MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W289721193

R. David Thomas and Wendy's: Classic Entrepreneurship

2000· article· en· W289721193 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Robinson, Peter Davis

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the International Academy of Case Studies · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueWine Industry and Tourism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésManagementEntrepreneurshipRevenueDowntownFranchiseClubUnit (ring theory)LeagueMarketingBusinessHistoryEconomicsFinance
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

HISTORY R. David Thomas had an idea. He knew Americans love hamburgers. If he could develop a hamburger better than those currently offered, he believed he could use it to establish a leadership position in the competitive fast-food hamburger market. A high school dropout that found success as an Army cook, R. David Thomas loved to cook fresh hamburgers. But he detoured into chicken after the Army, where one of his early jobs was helping Mr. Harland selling chicken recipes and utensils to restaurants in the southeast. Not long after teaming with Kentucky's John Y. Brown, Mr. became Colonel Sanders and KFC was born. Thomas returned to Columbus, Ohio, where he became a successful KFC franchisee in the 1960s. In November 1969, Thomas, by now an experienced restaurant operator and veteran Kentucky Fried Chicken franchisee, began to put his idea into reality when he opened Wendy's first unit in downtown Columbus, Ohio. A year later, in November 1970, Wendy's opened its second unit in Columbus, this one with a drive-through pickup window. In August 1972, Wendy's sold L. S. Hartzog the franchise for the Indianapolis, Indiana, market, kicking off Wendy's rapid expansion into the chain hamburger business. Later the same year, Wendy's Management Institute was formed to develop management skills in managers, supervisors, area directors, and franchise owners. After five years, company revenues exceeded $13 million with net income in excess of $1 million. Sales for both company-owned and franchised units topped $24 million for the same period. In June 1975, the 100th Wendy's opened in Louisville, Kentucky. Three months later, Wendy's went public. December 1976 saw Wendy's 500th open in Toronto, Canada. In 1977, Wendy's went national with its first network television commercial, making it the first restaurant chain with less than 1,000 units to mount a national advertising campaign. Eleven months later, Wendy's broke yet another record by opening its 1,000th restaurant in Springfield, Tennessee, within 100 months of opening the first Wendy's in Columbus. In 1971, Wendy's signed franchise agreements for eight European countries and opened the first European restaurant, company-owned, in Munich, West Germany. Also 1974 saw test marketing of a limited breakfast menu, a children's menu, and salad bars. THOMAS' VISION OF A PROFITABLE OPPORTUNITY: THE WENDY'S CONCEPT The Menu Thomas knew from experience that a limited menu could be a key factor contributing to Wendy's success. The idea was to concentrate on doing only a few things, but to do them better than anyone else. As a result, the aim was to provide the customer with a Cadillac hamburger that could be custom-made to meet individual preferences. The basic menu item was the quarter-pound hamburger made of only fresh, 100 percent hamburger meat converted into patties daily. This kept Wendy's out of head-on competition with McDonald's and Burger King's 1/10th pound hamburger. If people desired a bigger hamburger, they could order a double (two patties on a bun) or a triple (three patties on a bun). Besides having one basic menu item, the hamburger, Wendy's also decided to differentiate itself by changing its burger's design. Instead of the traditional round patty found in competing fast-food outlets, Wendy's patty was square and sized so its edges would stick out over the edge of the round bun. The unique design alleviated the frequent complaint by most people that they were eating a bread-burger. It also made more efficient use of refrigeration space, saving store operators money in the process. Other, menu decisions included the following: ** To offer different condiments to the customers: cheese, tomato, catsup, onion, lettuce, mustard, mayonnaise, and relish. ** To provide a unique dairy product: the frosty, a cross between chocolate and vanilla flavors that borders between soft ice cream and a thick milk shake. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,071
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,246

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,047
Tête enseignante GPT0,294
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the International Academy of Case StudiesMême sujetWine Industry and TourismTravaux en français237 207