MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997039272 · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.06.002

Archeological benchmarking: Fred Harvey and the service profit chain, <i>Circa</i> 1876

2006· article· en· W1997039272 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Brown, Nancy Lea Hyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Operations Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
FundersKempe Foundation
KeywordsBenchmarkingManagementProfit (economics)Service (business)Operations researchBusiness ReviewMarketingSociologyHistoryBusinessEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article illustrates the potential for studying best practices from the past, engaging in what we term archeological benchmarking . Our focus for this study was the Fred Harvey Company, which operated a highly successful string of restaurants and hotels along the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad line starting in 1876, reaching its peak around 1912, and continuing until the early 1950s. Fred Harvey was a visionary businessman who understood many of the key concepts guiding the most successful service operations today. This article describes the operating system Harvey used for delivering 15 million meals per year in 65 restaurants extending over a span reaching from Chicago to San Francisco. The underpinnings of Harvey's system foretold concepts considered new today, particularly the service profit chain [Heskett, J., Jones, T., Loveman, G., Sasser Jr., W.E., Schlesinger, L., 1994] and its reliance on a clear operations strategy supported by well‐trained, loyal employees and a congruent system of measurement. It is significant that Harvey achieved his success without the advantages of modern information systems by relying, instead, on his iconic leadership, dogged attention to mundane details, and the service culture he was able to embed throughout the far‐flung enterprise. The Harvey story is an example of ahead‐of‐its‐time operations thinking, but it also asks us to attend more broadly to the history of the field – as does this entire special issue – as a source of inspiration and grounding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Operations ManagementSame topicWine Industry and TourismFrench-language works237,207