION The managers interviewed for this study
An analysis of the case studies (Mifli 1999) were generally unaware of the published
demonstrated three clear approaches to the literature in research journals, and many
menu development process. One chain were not aware that menu analysis soft-
adopted what might be termed the 'mini- ware is now available on a proprietary
mal adjustment' approach, which means basis.
they essentially only changed prices in line Apart from using the quantitative data
with inflation and improved the procure- to analyse the menu performances, the use
ment of dish ingredients. of mystery shoppers is also adopted to ana-

Figure 1 Model of menu development process in UK restaurant chains

Menu launched

.....- - - - - - -........ Review effectiveness

Promote Reposition Retain Eliminate

,
Modify

Presentation
Pricing

Recosting
Recipe

Pege 68 Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 27, 2015

lyse the menu performances in term of its
quality, taste, value and overall presenta-
tion. Additionally; periodical inspection of
food production processes is conducted by
the chain operators to make sure that all
standard procedures are followed according
to specification. After the menu analysis is
completed, the next stage is to determine
whether simply to modify the menu, or to
modify one or more dishes on the menu.
In the context of menu modification,
there are five alternative approaches: dish
promotion; repositioning; retention; elimi-
nation; or introduction. Promotion is
adopted when there is evidence that low
dish sales derive from a lack of customer
awareness. Blackboard and tent-card pro-
motions are used by four out of the seven
chains in order to increase sales of profit-
able but not-so-popular dishes. A second
approach to improving sales of such dishes
is through repositioning them on the menu
card or display. Additionally, proper
choice of words used to describe the dish
ingredients and methods of cooking playa
part in improving the popularity of the
menu.
Most menu items, however, are retained
on the menu unchanged. Even items of
relatively low profitability and popularity
remain on the menu, especially if they are
seen as emblematic of the restaurant con-
cept itself, but dishes are taken off menus if
it is clear there is no longer any demand
for them. Limited supplies and escalating
product prices are also found to be the
cause for elimination of menu items. Such
decisions tend to be based more on qualita-
tive analysis than on sales analysis.
New menu items come about largely
through customer demand, not just to
replace eliminated items. The most
common sources referred to by the chain
foodservice operators when considering
whether to add items to the menu are the
company's research and development
department (R&D), competitor analysis,
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 27, 2015
Jones lind MIlII
professional hospitality journals and custo-
mer feedback.
So far the paper has only looked at how
the menu may be modified, but some
firms also go about modifying individual
dishes. There are four alternative
approaches to dish modification: presenta-
tion; repricing; recosting; and recipe modi-
fication. Most chain operators make the
decision to modify menu items based on
actual performance against the predeter-
mined criteria. Menu items that fall below
acceptable levels are likely to undergo such
modifications. Unfortunately, details of the
'acceptable level' are often quite ambigu-
ous, being based on subjective judgement
as well as menu analysis data or market
research. Modifications to dish presentation
are based predominantly on mystery shop-
per reports and customer feedback. Modifi-
cation may involve one or more'
combinations of taste, garnish, saltiness,
colour, texture, and so on. Usually, the
decision to reprice a menu item is based on
several factors. Inflation is the main cause,
but others include customer resistance,
changes in food cost, and reaction to com-
petitive pricing. Dish modification and
rising food costs are the main reasons why
dishes may also be recosted. Standard
recipe specifications are the control tools
for making the menu recipes and portion
size.
Subsequently, after the menu items have
undergone such modifications, regardless
of which alternative approach is used,
these revised menu items are again
reviewed for effectiveness. Similar proce-
dures of menu analysis are applied and the
process of menu analysis is begun again.
In most chains, this cycle is annual - con-
siderably longer than the literature would
suggest.
CONCLUSION
In addition to the development of this
model, analysis carried out from the seven
Menu development and analysls In UK restaurant chains

case studies has produced some further sophisticated point-of-sale equipment that
interesting findings that identify practice enables them to monitor sales volumes and
with respect to menu development and revenues, but less sophisticated systems for
analysis in the UK chain restaurant indus- inventory control. They are, therefore, not
try. Menu performances can be analysed able easily to establish dish margins on a
by many different techniques and proce- reliable basis.
dures in theory, and are analysed in many Of great interest is the extent to which
different ways in practice. Theoretical menu analysis, and especially dish develop-
approaches tend to concentrate on hard ment strategy, actually contribute to
data and matrix analysis. By contrast, the improved performance. Indeed, does the
practical procedure of menu analysis increased sophistication of this strategy lead
involves the use of market analysis, custo- those firms that use this approach to out-
mer trend analysis and competitor analysis. perform the 'minimal adjustment' firms? In
The menu is not an exclusive product of theory, it should lead to better control of
one department. At least two departments dish costs, higher dish profitability, and
are typically involved: the accounts or con- potentially higher average spends and rev-
trol department, and the catering develop- enues. This study was not designed to sub-
ment team. The former is largely involved stantiate this hypothesis. However, all the
in setting targets and monitoring actual managers interviewed expressed the opi-
performance, and sometimes in setting up nion that their approach was entirely satis-
appropriate IT support systems. In some factory and they had no plans to change it.
firms, other functions such as marketing, While it would be desirable to research the
R&D, and food development teams also potential effectiveness of one strategy over
playa part. the other, designing such a piece of
Some firms confine themselves to a rela- research is highly problematic. This is due
tively simple menu development process, largely to the problem of controlling for a
but others adapt not only the menu but wide range of extraneous variables, as dis-
also the dishes themselves. It is not entirely cussed in another context by Jones (1998)
clear what influences firms to adopt one or and Jones and Choi (1999).
other of these approaches. There is no evi- This study has also focused on chains. It
dence that it is the maturity of the concept demonstrates that industry relies more
or the firm. One of the longest-established heavily on qualitative and relatively subjec-
chains in the study engaged in the least tive measures than the literature would
complex form of menu development. suggest. A second study of UK indepen-
However, this concept was the most dent restaurants has recently been com-
tightly focused, being a pizza chain. It may pleted (Shan 2000), and early results from
be that restaurants with many different it suggest that little or no quantitative data
types of dish, ranging across more than one are used as part of the menu development
style of cuisine, are more likely to engage process in this segment. This is consistent
in dish development than others. There are with Morrison's (1996) findings in Austra-
two likely explanations for the relatively lia and is not surprising given the need for
unsophisticated approaches to menu devel- effective IT systems for menu develop-
opment. The first is philosophical. Some ment. It is unlikely that the whole industry
operators believe that the menu is a key will engage in the more sophisticated prac-
part of the concept and hence it should not tices described in this paper until low-cost,
be changed too frequently, if at all. The easy-to-use systems are available for this
second is pragmatic. Chains may have purpose.

Page 70 Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 27, 2015

REFERENCES
Atkinson, H. and Jones, P. (1994) 'Menu Engi-
neering: Managing the Foodservice
Micro-Marketing Mix', Journal of Restau-
rant and Foodservice Marketin,~, 1, 1,37-55.
Bayou, M. E. and Bennet, L. B. (1992) 'Profit-
ability Analysis for Table Service Restau-
rants', Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 33, 2, 49-55.
Beran, B. (1995) 'Menu Sales Mix Analysis
Revisited: An Economic Approach', Hos-
pitality Research J014rnal, 18, 3, 125-141.
Bowen, J. T. and Morris, A. J. (1995) 'Menu
Design: Can Menus Sell?' International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man-
agement, 7, 4, 4-9.
Davis, B., Lockwood, A. and Stone, S. (1998)
'Food and Beverage Management', But-
terworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Hayes, D. K and Huffman, L. (1985) 'Menu
Analysis: A Better Way', Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 25,
4,64-70.
Jones, P. (1998) 'The Hospitality Service Profit
Chain: An Effective Research Design',
International Journal of Hospitality Manage-
ment, 16, 3, 289-2%.
Jones, P. and Choi, K. H. (1999) 'The Impact
of Yield Management on Hotel Perfor-
mance', CHRIE International Annual
Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Kasavana, M. L. and Smith, D. I. (1982) 'Menu
Engineering: A Practical Guide to Menu
Analysis', Hospitality Publications, Boston.
Khan, M. (1991) 'Concepts of Foodservice
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaysia Sabah on October 27, 2015
View publication stats
Jones and Mlfll
Operations and Management', Van Nos-
trand Reinhold, New York.
Kreck, L. (1984) 'Menu Analysis and Planning',
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
LeBruto, S. M., Quain, W. J. and Ashley, A.
A. (1997) 'Using the Contribution
Margin Aspect of Menu Engineering to
Enhance Financial Results', lntetnational
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man-
agement, 9, 4, 161-167.
Merricks, P. and Jones, P. (1988) 'The Manage-
ment of Foodservice Operations', Cassell,
London.
Mifli, M. (1999) 'A Study of Menu Analysis in
the UK Chain Restaurant Industry', MSc
dissertation, University of Surrey.
Miller, J. (1987) 'Menu Pricing and Strategy',
cm Publishing, Boston.
Mooney, S. (1994) 'Planning and Designing the
Menu' in Merricks, P. and Jones, P. (cds)
(1994) 'The Management of Foodservice
Operations', Cassell, London.
Morrison, P. (1996) 'Menu Engineering in
Upscale Restaurants', lntemational Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8,
4, 17-24.
Pavesic, D. (1985) 'Prime Numbers: Finding
Your Menu's Strengths', Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 26, 3,
71-77.
Shan, S. H. (2000) 'Menu Development in
Independent Mid-Scale Restaurants', MSc
dissertation, University of Surrey.
U man, D. (1983) 'Pricing for Profits', Restau-
rant Business, 1 April, 157-168.
Page /1