Page 1

The Online Food Filter Course Project

Group Pascal Sax, Marco Steiner, Craig Woods, Adam Falk, Matthew Townsley

Jรถnkรถping International Business School Entrepreneurial Creativity Magdalena Markowska, Ph.D Candidate 14.12.2011


Abstract The primary goal of this paper is to


Table of Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 Online Food Filter ................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Description ............................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Example of Anna ...................................................................................................... 5 3 Identification .......................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Cognitive Process ..................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Kind of Opportunity ................................................................................................. 5 4 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 10 5 Exploitation .......................................................................................................................... 11 6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 12 References ............................................................................................................................... 12


Table of Graphics

Graphic 1: Online Food Filter .................................................................................................... 4 Graphic 2: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .............................................................................. 4 Graphic 3: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .................................................................................................. 8


Group Project

Entrepreneurial Creativity

1 Introduction “One of the very nicest things about life is the way we must regularly stop whatever it is we are doing and devote our attention to eating� (Pavarotti, 1981). Food is an important aspect of daily life and it is something that we cannot do without. However, the significance it plays and time required for the whole process often results in a less than enjoyable task. Food is something to be enjoyed and our idea, the food filter aims to simplify the process by streamlining the vast quantities of information available through an understandable and easy to use service. In order to retain customers in an ever-changing environment, new ideas need to be implemented. These ideas are especially important in the fast moving and often changing food industry. Restaurants introduce new items on their menus constantly or offer specials to attract customers to their business. Creativity and innovation is now expected throughout the food industry, however, the grocery shopping experience has remained relatively unchanged over the years. Through combining four aspects, personal profile, recipe-suggestions, pricecomparison-tool and food ordering, to result in the food filter, we have created an innovative idea to improve the shopping and ultimately entire meal experience for our customers. This paper is structured according to three steps that consist of opportunity identification, evaluation, and exploitation. Focus is placed on the thought process to development of our creative idea and analysis of its feasibility. Prior to these three steps, our idea will be described to make it easier for the reader to follow the upcoming steps. The identification step is used to analyze the cognitive thought process of our team during the establishment of our idea. This initial step then focuses on determining the kind of opportunity our entrepreneurial idea is; recognition, creation, or discovery. The next step, evaluation looks at the business potential of our idea through a product/service and industry/market feasibility analysis. Lastly, the practical implementation of our idea will be touched upon in the exploitation step. The online food filer is an innovative idea for the entire food buying process taking into account personal preference to generate creative meal solutions for our customers.

-1-


Group Project

Entrepreneurial Creativity

2 Online Food Filter 2.1 Description

Graphic 1: Online Food Filter

As a result of the opportunity identification process, which will be further discussed in the next section, our team came up with the idea of an online food filter. The basic idea behind it is, that by letting customers create their own personal profile on our webpage, we can then provide them with personalized recipe-suggestions as well as with a comparison tool showing them the prices for the ingredients at several supermarkets. Moreover they will be able to order all the ingredients needed through our webpage. Our idea therefore consists of four main points: personal profile, recipe-suggestions, pricecomparison-tool and food ordering. After having elaborated on each point a realistic example will be given in order to provide sufficient understanding of the idea. Personal Profile In order to provide our customers with tailor-made recipe suggestions they will first need to create a personal profile on our webpage. Their information about age, food preferences, allergies, number of recipes needed per week, location and their budget will be used as a basis when customizing the recipes. Furthermore the whole paying process as well as the rating and feedback options will work through this profile. Recipe-suggestions Our webpage consists of an enormous amount of different recipes. Depending on the information provided by our customers a certain amount of suitable recipes will be proposed. When proposing the meals, our webpage will also take into account the seasonality of the different ingredients as well as discounts at supermarkets. The customers will then choose the recipes from the suggestions given. -2-


Group Project

Entrepreneurial Creativity

Price-comparison-tool After having chosen the recipes our webpage will automatically contact the system of all big food stores in order to calculate the total costs of the ingredients needed for the proposed meals. This way, the customer is able to compare the costs at different supermarkets. Once again the preferred option has to be chosen. Food-ordering Service When the customer has decided on where to buy the ingredients, three options of how to get the items are given. The customer can choose from home-delivery, personal pick-up or shopping-list-printout. Before ordering the food, the customer pays through our website.

2.2 Example of Anna Anna, a 30 year-old JIBS-Graduate just created her own profile on our webpage. She doesn’t like tomatoes and bananas but loves pasta and apples. On her profile she choses her food preferences out of a large list of ingredients. She can even weight the importance of each ingredient by setting stars. Anna wants 4 recipes each week and is willing to spend 250-350 kronor a week. After providing this information, a list of customized recipes which suit her preferences will show up on the website. Since it is August, it is the time when apple, plums, raspberry, spinach and sweet corn have their season. The seasonality of fruits and vegetables will be taken into account when proposing meals to Anna. She will then be asked to choose 4 meals out of the proposed recipes. Anna decides on “Tortilla”, “Chicken a la Pantoja”, “Cinque P “and “Wok-Sweetsour”. After having chosen the meals the webpage will provide her an overview of the ingredient cost in different stores. While the ingredients for the four meals at Willys only cost 250 kronor, ICA and Hemköp are more expensive, charging up to 320 kronor. Besides the price, Anna is also able to see feedbacks and ratings from other customers on different recipes and specific ingredients from different Supermarkets. Anna decides on buying her ingredients at ICA, not just cause it the closest to her apartment, but also cause it has lots of good ratings on the quality of their products. Instead of choosing home-delivery or pick up, Anna prefers to buy the ingredients herself. She therefore chooses the option of printing out the shopping list with all the ingredients needed. The process ends with Anna paying a fee for the printout of the shopping list and recipe by card. (The above example is fictional and serves as a means of illustration. No judgment is intended).

3 Identification The following section will distinctly focus on the identification of our entrepreneurial idea. In a first step, the process of how our group came up with an idea will be elaborated on to come up with a final conclusion on which cognitive thinking style has been used the most. In a second step, the characteristics of the chosen opportunity will be analyzed and interpreted to be able to classify the appertaining kind of opportunity.

3.1 Cognitive Process Gustafsson (2006) points out the so-called cognitive continuum including three different cognition styles: intuition, quasi-rationality and analysis. When describing our group’s process in defining the final idea, the different steps within this process will be allocated to -3-


Group Project

Entrepreneurial Creativity

these cognition styles. Although all of the three styles are used in solving a specific task one always will predominate according to the task’s characteristics (Hammond et al., 1987). The goal of the very first group meeting was to come up with a general business idea. However, since no prearrangements were made, we were supposed to start being creative on command, which completely failed. So we decided that every group member should come up with one idea each to present at the next meeting, which was scheduled in four days. Thereby, all the personal ideas had to be in relation to food industry and address a personal need, which so far has not been fulfilled by the existing market. Defining these two requirements made sure that every concept would include a certain amount of novelty as well as usefulness to satisfy the definition of a creative idea (Dimov, 2007). According to Ewers (2007), this kind of presentation of different ideas within a group can strongly increase the chance for a creative output: “Creativity is often stimulated by the exchange of ideas, […]”. After all the group members had presented their own ideas and answered question about uncertainties it intuitively became clear that our project will concentrate on the broad and emerging field of Web 2.0. The decision for Web 2.0 was made intuitively due to the fact that there first was a large amount of uncertainty in which direction to go and secondly, through discussing all the different parts of each idea, several items were closely related. Under high uncertainty and facing a mess of information there is evidence to support peoples tendency to use an intuitive cognition style (Hammond et al., 1987). Besides the concentration on Web 2.0 three more similarities among our ideas could be determined: Firstly, a general need for saving time was emphasized. This trend can be supported by Mancino and Newman (2007) who state that in a gender equal society with both men and women working the time spent on cooking is strongly limited. Secondly, customers’ desire for personalized products or services had been discussed. Thirdly, a focus on one’s problem of not knowing what to cook has been established. A deeper analysis of the main points of those ideas then resulted in three major cues: A need for saving time leads to an increasing number of customers using home delivery services. Furthermore, a desire for personalized products results in the customers’ need for interaction and the possibility to provide feedback. Moreover, a strong wish to have a huge amount of choice could be figured out (Grunert, 2003). Since having a few but very relevant cues can be defined as an analyzing-inducing property this stage of the cognitive process can be allocated to the analytic thinking style (Gustafsson, 2006).

After combining the three similarities among our ideas our first product was a smart-phone application (app), which would be sold to a big grocery store such as ICA. According to personal information provided by each customer, the app would generate recipes suggestions taking also into account the store’s present discounts as well as seasonality of the ingredients. On the basis of that idea some major changes and improvements has been discussed and implemented. This improvement process can be classified as the interpreting phase of the 4Iprocess evaluated by Dimov (2006): By explaining and defending the group’s fuzzy ideas and continuously adjusting them a shared understanding starts to emerge and leads to a strong belief of every group member in the final version of the idea. The first change we established was that for reasons of profitability and independency we did not wanted to sell our product (app) to only one store. Therefore, the concept of a smart phone-application was changed into an independent website. A second change was the implementation of an additional function, which compares the prices at different supermarkets. The idea for this additional function came across quasi-rationally since the demand for comparison devices like insurance comparison services already exists in different business fields but in case of the food industry -4-


Group Project

Entrepreneurial Creativity

no proper supply of such a service can be found so far (Gustafsson, 2006). While the first idea mainly was about creating a shopping list the last change included the possibility of making use of a home delivery- or a pick-up service where all the necessary products are already waiting for the customer for being picked up. The described process from the general idea and its adjustment by several major changes finally results in our proper concept characterized in chapter 2. Additional evidence for an analytic cognition style is Gustafsson’s findings on different styles of decision-making depending on expertise (Gustafsson, 2006). She points out that novices tend to use analytic thinking styles regardless the task’s characteristics. Since none of the group members had deeper knowledge in elaborating on entrepreneurial opportunities we would call ourselves novices and therefore make use of a rather analytical cognition style (Gustafsson, 2006). To conclude, it can be said that within the whole process all three cognition styles have been used. However, most often an analytic proceeding could be observed. For example, most of the time was spent on discussing few but very important cues which is a typically analytic way of thinking. Furthermore, the fact that we did not had to decide under high pressure of time and that the task could be decomposed also supports the overall focus on analytic thinking (Lecture 2 Entrepreneurial Creativity, Jönköping University, 11/11/2011).

3.2 Kind of Opportunity Sarasvathy et al. (2003) identifies three different kinds of opportunities. Firstly, there is opportunity creation meaning “if neither supply nor demand exist in an obvious manner, one or both have to be created […] for the opportunity to come into existence”. Secondly, opportunity discovery implies that “If only one side [supply or demand] exists […] then, the non-existent side has to be "discovered" before the match-up can be implemented.” Thirdly, opportunity recognitions means that “If both sources of supply and demand exist rather obviously, the opportunity for bringing them together has to be recognized” (Sarasvathy et al., 2003). Having in mind our three major cues building up the basement of our final idea gives strong support for recognition as the kind of established opportunity utilized in this process. All of the three concepts already existed. In a second step these concepts have been reinterpreted and reorganized to result in our idea: To begin with, home delivery services are already widely provided by most of the major grocery stores due to an existing demand (e.g. coop hemtransport (Coop, 2011)). Moreover, the increasing need for interaction and more individual participation is for example fulfilled by Facebook (Facebook, 2011). Finally, the wish for having a huge variety of different recipes to choose from already is possible by consulting a website such as allrecipes.com (Allrecipes, 2011). By connecting these different services together we reorganized them. Since a price comparison function doesn’t hardly exist within the food industry that part of our opportunity can be referred to as opportunity discovery meaning that there is a demand but so far no sophisticated supply available (Sarasvathy et al., 2003). To sum up, the essential part of our product was identified through the use of opportunity recognition with the aid of opportunity discovery, which played a minor role. Furthermore, the evaluation of our cognition style results in an analytic thinking style, which is congruent to opportunity recognition (Gustafson, 2006). -5-


Group Project

Entrepreneurial Creativity

4 Evaluation 5 Exploitation 6 Conclusion

-6-


Group Project

Entrepreneurial Creativity

References

Allrecipes.com (2011). “allrecipes.” < http://allrecipes.com/> Coop.se (2011). “Hemtransport.” < http://www.coop.se/Butiker-varor-erbjudanden/TjansterEfter-kopet/Hemtransport/> Dimov, D. (2007). “Beyond the Single-Person, Single Insight Attribution in Understanding Entrepreneurial Opportunities”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 31(4), 561583. Dimov, D. (2006). Idea generation from a creativity perspective. In A. Zacharakis and S. Spinelli, Jr. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship: The Engine of Growth, Volume 2: Process. Portsmouth, NH: Greenwood Publishing Group. Ewers, J. (2007). “No ideas? You’re not alone.” U.S. News & World Report. 142 (22), 50-52. Facebook.com (2011). “Facebook.” http://www.facebook.com/index.php?lh=21a2adfa7a19b613126ce3bb1d05b9f7 Grunert, K. G. (2003). How changes in consumer behavior and retailing affect competence requirements for food producers and processors. Paper prepared fort he ERS/USDA workshop on Global Markets for High Value Food, Washington, DC, February 14, 2003. Gustafsson, V. (2006). Entrepreneurial decision-making: Individuals, tasks and cognitions. Hammond, K.R. (1987). Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgement. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 17(5). Mancino, L. & Newman, C. (2007). Who Has Time To Cook?. Economic Research Report. Number 40. Markowska, M. (2011). Cognition & Creativity. Lecture 2 Entrepreneurial Creativity, Jönköping University, 11/11/2011. Pavarotti, L. (1981). Pavarotti My Own Story. Sarasvathy, S., Dew, N., Velamuri, S.R. & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Three Views of
 Entrepreneurial Opportunity. In Z.J. Acs and D.B. Audretsch (eds.). Handbook of
 Entrepreneurship Research. Kluwer Academic Publishers

-7-

Food Cocept  

Entrapeneurial Creativity Group Project