More from these Authors

• Case | HBS Case Collection | 2013 (Revised from original 2013 version)

  Chef Davide Oldani and Ristorante D'O

  Gary Pisano, Alessandro Di Fiore, Elena Corsi and Elisa Farri

  This case examines the unique business model of Ristorante D'O, a high end gourmand restaurant located near Milan, Italy. Founded by Chef Davide Oldani, D'O offers meals at approximately one-third the price of other Michelin starred restaurants. Oldani has made this business model profitable by making a conscious set of operating strategy choices (menu, meal design, service process, lay-out, reservation process) that reduce waste and inefficiency, while preserving quality. The case enables students to understand how cost-quality trade-offs can be altered through creative operating strategies, and sufficient data are available to analyze the operating model in depth. A second focal point of the case concerns Oldani's choices for growth. The wait list for D'O is currently 18 months. He can presumably open another D'O at a different location. At the time of the case, however, he is considering opening a new restaurant in the same vicinity as D'O that would operate at an even lower price point. Case debate can center around whether this new restaurant format makes sense from a strategic point of view, and, in particular, whether the capabilities and know-how acquired in operating D'O are applicable to the new restaurant. The deeper issue in the case concerns how businesses based on the creative talent of an individual (like Chef Oldani) can grow, without losing what makes them special.

  Keywords: Business Model; Expansion; Creativity; Competitive Strategy; Retail Industry; Food and Beverage Industry; Milan;

  Citation:

  Pisano, Gary, Alessandro Di Fiore, Elena Corsi, and Elisa Farri. "Chef Davide Oldani and Ristorante D'O." Harvard Business School Case 613-080, April 2013. (Revised from original January 2013 version.)

  CiteView DetailsPurchase

  Related

• Book | 2013

  Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed and How We Can Stick to the Plan

  Francesca Gino

  You may not realize it but simple, irrelevant factors can have profound consequences on your decisions and behavior, often diverting you from your original plans and desires. Sidetracked will help you identify and avoid these influences so the decisions you make do stick—and you finally reach your intended goals. In this book, I explore inconsistent decisions played out in a wide range of circumstances—from our roles as consumers and employees (what we buy, how we manage others) to the choices that we make more broadly as human beings (who we date, how we deal with friendships). From my research, we see when a mismatch is most likely to occur between what we want and what we end up doing. What factors are likely to sway our decisions in directions we did not initially consider? And what can we do to correct for the subtle influences that derail our decisions? The answers to these and similar questions will help you negotiate similar factors when faced with them in the real world.

  Keywords: decision making; decision-making; judgment; ethics;

  Citation:

  Gino, Francesca. Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed and How We Can Stick to the Plan. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2013.

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard

  Related

• Article | Psychological Science | February 2013

  Daily Horizons: Evidence of Narrow Bracketing in Judgments from 9,000 MBA Admission Interviews

  U. Simonsohn and F. Gino

  Many professionals, from auditors and lawyers, to clinical psychologists and journal editors, divide a continuous flow of judgments into subsets. College admissions interviewers, for instance, evaluate but a handful of applicants a day. We conjectured that in such situations, individuals engage in narrow bracketing, assessing each subset in isolation, and as a consequence avoid deviating much—for any given subset—from the expected overall distribution of judgments. For instance, an interviewer who has already highly recommended three applicants on a given day may be reluctant to do so for a fourth applicant. Data from over 9,000 MBA interviews supported this prediction. Auxiliary analyses suggest that contrast effects and non-random scheduling of interviews are unlikely alternative explanations.

  Keywords: Judgments; Forecasting and Prediction; Research;

  Citation:

  Simonsohn, U., and F. Gino. "Daily Horizons: Evidence of Narrow Bracketing in Judgments from 9,000 MBA Admission Interviews." Psychological Science 24, no. 2 (February 2013): 219–224.

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard

  Related