collaborative product innovation in the food service...

© Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2013

Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited1

23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Woodhead Publishing Limited; proof copy not for publication

9

Collaborative product innovation in thefood service industry. Do too many cooksreally spoil the broth?A. I. A. Costa, The Catholic University of Portugal, Portugal

DOI: 10.1533/9780857097248.2.154

Abstract: Collaborative Product Innovation (CPI) is a form of open innovation highlysuited to tap customers for innovative concepts, support technology development andcreate value networks for new product launch. This chapter presents a case studydescribing how the CPI initiatives of manufacturing companies and haute cuisine chefsshaped the diffusion path of sous vide technology in the US. The case illustrates howcollaborating with expert technology users can create value to companies by generatingnew product ideas and supporting internal R&D. Importantly, it shows how CPI canaccelerate the adoption of novel foods by increasing technology acceptance in targetmarkets.

Key words: foodservice, collaborative product innovation, sous vide cooking, innova-tion diffusion, haute cuisine chefs.

9.1 Introduction

The human capital inputs of innovation processes, i.e., the individual skills andknowledge employed in research and development (R&D) and commercializationactivities (Romer, 1990), can be sourced both inside and outside corporateboundaries. Innovation processes in which human capital inputs are sourcedmainly within a company’s boundaries have been broadly designated as ‘closedinnovation’, as opposed to innovation processes in which such inputs are, to a largeextent, purposively sourced outside the company, a business strategy commonlyknown as ‘open innovation’ (Chesbrough, 2003). The latter is about harnessing the

Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Collaborative product innovation in the food service industry 155


inbound and outbound flows of ideas, technology and skills across a company’sboundaries (which are channelled through its multiple interorganizational links),with the intent of accelerating internal innovation processes and establishingadditional, external paths for the commercialization of their outcomes (Chesbrough,2003; Simard and West, 2006). The establishment and management ofinterorganizational relationships with customers, competitors, suppliers, publicand private research institutions or even seemingly unrelated businesses, with theaim of acquiring additional knowledge and skills for innovation processes, isincreasingly seen as an important way for companies to augment their innovationcapability (Gatignon et al., 2002; OECD and Eurostat, 2005).

To date, open innovation has been commonly associated with fast-growing,technology-intensive industries (e.g., information and communication technologyand pharmaceuticals). There is, however, increasing evidence that this concept andassociated strategies may also prevail in more traditional and mature industries(Huston and Sakkab, 2006), particularly when certain sets of circumstances arise.Among such circumstances is a high dependence on other entities, such as othercompanies, public research institutions and end-user communities, for the supply,development and/or commercialization of new technologies (Chesbrough andCrowther, 2006; Maula et al., 2006; Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2006). Cross-boundary product innovation management should thus be a widespread practice infood supply chains and networks, mainly owing to the number of actors in differentareas involved in food supply and their difficulties to single-handedly meet all theheterogeneous (and often contradictory) requirements of intermediate customers,end-users and legislators (Costa and Jongen, 2006; Grunert et al., 2005; Mikkelsenet al., 2005). Empirical evidence of food manufacturing and foodservice compa-nies engaging in open-innovation strategies (Knudsen, 2007) is, however, scarce.Most importantly, a detailed analysis of such activities, their rationale and marketoutcome is, with the exception of a few case studies (Huston and Sakkab, 2006;Thomke and von Hippel, 2002; Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2006), equally absentfrom both academic and practice-oriented literature.

Consequently, the main aims of this chapter are:

• to provide a better understanding of the open-innovation practices taking placein mature industries, namely within the food area, as well as of their mainantecedents and consequences; and

• to analyse the effects of collaborative product-innovation activities on theinnovation capabilities and market outcomes of food manufacturers andfoodservice operators.

The chapter is structured as follows. In the section 9.2, a critical review ofstudies on the prevalence of open-innovation strategies in the food area is pre-sented. In section 9.3, the main findings of a case study (Yin, 2003) analysing thecollaborative product innovation activities of three manufacturers of sous videmeals for the US foodservice industry are presented and discussed. These highlightthe impact of the open-innovation strategies employed by these companies on theirinnovation capabilities and market outcomes. In section 9.4, the main conclusions

156 Open innovation in the food and beverage industry


Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited1

23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445


drawn from the case study are presented and relevant managerial implications arederived; areas where more empirical research is needed are highlighted.

9.2 A review of open-innovation practices in the foodindustry

Practices for open innovation in the food industry are examined in the followingsubsections, including drivers, collaborative innovation and examples.

9.2.1 Drivers of open innovation in the food industryThe food industry is typically described as a relatively mature and slow-growingarea of business, which displays a relatively low level of R&D investment and isquite conservative in the type of innovations it introduces to the market (Costa andJongen, 2006). This sector perceives its end-customers to be, to a large extent,wary of radically new products and changes in consumption patterns. Suchperceived wariness, together with the necessary stringency of legal requirementsrelated to safety, transforms food product and process innovation in a highlycomplex, time-consuming and risky endeavour, and hence one not to be lightlyundertaken. However, recent important changes in the nature of both food demandand supply, coupled with a high level of competitiveness, have rendered innova-tion not only an unavoidable corporate activity, but also one that is increasinglyvital for overall agri-business profitability.

Contemporary consumers demand unique flavours and singular foods, guilt-free convenience in cooking and eating, and an increasingly health-promoting dietclosely tailored to their individual needs and preferences (Costa et al., 2001, 2007).Such demand requires a type of product development that necessarily entailscreating, or at the very least adopting, innovative technological solutions and newbusiness models. On the other hand, recent general advances in areas such asbiotechnology, nanotechnology and preservation technology offer an unprec-edented number of opportunities for added-value applications in the food industry,many of which have the potential to adequately meet modern consumer demand(Juriaanse, 2006).

Unavoidable as it may, innovation remains a highly challenging and complexprocess for the food processing industry to manage. The number of actors ofdifferent sectors involved in food production, together with their difficulty insingle-handedly meeting all the heterogeneous (and often contradictory) require-ments of intermediate customers, end-users and legislators, determines thatinnovation activities must be carefully co-ordinated. This, in turn, compels inno-vation processes to be managed both within and across organizational boundariesalong the value chain (Costa and Jongen, 2006; Grunert et al., 2005; Mikkelsen etal., 2005). Moreover, many of the emerging technologies that can potentiallysustain (or complement) a wave of successful new food applications (e.g. nanote-chnology) are being developed outside the processing industry. In order to



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

leverage these on-going innovation processes, food industry actors must thereforeenter into more or less formal arrangements with other entities in the innovationsystem. Formal agreements are likewise required for the adoption of externally-developed novel technologies (Maula et al., 2006). Last but not least, theestablishment of close relationships with regulatory bodies, intermediate and end-users throughout the innovation process is essential to improve public acceptanceof emerging food technologies and the commercial success of the products thereof(De Jong et al., 2006; Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt, 2006).

All of the above implies that innovation in the food industry is likely toincreasingly rely upon the decisions and activities of other entities in the innova-tion system. As such, the sector should exhibit a significant number ofopen-innovation strategies, the purpose of which could range from merely secur-ing access to external sources of human capital to actively taking part in thecreation of interorganizational knowledge and skills.

9.2.2 Collaborative product innovation (CPI)As globalization moves forward, markets and technologies converge, productlifecycles shorten and the rate of technological innovation increases. This createsmounting pressure upon companies to produce more innovative products inshorter periods and to commercialize them simultaneously in a higher number ofgeographic markets. In view of this, open-innovation initiatives in the area of newproduct development have often been singled out as a means to overcome some ofthe shortcomings associated to operating in global consumer markets (Costa andJongen, 2006; Emden et al, 2006; Littler et al., 1995; Sarkar and Costa, 2008).

Collaborative product innovation (CPI) has been conceptualized in a number ofways (see Emden et al., 2006, for a more recent definition), but as with other open-innovation initiatives, there is yet little agreement on how to best define andcharacterize it. For the purpose of this chapter, and based on a previouslydeveloped characterization of open-innovation strategies (Sarkar and Costa, 2008),CPI is understood ‘as a collaborative relationship between an innovating companyand an external partner, established with the purpose of sustaining the develop-ment and/or commercialization of an innovative product or product line’.Collaborative relationships are here defined as cross-boundary, information-exchange linkages that are characterized by high levels of relational and structuralembededdness (i.e., high levels of interaction, integration, transparency,mindfulness and synergy, as well as highly similar actionable knowledge bases),and in which each party contributes actively and significantly to the common goalor end solution (Emden et al., 2006; Rindfleisch and Moorman, 2001). In thissetting, the innovating company may collaborate with independent external or-ganizations, communities or individuals located at various stages of the valuechain (customers, competitors, suppliers) or even in the surrounding innovationsystem (user communities, private and public research organizations). The col-laboration projects may take several, nonequity-based forms and have a variedtime span, but they are likely to be relatively structured and focused (at least



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited1

23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445


initially), and to involve some type of contract or written agreement (Dittrich andDuysters, 2007; Littler et al., 1995).

9.2.3 Empirical evidence of CPI initiatives in the food industryKnudsen (2007) analyzed the results of a survey on the employment ofinterorganizational relationships in product innovation by EU manufacturing andservice companies active in the food and beverages sector. She observed that allsurveyed companies (n=132) had partnered, on average, with at least one otherorganization for the development of their last important product innovation.Additionally, survey results indicated that these companies would rather co-operate with customers, suppliers and competitors than with private/public researchorganizations or consultants, and preferably at the initial research stage rather thanduring technical development. Finally, she was also led to conclude that foodcompanies preferably formed alliances with organizations in their own sector,probably because of the high degree of overlapping between their knowledgebases, and, it was believed, to facilitate interorganizational interactions andthereby increase the chances of innovation success.

Huston and Sakkab (2006) described the successful development and launch ofa new type of Pringles’ potato crisps (printed with words and images), driven bythe application of the open-innovation concept. The authors reported on howProcter & Gamble (P&G) was able to lower product development costs and time-to-market for the new line through the in-sourcing of a technology for printingedible images on cakes and cookies. This technology had been primarily devel-oped by a baker in Italy and was discovered through the global network of potentialsources of ideas and know-how that Procter and Gamble maintained as a part of itsopen-innovation programme.

Alternatively, Thomke and von Hippel (2002) revealed how InternationalFlavors and Fragrances (IFF), a company supplying flavours to the food industry,managed to outsource part of its new product design to customers. IFF developeda customer innovation toolkit, consisting of an interactive, internet-based applica-tion with a large database of flavour profiles, with which it equipped its clients inthe food processing industry. This tool allowed customers to design and alterflavour samples at will, enabling IFF to bypass costly market research activitiesand accelerate the trial-and-error cycles that inevitably accompany product inno-vation. By putting customer expertise to use, IFF was also able to expand itsknowledge base and increase the level of customization of its product offer, whilelowering its share of the innovation risk.

Finally, Vanhaverbeke and Cloodt (2006) explained how Calgene, a plantbiotechnology R&D company, established a network of interrelationships withseed companies, farmers, packers, consumers and legislators to support the launchof a new, genetically modified tomato for the fresh market. Calgene was forced toco-operate with other companies and organizations in the innovation system inview of the uncertainties inherent to the development and commercialization offoods derived from gene technology. Such uncertainties compromised its ability to



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

reap value from the commercial applications of the novel technologies it pio-neered. The resulting value network allowed Calgene to cope better with the highlevels of product innovativeness introduced by its gene-modification technologyand the consequent low initial levels of public acceptance and consumer adoption(Ram, 1989).

Table 9.1 summarizes the main characteristics of the open-innovation strategiesreported to have been employed in the food industry so far, based on previouslydeveloped innovation categorization schemes (Garcia and Calantone, 2002; OECDand Eurostat, 2005; Sarkar and Costa, 2008). Although IFF and Procter &Gamble’s open-innovation activities are clearly cases of technological processinnovations, introduced to increase the efficiency of product innovation andsustain new marketing strategies for existing products, the case of Calgene issubstantially different. In the latter, a new marketing strategy is implemented,

Table 9.1 Main characteristics of open innovation strategies in the food industry

Open innovation in the food industry

Case study New Pringles’ potato Design of new Launch of GM(Huston and Sakkab, food flavours tomato2006) (Thomke and von (Vanhaverbeke

Hippel, 2002) and Cloodt, 2006)

Innovating company Procter & Gamble International Flavors Calgeneand Fragrances

External partner Technology supplier Customers in the Seed producers,food industry farmers, packers,(e.g. Nestlé) retailers, con-

sumers, legislators

Type of relationship Dyad at non-arm’s Vertically integrated Network acrosslength dyad innovation system

Stage Process development Product design Commercialization

Strategy Technology in- NPD out-sourcing Creation of valuesourcing network to sustain

market launch

Goal Reduce NPD costs Reduce NPD costs Ensure acceptanceand time-to-market and time-to-market and market success

High customization of noveltechnology

Supporting technology New printing techno- New tool kit for Plantlogy for food flavour design biotechnology

Newness to company Really new Really new Incremental

End product Printed potato crisps Custom flavours for New tomato for thefor consumer markets the food industry fresh market

Newness to market Incremental Incremental Radical



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited1

23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445


involving the development of new sales channels and promotion tactics, to sustainthe successful creation of an entirely new market for a radical product innovation.Although the commercialization of a tomato with enhanced flavour might havebeen a novel initiative to Calgene and its partners, the basic knowledge of plantbiotechnology employed in the process was, nonetheless, not new to them.

As already seen in section 9.2, empirical evidence of food companies engagingin open-innovation practices is scarce, and, in particularl, in respect of specificcases of CPI initiatives. Most importantly, a detailed analysis of such strategies,their rationale and market outcome is, with the exception of the few case studiesreviewed here, virtually absent from both academic and practice-oriented studies.This gap in academic research concerning the study of open innovation in general,and CPI in particular, is by no means exclusive to the food area, a fact that has beenoften pointed out by many other innovation-management scholars (Chesbrough etal., 2006; Emden et al, 2006; Littler et al., 1995). In view of this, the followingsection presents the results of a case study research project (Yin, 2008), undertakenwith the aim of better understanding why and how CPI takes place in maturesectors, namely in the food manufacturing and foodservice areas.

9.3 Collaborative product innovation (CPI) in the food-service industry: sous vide technology in the US

For a detailed understanding of sous vide, some details of its use and methodologyare now described and the results of case studies are presented.

9.3.1 BackgroundThe foodservice industry encompasses all commercial and noncommercial/insti-tutional organizations supplying consumers with meals prepared outside theirhomes (Ottenbacher and Harrington, 2008). In the USA, as in most developedeconomies, this is a very broad sector with substantial variation in price, qualityand service level of the offers, which range from educational, health, military andcorporate catering to travel and tourism businesses, foodservice areas in retailstores, takeaway and home-delivery outlets, fast food and other limited serviceformats, casual dining establishments and upscale restaurants. According to theNational Restaurant Association (NRA, 2011), sales in the USA restaurant indus-try, i.e., noncommercial, limited (cafeterias, buffets and quick service operations)and full (midscale, casual dining, upscale casual and fine dining) service restau-rants, reached US$604 billion in 2011. In the same year, the industry employed12.8 million people in 960 000 venues, being one of the largest private sectoremployers in the country, and accounted for a 49% share of the food dollar.Overall, foodservice activities have a great economic and social relevance in thiscountry: their overall impact in the economy totals US$1.7 trillion and they employalmost 10% of its workforce, a large proportion of which are female and minorityentrepreneurs and managers who own and/or run micro and small enterprises.



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Fig. 9.1 The sous vide cooking process.

Sous vide cooking (or cooking under vacuum) is based on advanced food-packaging and food-processing technologies (Haas, 2006). It consists of a series ofrelatively complex and sophisticated food preparation steps carried out sequentiallyin purposely developed equipment, as shown in Fig. 9.1. This technique involvespackaging raw, minimally processed or precooked foods under vacuum in sealed,laminated plastic pouches or containers, and cooking them during a preciselycontrolled heat treatment process in a water bath or a convection steam oven

Preparation

Packaging

Cooking

Pasteurization

Rapid chill

Time/temperature control

Time/temperature control

Sterilisation Heating

Shelf stable Chilled storage Frozen storage Warm hold

Rapid reheat

Finish

Serve

• Liquid bath or convection oven

• Searing• Seasoning• Cutting/portioning• Adding sauces

• Tenderizing• Marinating• Searing• Brining• Mixing/flavouring• Pre-cooking

• Placing in laminated plastic pouches• Create vacuum• Heat–seal



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited1

23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445


Fig. 9.2 The supply chain of sous-vide foods.

(Baldwin, 2012; Schellenkens, 1996). The essence of sous vide cooking resides inestablishing, achieving and controlling the desirable core temperature of foods, inorder to achieve their optimal palatability at acceptable safety levels (Baldwin,2012).

Sous vide technology is used in the production of meals and meal componentsfor a wide variety of customers by food manufacturers and foodservice operatorsalike (Tiampo, 2006), as depicted in Fig. 9.2. Different levels of heat treatment areused to cook foods under vacuum, depending on the safety standards required byregulatory authorities (Creed and Reeve, 1998; Lingle, 1991), the characteristicsof the production, storage and distribution operations involved (Lingle, 1991;Creed, 2001a; Tiampo, 2006), and the degree of organoleptic quality and conven-ience in preparation demanded by each type of customer (Lingle, 1991; Costa etal., 2001; Creed, 2001b).

Sous vide cooking methods are believed to present four main advantages overtraditional interrupted catering systems:

1. to reduce the degree of oxidation of food components, such as vitamins andother antioxidants, by packing, cooking and storing under vacuum;

2. to prevent recontamination and reduce the loss of important food components(water, vitamins, flavour and odour volatiles normally lost in open containercooking), by using laminated plastic packaging resistant to high temperatures;

3. to reduce the breakdown of vitamins and flavour and odour volatiles bycooking at low temperatures during relatively long periods of time; and

Ingredients

Packaging

Equipment

Foodservice restaurants

Up scale

Fine dining

Food manufacturers

Catering

Institutional foodservice

Wholesale

Retail

Premium supermarkets

Online stores

Gourmet shops

Restaurants

Catering

Institutional foodservice

Tourism and travel

Full service

Quick casual

SalesProductionSupply

Supply chain environment: Investors, competitors, distributors (transportation and ware-housing), R&D system (food science and technology, culinary arts), consultancy and training, laws and regulations, public health agencies, industry standards and certification bodies, media and public opinion, consumer markets.



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

4. to reduce the need for using salt, chemical and/or other artificial compounds topreserve foods for a longer time (Creed, 2001a).

The initial basis for the development of sous vide technology in the late 1960swas the ‘industrialization’ of foodservice operations through the adoption of foodmanufacturing processes such as centralized production, large-scale equipment,consistent safety and quality, and sophisticated packaging systems. The viabilityand success of these processes depended largely on the incorporation of a ‘timebuffer’, a stage during which food could be safely and conveniently stabilized bystorage at low temperatures, which interrupted the necessarily continuous flow offood through the traditional ‘cook and serve’ catering system. However, theefficacy of such a time buffer in terms of preserving the necessary levels of foodsafety was most often achieved at the expense of the sensory and nutritional qualityof the reheated meal or meal component. That is, given the standing food safetyrequirements, the desired operational benefits came at the cost of poor perceivedquality and low consumer acceptance. Consequently, the initial stages of develop-ment, commercialization and adoption of sous vide technology in the food areawere largely driven by the promise it held of providing, for the first time, a highlypositive balance between safety requirements, operational benefits and end-product quality.

A second reason for the development of sous vide technology was a growingconsumer demand for convenience in meal preparation. Most of the activepopulation increasingly felt that, at the end of the day, there was not much time leftto eat, let alone to shop and cook. This translated itself into high growth rates ofready meals and other convenience and foodservice markets in the EU and USA allthrough the eighties and nineties, up until today (Costa et al., 2001; Datamonitor,2006). Given the operational benefits and the superior product quality provided bythe technological sophistication of sous vide cooking, manufacturers and caterersworldwide turned to sous vide meals as the preferred means of satisfying thegrowing consumer demand for convenience (Otto, 1989). However, initial marketacceptance of sous vide meals and the underlying technology was surprisinglylow, with sales never really taking off and companies closing down their sous videcooking operations only a few years, or even months, after start-up (Carlino,1991). Both public and consumer organizations, especially in the USA, voicedconcerns about the potential public health hazards involved in storing foods underanaerobic conditions, as well as doubts regarding the level of safety of sous videmeals (Martin, 1999). Moreover, foodservice customers were rightfully afraid ofthe markets’ negative perception of the nutritional and sensory quality of sous videmeals. It was felt that, without a sufficiently intensive, informative and persuasivemarketing strategy, consumers were simply not ready to come to terms with thenotion of eating their dinner out of a vacuumized plastic pouch (Allen, 1991).

Last but not least, the development and widespread adoption of sous videtechnology was significantly fuelled by the emergence of the highly popular, newmillennium ‘science of deliciousness’, otherwise known as ‘New Cookery’ (Adriáet al., 2006), ‘Molecular Gastronomy’ (This, 2005) or ‘Hypermodern Cuisine’



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited1

23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445


(Pontin, 2005). Hypermodern Cuisine is aggressively technological, as it borrowsthe latest developments in the food science area (as well as its industrial applica-tions), and turns them into ´haute-cuisine’. Sous vide cooking is considered to beits most remarkable, spectacular and well-known innovation, one that nowadaystakes centre-stage in the kitchens of the best and most reputed restaurants in theworld. World-renowned chefs such as Hestor Blumenthal, Ferran Adriá or Tho-mas Keller have picked a boring and fear-inspiring industrial cooking method andtaken it to a new level by adding their creativity and art, a never-ending variety ofapplications and recipes, and much needed flair. Thanks to this, eating dinner outof a plastic pouch is no longer sad, lonely and suspicious, but a sign of sophistica-tion and superior culinary craftsmanship. Most importantly, sous vide cookingcurrently epitomizes the ‘slow food’ trend in high-end cookery and is graduallyspilling-over the technology and equipment to ordinary kitchens, as well asboosting sales of refrigerated, prepared meals in all distribution channels (Hesser,2005; Newman, 2003).

9.3.2 MethodologyOpen innovation in the service area remains a poorly understood topic (Tether, andTajar, 2008), particularly in mature sectors such as the hospitality (Den Hertog etal., 2011) and the foodservice industries (Ottenbacher and Harrington, 2008). Inview of this, a primarily exploratory research approach was undertaken. This typeof approach is particularly suitable when the researcher intends to establish when,where, how and by whom certain decisions and actions are undertaken, as well asto provide a clearer understanding of the antecedents and consequences of suchevents (Creswell, 2008). A retrospective, longitudinal, multiple case study design(Yin, 2008) was hence employed to investigate the impact of open productinnovation strategies on mature companies’ innovation capabilities and marketoutcomes. Case study research analyses past or contemporary phenomena withinits real-life context in a holistic but systematic manner. Critical or key cases, inparticular, are often the subject of scrutiny because of their inherent interest for theunderstanding of the phenomenon under analysis and their level of embeddednessin the setting where the study takes place.

The study’s subject of inquiry was the path of diffusion of sous vide technologyin the USA between 1971 and 2008, while the object was the engagement of threekey food manufacturing companies in projects of collaborative innovation withrenowned restaurant chefs, with the intent of creating and exploiting an emergingconsumer market. Information was collected at four different levels of analysis(individual entrepreneurs, companies, industry and R&D system) to capture bothmicro and macro perspectives of the phenomenon under study and to identifygenerative mechanisms at their precise source. Table 9.2 provides an overview ofthe main actors involved in the case and the relevant elements in their environment,particularly those related to the R&D system. It also depicts the correspondingperiods of analysis considered, the type of data collected and the sources ofinformation used.



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Data analysis sought to:

1. identify the relevant industry actors and their motives to partake in collabora-tive innovation;

2. outline their inter-relationships;3. establish the sequence of key, intertwined decisions, actions and events which

triggered the diffusion of a new technology in such context; and4. analyse the corresponding outcomes.

The information collected was analysed with the aim of identifying the concepts,relationships and events relevant to the case, and subsequently structuring andorganizing them into into datasets. These datasets described several aspects of thehistory of the companies investigated, such as market environment, birth, found-ers, changes in name, key personnel, product function (e.g. the shift from supplyingproduction equipment to manufacturing foods), production technology, assort-ment, distribution channels and/or markets served, as well as evolution inperformance, organizational structure, managerial processes and inter-firm rela-tionships related to R&D and innovation, for instance, outsourcing, informalpartnerships, contractual partnerships, equity-based joint ventures, and mergersand acquisitions (Hagedoorn, 2002), and market exit if applicable. The quality ofthe analysis conducted was assured by:

1. triangulating findings between multiple sources of primary and secondarydata, theoretical lenses and sense-making strategies;

2. having key informants checking the accuracy of the narrative and timelineproduced; and

3. having academic and industry experts reviewing the case report to assess itsface validity and the scientific and practical relevance of its contributions(Yin, 2008).

9.3.3 Case study findingsThe first unit of analysis in the case study concerned W. R. Grace, a US companyin the area of food-grade materials and vaccum-packaging. In 1968, W. R. Gracestarted to allocate part of its R&D resources to the aim of developing a method ofsealing and pasteurizing ready-to-eat foods on an industrial scale for long storagetimes (Creed, 2001a). These R&D activities started to bear fruit in 1971, when thecompany filed a patent for sous vide cooking (as well as for the associatedlaminated plastic pouch), as a new and improved method of preparing andpreserving ready-to-eat foods (Ready, 1971).

By the middle of the 1970s, W. R. Grace started to explore the possibility ofdiversifying its activities to include the large-scale production of sous vide mealsand meal components for the catering industry. To this end, they hired two Frenchconsultants with very different backgrounds:Bruno Gossault, a scientist whoworked in a food-safety laboratory and who had studied the vacuum-packaging ofmeat, and George Pralus, a restaurant chef who had developed a method for slow-



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited1

23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445


Tab

le 9

.2C

ase

info

rmat

ion:

act

ors,

R&

D s

yste

m, b

road

er e

nvir

onm

ent,

peri

od o

f an

alys

is, t

ype

of d

ata

colle

cted

and

sou

rces

Peri

od o

fT

ype

of d

ata

Sour

ces

anal

ysis

Ent

repr

eneu

rsG

eorg

e Pr

alus

: Fre

nch

chef

, con

sulta

nt, h

ead

of c

ulin

ary

scho

ols,

1974

–198

1Se

cond

ary

Gen

eral

:fo

rmer

con

sulta

nt a

t W. R

. Gra

ce, d

evel

oper

of

sous

vid

e co

okin

gqu

alita

tive

•E

lect

roni

c ar

chiv

es o

f co

mpa

nies

, edu

catio

nal/

Bru

no G

ossa

ult:

Fren

ch f

ood

scie

ntis

t and

eco

nom

ist,

cons

ulta

nt,

1974

–200

9tr

aini

ng o

rgan

izat

ions

, ind

ustr

y/tr

ade

mag

azin

eshe

ad o

f a

cons

ulta

ncy

firm

, Chi

ef S

cien

tist a

t Cui

sine

and

pres

sSo

lutio

ns I

nc.,

form

er c

onsu

ltant

at W

. R. G

race

, dev

elop

er o

f•

Med

ia a

ppea

ranc

es a

nd p

erso

nal a

ccou

nts

sous

vid

e co

okin

g(a

udio

/vid

eo in

terv

iew

s, w

ebsi

tes,

blo

gs,s

ocia

lT

hom

as K

elle

r: w

orld

-ren

own

Am

eric

an c

hef

and

rest

aura

teur

,19

94–2

009

soci

al n

etw

orks

)co

nsul

tant

, coo

kboo

k w

rite

r, th

eori

zer

of th

e N

ew C

ooke

ry,

•E

lect

roni

c ar

chiv

es o

f pe

er-r

evie

wed

, sci

entif

icle

ad-u

ser

of s

ous

vide

coo

king

, par

tner

of

Cui

sine

Sol

utio

ns’s

publ

icat

ions

and

res

earc

hre

port

sFi

ve L

eaf

Prog

ram

•A

utho

red

book

s

Com

pani

esW

. R. G

race

(C

olum

bia,

MD

): s

peci

ality

che

mic

als

and

mat

eria

ls19

68–1

996

Prim

ary

•T

elep

hone

and

e-m

ail i

nter

view

s w

ith k

eym

anuf

actu

rer,

ow

ner

of C

ryov

ac d

ivis

ion

(man

ufac

ture

r of

foo

dqu

alita

tive

com

pany

and

indu

stry

info

rman

ts a

nd f

orm

erpa

ckag

ing

mat

eria

ls/e

quip

men

t) a

nd G

race

Cul

inar

y Sy

stem

sco

llabo

rato

rs(s

ubsi

diar

y m

anuf

actu

rer/

dist

ribu

tor

of s

ous

vide

pro

duct

s)Se

cond

ary

•G

ener

alC

ulin

ary

Bra

nds

(Sau

salit

o, C

A):

pro

duce

r/di

stri

buto

r of

sou

s 1

986–

1991

qual

itativ

e•

Blo

ombe

rg P

rofe

ssio

nal S

ervi

cevi

de f

oods

•R

epor

ts f

or th

e U

S Se

curi

ties

and

Exc

hang

eC

omm

issi

onC

uisi

ne S

olut

ions

(A

lexa

ndri

a, V

A):

pro

duce

r/di

stri

buto

r of

1987

–200

9•

Rep

orts

for

the

US

Secu

ritie

s an

dE

xcha

nge

sous

vid

e fo

ods

Com

mis

sion

•In

dust

ry r

epor

ts o

f m

arke

t res

earc

h an

dco

nsul

tanc

y fi

rms



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445In

dust

ryFo

odse

rvic

e in

the

US

1990

–201

1Se

cond

ary

•G

ener

alqu

antit

ativ

e•

Web

site

of

the

Nat

iona

l Res

taur

ant A

ssoc

iatio

n•

Indu

stry

rep

orts

of

mar

ket r

esea

rch

and

cons

ulta

ncy

firm

s

R&

D s

yste

mFo

od s

cien

ce a

nd te

chno

logy

res

earc

h19

90–2

011

Prim

ary

•V

isits

to R

&D

, con

sulta

nts

and

man

ufac

ture

rsC

ulin

ary

arts

qual

itativ

eac

tive

in th

e E

urop

ean

food

serv

ice

supp

ly c

hain

•In

terv

iew

s w

ith k

ey c

ompa

ny a

nd in

dust

ryin

form

ants

Bro

ader

Env

iron

men

tIn

vest

ors,

med

ia a

nd p

ublic

opi

nion

•Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in in

tern

atio

nal s

ympo

sia

on s

ous

Cus

tom

ers,

com

petit

ors

and

cons

umer

mar

kets

vide

and

the

hom

e m

eal r

epla

cem

ent (

HM

R)

Reg

ulat

ory,

sta

ndar

ds a

nd c

ertif

icat

ion

bodi

es, e

xter

nal

sect

orev

alua

tors

•Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in a

pplie

d re

sear

ch p

roje

cts

with

Edu

catio

n, tr

aini

ng a

nd c

onsu

ltanc

yE

urop

ean

univ

ersi

ties,

res

earc

h ce

ntre

s, R

&D

and

man

ufac

turi

ng c

ompa

nies

on

prod

uct

inno

vatio

n fo

r th

e H

MR

sec

tor



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited1

23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445


cooking foie gras with a reduced weight loss. The latter was hired to improve thesous vide cooking method from the culinary viewpoint (operational costs, sensoryquality, presentation and the development of new recipes), whereas the former wasrequired to optimize the time–temperature cooking combinations in order tocomply with the necessary food safety requirements. The two consultants workedclosely together with W. R. Grace’s own specialists and with each other for aboutten years in the optimization of the sous vide cooking method. Their main goal wasto achieve the right combination between plastic pouch composition, level ofvacuum in the pouch, cooking and storage temperatures, and cooking and storagetimes that allowed for maximum sensory and nutritional quality within the foodsafety limits imposed by legislation (Creed, 2001a; Hesser, 2005). By 1989, W. R.Grace had opened its own sous vide food production plant and a subsidiary, GraceCulinary Systems that commercialized sous vide meals for the US market (Lingle,1991). Both were sold in 1996 and changed activity.

The second unit of analysis in the case study was Culinary Brands, a UScompany launched in 1986 to produce and distribute chilled sous vide meals andmeal components in California. Two former executives at a major foodservicecompany had come across the technique in France and managed to convinceseveral venture capital companies in the USA to back a business based on theindustrial production and distribution of sous vide foods. To that end, theyrecruited several French chefs familiar with the sous vide cooking method asconsultants, to help develop the company’s product line. At the time, CulinaryBrands invested about US$10 million in research related to product innovation,resulting in the production of 65 different chilled food items and 100 000 dinnersand entrees per day for the US foodservice market (Otto, 1989).

However, market diffusion of sous vide foods in the USA remained lowthroughout the nineties, mainly because of public concerns with food safety andpoor consumer acceptance of the underlying technology and its benefits (Allen,1991; Martin, 1999). This led Culinary Brands to switch from chilled to frozenstorage and distribution of its products, to avoid food safety risks and increasecustomer confidence. But this switch came at a heavy cost of the end-product’soverall sensory quality and convenience features, and the company would eventu-ally cease its activities in 1992. Given the R&D effort made, such lack of successwas attributed mainly to Culinary Brands’ insufficient market-research efforts anda poor marketing and distribution strategy (Carlino, 1991).

The third unit of analysis was Cuisine Solutions, a US company founded in1987 to produce and market frozen sous vide foods in Europe and US. Thiscompany currently operates plants in the USA, South America and Europe andmarkets its meals and meal components through channels such as airlines, passen-ger trains, cruise lines, hotels, retail, military, restaurant chains, and on-lineconsumer markets. Figure 9.3 shows the R&D effort and the net sales volume ofCuisine Solutions between 2004 and 2009 (Cuisine Solutions, 2009). The com-pany has been listed on the American Stock Exchange since 2005.

Throughout its history, Cuisine Solutions has based its innovation strategy ona consciously crafted combination of in-house R&D and open-innovation initiatives.



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Fig. 9.3 R&D effort and net sales of Cuisine Solutions between 1995 and 2009(Cuisine Solutions Inc., 1995–2009).

In 1983, while still operating in the bakery area, it started a research collaborationwith a related French company to capitalize on their knowledge of frozen breadproducts and the quick-freezing process. In this way, the company came across thesous vide technology and realized the potential of its application in European andUS foodservice markets, leading to sous vide becoming its sole area of businessactivity in 1987. Since 2002, and partly in reaction to the negative impact broughtby the 9/11 events upon the world’s travel and tourism industry, Cuisine Solutionsregularly establishes partnerships with high-end retailers for the development ofsous vide products for the French and US consumer markets. This gives thecompany the opportunity to test their products directly with the end-customer andhelps increase consumer and public acceptance of the underlying sous videtechnology. In 2004, Cuisine Solutions also established a strategic researchalliance (Dittrich and Duysters, 2007; Yoshino and Rangan, 1995) with one of itssuppliers in South America (an equity agreement where Cuisine Solutions is aminority stockholder), with the aim of developing and producing high quality,valued priced, fish-based sous vide products for the global retail and foodservicemarkets.

Concerning specific CPI projects, two of Cuisine Solutions’ most recentinitiatives stand out as prime examples of partnering between the foodserviceindustry and the end-user community of restaurant chefs. The first was the FiveLeaf Program, which consisted in the development of an on-line sales channel tosupply high-end sous vide meals at home to the gourmet customer segment(Thrush, 2007; Wine, 2003). The online order menu is composed by sous videsignature dishes created exclusively for Cuisine Solutions by world-renownedrestaurant chefs such as Thomas Keller. The second was the development of theirtrade-marketed, salmon product developed by a French restaurant chef while he

õ

õõ õ

õ õ

õ

õ

õ

õ õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

ü

ü ü ü ü

ü

ü ü

ü ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

R&D expenses

Net sales

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

R&

D e

xpenses (

10

3 U

S$)

90

70

50

30

10

Net sale

s (

10

6 U

S$)

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited1

23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445


was working as a consultant at the company. The chef used custom tools made bya manufacturer of medical equipment in Germany, as well as a high level ofexpertise in sous vide cooking, to create a ‘shank’ out of the tail end of the salmon(Poris, 2005).

9.4 Conclusions and future trends

This chapter started by reviewing applications of the open-innovation concept inthe food manufacturing and foodservice industry. The first conclusion to be drawnfrom this review is that open innovation does take place within the food sector, inspite of it being known as a relatively more traditional and mature industry.Moreover, open-innovation strategies come in a variety of forms and, as such, arealso met with a wide variety of outcomes. Consequently, there is a clear need fora better understanding of open innovation in the food sector that should beaddressed by the performance of further, and more focused, case studies andempirical research.

Next, the impact of the open-innovation strategies employed so far on theinnovation capabilities and market outcomes of food manufacturing and foodserviceindustries was analysed. Namely, case study research was employed with the aimof understanding why and how CPI takes place in such areas. To this end, theinnovation path of sous vide technology in the USA was traced back to the late1960s and the R&D and commercialization endeavours of several corporations,restaurant chefs, and food scientists located on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean(France and the USA). This highlighted that several actors have collaboratedclosely on cross-boundary process- and product-innovation projects in the sousvide industry over the last 35 years, thus demonstrating the importance andusefulness of open innovation in mature business areas, such as the food manufac-turing and foodservice sectors.

The findings obtained show that open-innovation initiatives frequently takeplace in food manufacturing and foodservice companies, encompassing both theexploration and exploitation stages of product innovation. In line with earlierstudies (Sarkar and Costa, 2008; Knudsen 2007), they also indicate that despitedifferent collaborative strategies being employed, expert user communities, in thiscase, accomplished, haute cuisine chefs in European and US restaurants (Adriá etal., 2006; Fauchard and von Hippel, 2008), constitute preferred innovation part-ners. Collaboration with highly innovative chefs created value to manufacturers byaiding technical development, accelerating technology adoption and diffusionamong customers (through the development of novel recipes and applications),and increasing technology acceptance and perceived product quality. In return,chefs benefited from efficiency gains, certified cooking methods, improved pro-fessional reputation and higher consumer patronage.

Overall, it can be concluded that companies stand a better chance of escapingthe law of diminishing returns to innovation efforts if they can improve theeffectiveness of both their technological and marketing capabilities in a concerted



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

manner. This supports the long-standing call for a higher level of integrationbetween R&D and marketing activities within agri-business companies (Costa andJongen, 2006). Likewise, when effects on technological capabilities and marketoutcomes are analysed simultaneously within an integrated framework, researchinto (open) innovation stands a better chance to become more meaningful toacademics and practitioners alike.

9.5 ReferencesADRIÁ, F., BLUMENTHAL, H., KELLER, T. AND MCGEE, H. (2006). Statement on the ‘new

cookery. The Observer UK, 10–12–2006.ALLEN, R.L. (1991). Sous-vide’s popularity still lukewarm in U.S. – vacuum packed cooked

foods. Nation’s Restaurant News, (December), pp. 49–51.BALDWIN, D.E. (2012). Sous-vide cooking: a review. International Journal of Gastronomy

and Food Science, 1, 15–30.CARLINO, B. (1991). Lack of cash flow closes Culinary Brands. Nation’s Restaurant News,

(June), p. 25.CHESBROUGH, H.W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44,

35–41.CHESBROUGH, H.W. AND CROWTHER, A.K. (2006). Beyond high tech: early adopters of open

innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36, 229–236.CHESBROUGH, H.W., VANHAVERBEKE, W. AND WEST, J. (eds.) (2006). Open innovation:

researching a new paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press.COSTA, A.I.A, DEKKER, M., BEUMER, R.R., ROMBOUTS, F.M. AND JONGEN, W.M.F. (2001). A

consumer-oriented classification system for home meal replacements. Food Quality andPreference, 12, 229–242.

COSTA, A.I.A. AND JONGEN, W.M.F. (2006). New insights into consumer-led food productdevelopment. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 17, 457–465.

COSTA, A.I.A., SCHOOLMEESTER, D., DEKKER, M. AND JONGEN, W.M.F. (2007). To cook or notto cook: a means-end study of the motivations behind meal choice. Food Quality andPreference, 18, 77–88.

CREED, P.G. (20001a). Chilling and freezing of prepared consumer foods. In: Sun, D.-W.(ed.) Advances in Food Refrigeration, pp. 422–455. Leatherhead: Woodhead Publishing.

CREED, P.G. (2001b). The potential of foodservice systems for satisfying consumer needs.Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 2, 219–227.

CREED, P.G. AND REEVE, W. (1998). Principles and applications of sous vide processed foods.In: Ghazala, S. Sous vide and cook-chill processing for the food industry, Great Britain,Aspen, 25–56.

CRESWELL, J.W. (2008). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methodsapproaches – 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

CUISINE SOLUTIONS INC. (1995–2009). USSEC Annual Reports and Financial Statements,available at http://quicktake.morningstar.com/stocknet/secdocuments.aspx?symbol=cusi> (Accessed 14 March 2012).

DATAMONITOR (2006). savoury snacks: global industry guide. Research Report ref. 46918,225 pp. UK: Datamonitor.

DEN HERTOG, P., GALLOUJB, F. AND SEGERS, J. (2011). Measuring innovation in a ‘low-tech’service industry: the case of the Dutch hospitality industry. The Service IndustriesJournal, 31, 1429–1449.

DITTRICH, K. AND DUYSTERS, G. (2007). Networking as a means to strategy change: the caseof open innovation in mobile telephony. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24,510–521.



Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited1

23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445


DE JONG, J., VAN KLEEF, E., FREWER, L.J. AND RENN, O. (2006). Perceptions of risk, benefitand trust associated with consumer food choice. In: Frewer, L.J. and van Trijp, H.C.M.(eds.) Understanding consumers of food products, pp. 125–150. Cambridge (England):Woodhead Publishing.

EMDEN, Z., CALANTONE, R.J. AND DROGE, C. (2006). Collaborating for new productdevelopment: selecting the partners with maximum potential to create value. Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, 23, 330–341.

FAUCHART, E. AND VON HIPPEL, E. (2008). Norms-based intellectual property systems: thecase of French chefs. Organization Science, 19, 187–201.

GARCIA, R. AND CALANTONE, R.J. (2002). A critical look at technological innovationtypology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Inno-vation Management, 19, 110–132.

GATIGNON, E.H., TUSHMAN, M.L., SITH, W. AND ANDERSON, P. (2002). A structural approachto assessing innovation. Management Science, 48, 1103–1122.

GRUNERT, K.G., JEPPESEN, L.F., JESPERSEN, K.R., SONNE, A-M., HANSEN, K., TRONDSEN, T.AND YOUNG, J.A. (2005). Market orientation of value chains. European Journal ofMarketing, 39, 428–455.

HAAS, S. (2006). Better dining through chemistry. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food andCulture, 6, 74–77.

HAGEDOORN, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends andpatterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31, 477–492.

HESSER, A. (2005). Under Pressure. New York Times, 14–08–2005.HUSTON, L. AND SAKKAB, N. (2006). Inside Procter & Gamble’s new model for innovation.

Harvard Business Review, 84, 58–66.JURIAANSE, A.C. (2006). Challenges ahead for food science. International Journal of Dairy

Technology, 59, 55–57.KNUDSEN, M.P. (2007). The relative importance of interfirm relationships and knowledge

transfer for new product development success. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-ment, 24, 117–138.

LINGLE, R. (1991). New generation foods? Just say Grace – Company profile: Grace CulinarySystems – cover story. Prepared Foods, 160, 58–64.

LITTLER, D., LEVERICK, F. AND BRUCE, M. (1995). Factors affecting the process of collabo-rative product development: a study of UK manufacturers of information andcommunications technology products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12,16–32.

MAULA, M., KEIL, T. AND SALMENKAITA, J.-P. (2006). Open innovation in systemic innova-tion contexts. In: Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J.(eds.) Openinnovation: researching a new paradigm, pp. 241–257.

MARTIN, R. (1999). Experts warn of sous-vide dangers. Nation’s Restaurant News (January),pp. 24.

MIKKELSEN, B.E., KRISTENSEN, N.H. AND NIELSEN, T. (2005). Innovation processes in largescale public foodservice. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 8, 87–105.

NEWMAN, C.M. (2003). Sealed, signed and delivered. Art Culinaire (Winter), 71–74.NRA (2011). 2011 Restaurant Industry Forecast, United States of America, National

Restaurant Association.OECD AND EUROSTAT (2005). Olso Manual: Gguidelines for collecting and interpreting

innovation data – 3rd edition. Paris: OECD.OTTENBACHER, M.C. AND HARRINGTON R.J. (2008). Institutional, cultural and contextual

factors: potential drivers of the culinary innovation process. Tourism and HospitalityResearch, 9, 235–249.

OTTO, A. (1989). Sous-vide or not sous-vide? French vacuum cooking technology – companyprofile. Prepared Foods (June), 58–61.

PONTIN, J. (2005). Technology and hypermodern cuisine. MIT Technology Review (Octo-ber), pp.1–3.

Woo

dhea

d P

ublis

hing

Lim

ited


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445


PORIS, J. (2005). Techniques. Food and Art Magazine (March), 94–95.RAM, S. (1989). SUCCESSFUL INNOVATION USING STRATEGIES TO REDUCE CONSUMER

RESISTENCE: AN EMPIRICAL TEST. JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATRION, 6, 20–34.READY, C.A. (1971). Method of preparing and preserving ready-to-eat foods. U.S. Patent

3,607,312, 4 pp.RINDFLEISCH, A. AND MOORMAN, C. (2001). The acquisition and utilization of information

in new product alliances: a strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65, 1–18.ROMER, P.M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98,

S71–S102.SARKAR, S. AND COSTA, A.I.A. (2008). Dynamics of open innovation in the food sector.

Trends in Food Science and Technology, 19(11), 574–580.SCHELLEKENS, W. (1996). New research issues in sous-vide cooking. Trends in Food Science

& Technology, 7, 256–262.SIMARD, C. AND WEST, J. (2006). Knowledge networks and the geographic locus of

innovation. In: Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (eds.) Open innova-tion: researching a new paradigm, pp. 220–240.

TETHER, B. AND TAJAR, A. (2008). The organisational-cooperation mode of innovation andits prominence amongst European service firms. Research Policy, 37, 720–739.

THIS, HERVÉ (2005). Molecular gastronomy: exploring the science of flavor. New York, NY:Columbia University Press.

THRUSH, E. (2007), ‘Délices & Saveurs: The Big Chill’, France Magazine, 83. Available at<http://www.francemagazine.org/articles/issue83/article193.asp?issue_id=83&article_id=193> (Accessed 24 March 2012).

THOMKE, S. AND VON HIPPEL, E. (2002). Customers as innovators: a new way to create value.Harvard Business Review, 80, 74–81.

TIAMPO, J. (2006) Seal appeal: the nutrition, food safety, and operational benefits of sousvide technology for North American restaurants. Available at <http://www.techne-calibration.com/adminimages/Sous_Vide_Information%281%29.pdf> (Accessed 14March 2012).

VANHAVERBEKE, W. AND CLOODT, M.(2006). Open innovation in value networks. In:Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (eds.) Open innovation: researchinga new paradigm, pp. 258–281. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

WINE, T. (2003). For gourmet at-home dining, the Internet delivers. USA Today, 03–11–2003.

YIN, R.K. (2008). Case study research: design and methods (4ed.). CA: Sage.YOSHINO, M.Y. AND RANGAN, U.S. (1995) Strategic alliances – an entrepreneurial approach

to globalization, USA: Harvard Business School Press.

collaborative product innovation in the food service...

Documents