When I developed my first own food concept, I asked my head chef Carsten: "What should go on the menu?" He came up with the usual suggestions from dishes he knew from previous restaurants that had worked well. The kitchen was built and expensively equipped according to his ideas, all based on his personal experience. It worked for a while, but then there was a change of chef, and the new one complained – perhaps rightly so – that the kitchen simply didn’t function well this way. The menu was changed, and the game started all over again. The guests' reaction: "Yesterday it was different. Do you have a new chef? The old one was better."
So the question arises: How can this be avoided, and what would be the right approach? I see three fundamental problems in concept development, especially in the hotel industry:
> Timing:
In the hectic pace of hotel planning, gastronomy often takes a back seat. Most of those involved in the planning are not particularly focused on F&B. Even hoteliers often regard it as a necessary evil and usually as a loss-making service. The "black box of gastronomy" is still frequently considered too late in the construction process, creating the impression that this area is complicated and expensive to implement.
A coherent concept and a good ambience attract guests: Veronika Restaurant and Bar in Berlin Mitte.Tim Plasse
It's true – gastronomy will never bring the same profit margin as rooms do. But it also doesn't have to be a costly deadweight. The technical requirements for the building are indeed high: logistics areas, floor waterproofing for kitchens, grease exhaust ducts, placement of grease separators, increased energy requirements, gas connections, etc. All of this requires effort. But if addressed early and integrated into the overall planning, it becomes calculable. Constructing a grease exhaust duct through 15 floors afterward is expensive.
Gastronomy should be part of the planning from the start. Above all, it should be a conscious strategic decision, not just an alibi. Only then gastronomy is not unnecessarily expensive and superfluous.
> Strategy:
Who plans a hotel without having defined the market potential, positioning, and long-term strategy? Probably no one. Yet this approach is too rarely transferred to the F&B concept.
Strategy is not a plan; it's a philosophy of becoming, as entrepreneur and marketing expert Seth Godin aptly puts it. The question is: What should it become? And what conditions and setup enable its implementation?
Let's check the key points: What function should gastronomy serve? Is it a service for my hotel product or a profit center? Should it attract external guests? Gastronomy must always have an economic success claim. Only then is it good.
A helpful thought exercise: What USPs would the gastronomy need so that guests would come even if there were no hotel above it? From this arises the necessity that it must be its own profit center. The consideration should not be what you want to offer but rather how to achieve the maximum with limited means.
As a result, we plan a kitchen with a certain maximum number of staff. We do not derive staffing needs from the sum of all potential revenue and exceptions; instead, we define a maximum output volume using today's technical possibilities and a fixed number of employees. The metric isn't the exception but the median. Omitting things is the real challenge. Then gastronomy is not a random product but a planned development.
Tim Plasse: What USPs would the catering industry need to have to attract guests, even if there was no hotel?Josie Farquharson
> Consistency:
Successful concepts are consistent. They follow their strategy and implement it decisively. This does not mean that there must be mono-product gastronomy. Variety can also be USP, as we know from all-day concepts. But behind the scenes, there is a planned system in the product and product-range portfolio that enables efficiency and economic success. In other words, the tail does not wag the dog.
Too often, everything is derived from the requirements. Thirty dishes on the menu determine the product range, kitchen equipment, space requirements, staffing, and investment. Or exceptions, such as the possibility of large events, are taken into account. This results in a multitude of conditions considered as given.
But it should be the other way around. What are the parameters that make gastronomy economical? How can I minimize cost risk, and how much volatility can my cost structure tolerate before I’m deep in the red?
Thinking this way leads to the conclusion that one should create a staffing matrix that reflects the cost risk, and then set the task of determining what technology is needed to serve the average number of guests per hour. What offering allows for an attractive concept that attracts guests independently of the hotel? Consistent concepts make it easier for guests: They can either embrace it or not.
This bottom-up strategy results in a completely different kitchen and restaurant planning. It no longer plans for all eventualities but rather for the one scenario that is strategically, conceptually, and economically predetermined.
Therefore, the role of chefs needs to be redefined: They must fit the concept, not the other way around. With a clear conceptualization, everyone involved has clarity. Employees know what to expect and can choose to commit to it. Designers and kitchen planners can plan with precision, eliminating unnecessary contingencies.
A good gastronomy concept is systemic, goal-oriented, and provides a framework within which employees can then develop creatively – ensuring an emotional and successful gastronomy experience. / kn
