This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]On: 04 October 2012, At: 17:47Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Aquatic FoodProduct TechnologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wafp20

Designing a Culinology(r) BasedResearch and DevelopmentFramework for SeafoodProductsDeana Grobe PhD a , Gilbert Sylvia b & Michael T.Morrissey PhD ca the Department of Human Development andFamily Science, Oregon State University, Room 220,Bates Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USAb the Department of Resource Economics at OSU andDirector of the Coastal Oregon Marine ExperimentStation, Hatfield Marine Science Center, 2030 S.E.Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR, 97365, USAc Director of the OSU Seafood Laboratory, 2001Marine Drive, Suite 253, Astoria, OR, 97103-3420,USA

Version of record first published: 14 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Deana Grobe PhD, Gilbert Sylvia & Michael T. Morrissey PhD(2002): Designing a Culinology(r) Based Research and Development Framework forSeafood Products, Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 11:2, 61-71

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J030v11n02_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

47 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

012

CONCEPT PAPER

Designing a Culinology® BasedResearch and Development Framework

for Seafood ProductsDeana GrobeGilbert Sylvia

Michael T. Morrissey

ABSTRACT. A trend in new food product development is the growingparticipation of chefs within an organizational framework known asCulinology®. Culinology® is defined as the fusion of culinary/chef skillsand technical/scientific skills. Combining culinary expertise with foodscience is expected to produce more creative and financially successfulproducts. This concept paper develops ideas for embedding the culinaryframework into a broader interdisciplinary and multisector system for

Deana Grobe, PhD, is Research Associate in the Department of Human Develop-ment and Family Science, Oregon State University, Room 220, Bates Hall, Corvallis,OR 97331.Gilbert Sylvia, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Department of Resource Eco-

nomics at OSU and Director of the Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station, Hat-field Marine Science Center, 2030 S.E. Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365.Michael T. Morrissey, PhD, is Professor of Food Science and Technology and Direc-

tor of the OSU Seafood Laboratory, 2001 Marine Drive, Suite 253, Astoria, OR97103-3420 (E-mail: Michael.Morrissey@orst.edu).The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support provided by National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Oregon Sea Grant, NA650C.Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, Vol. 11(2) 2002

2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

47 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

012

designing and developing new food products from publicly managed nat-ural resources. Initial results from implementing the first stage of thisframework are provided for West Coast albacore tuna. [Article copies avail-able for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH.E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Culinology®, research chefs, creative process system,cross-functional team

INTRODUCTION

New products are the heart of the food industry. Their success de-pends on an environment that supports continuous innovation, highproduct quality, and consumer and market analysis (Hoban, 1998; SaguyandMoskowitz, 1999). A growing trend in new product development isthe blending of the culinary arts with food science to design successfuland creative products. This organizational framework is known asCulinology® (Research Chefs Association) which is defined as the fu-sion of culinary/chef skills and technical/scientific skills.Chefs bring a critical expertise to the food industry that bridges the

gap between food science and culinary creativity. They bring perspec-tives on food comprised of creative insights and possibilities, sensualenjoyment, experience in emerging flavors and trends, and a connectionto consumers. Involving chefs can increase the pace of innovation, aswell as more successfullymeet the demands of food savvy and educatedconsumers (Dahm, 1999).Although there are benefits to working with chefs, there are also

challenges. First, effective working relationships must be establishedbetween chefs trained in the culinary arts, and other members of theculinology team trained primarily in science or business. A second chal-lenge is training chefs with a comprehensive culinary vision that includesunderstanding the technical parameters and manufacturing restrictions.The Research Chefs Association (RCA) is in the process of developingthe certification criteria for a Certified Culinary Scientist (CCS) (Dahm,1999).One food group that could generate greater value from implementing

a Culinology® framework is the seafood industry. Unlike the poultry orbeef industries, the seafood industry has a multitude of species with sig-nificant versatility. This framework could be used to exploit the intrin-

62 JOURNAL OF AQUATIC FOOD PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

47 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

012

sic variation in seafood to create exciting product possibilities, but alsostandardize certain qualities important to consumers. For example,product size and proximal content may show significant variation fornumerous species including salmon, tunas, and mackerels (Love, 1997).Employing chefs to develop different products based on this naturalvariation can increase the alternative markets available for these spe-cies.Increasing numbers of food companies are establishing research and

development facilities that combine culinary expertise with food tech-nology knowledge (Pszczola, 1999). Industry�s effort to merge thesetwo disciplines attests to culinology�s potential. Although this approachis currently being implemented in large food processing companies, toour knowledge it is not being developed within a (1) scientific structure,or (2) being applied to support development of publicly managed foodresources. A Culinology® type concept may have significant potentialto jump-start and support comprehensive value-added development ofpublicly managed food resources such as fisheries, and lead to success-ful adoption as proprietary products by independent or cooperativefirms.The intent of this concept paper is to develop ideas on integrating a

Culinology® based framework into a creative process system for de-signing and developing new food products from publicly managed nat-ural resources. The next section describes each stage of the creativeprocess system, presents the elements of each stage, and develops ideasand potential strategies for embedding the Culinology® frameworkwithin a comprehensive system for new product development. The finalsection presents initial results from implementing the first stage of thisframework for West Coast albacore tuna.

CULINOLOGY® BASED FRAMEWORK

Figure 1 illustrates a creative process system for designing and de-veloping new food products. It was adapted from various sources (An-drews, 1975; Brody and Lord, 2000; Fuller, 1994; Kuczmarski, 1988;Nuese, 1995; Walsh et al., 1992). A unique feature of this system is theprominent participation of chefs in a Culinology® framework, whichbrings together the use of a cross-functional product design team, culi-nary expertise, and consumer and market evaluation. This contrastswith a traditional approach in which food scientists would develop new

Concept Paper 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

47 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

012

products consistent with specific parameters and cost constraints. Con-versely, in the Culinology® based framework, food scientists developproducts within market and price constraints by reacting to the proto-type products created by chefs. This may be termed the �reactionary� or�inverse� product development approach; chefs use their creativity todesign �optimal� products, and food scientists then reduce product costswithin specifications by employing their technical expertise through aniterative and adaptive process. This framework should be viewed as aninitial approach to exploring the integration between art and science indeveloping new food products.

64 JOURNAL OF AQUATIC FOOD PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY

STAGE 2Concept Development

Prototypes

ChangesNeeded?

EliminateYes

Yes

Refine ChangesNeeded?

STAGE 4Detailed Design and Prototype

Redesign

Marekting

No

No

Intrinsic/ExtrinsicCharacteristics

Processingconsiderations

Production andcost feasibiilty

Sensoryattributes Food safety

issues

Shelf-life andpackaging

QualityCharacteristics

Culinary Expertise andFood Technology

CulinologyFramework

Consumer,wholesaler, andretailer evaulation

STAGE 1Concept Design & Specification

STAGE 3Concept Commercializatlon

FIGURE 1. Creative Process System: Culinology® Based Research &Develop-ment Framework

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

47 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

012

Stage 1: Concept Design and Specification

Stage 1 constitutes the initial creative plan where broad concepts,needs, and ideas are converted into a strategic plan to guide product de-velopment. The plan includes the general objectives and requirementsof concept design. Key components of stage 1 include: developing ini-tial concepts, ideas, and prototypes for testing and evaluation; evaluatingpotential market demand and consumer needs or response; consideringfeasibility issues and criteria; and determining the essential designspecifications (performance features, physical characteristics, cost/pricetarget, timing and scheduling).Research chefs can play a key role in stage 1 by developing a range of

prototypes to spur ideas and discussion. Chefs should be provided thefreedom to search widely for ideas within broad design specifications.The initial prototype work could be organized in various ways. For ex-ample, a single chef or small group of chefs could develop a first waveof prototypes based on an initial set of concepts, specifications, and fea-sibility criteria. A second group of chefs, along with other team mem-bers, could be employed to evaluate the prototypes. Other strategies forinvolving chefs may include organizing a chef�s collaboration or spon-soring a contest in which chefs develop new products given various de-sign specifications.One important step in the concept design process is conducting a

�concept development session� where the prototype products devel-oped by chefs are evaluated by a cross-functional or product designteam. This cross-functional team would include industry representa-tives and interdisciplinary scientists to provide creative intellectual ca-pacity yet realistic business perspectives. Ideally, these teams wouldencompass representatives from all functions that play a significant rolein the development process including food engineers, product develop-ment experts, marketers, chefs, processors, food scientists, retailers,storage and packaging experts, and consumer experts.A cross-functional or product design team evaluates and discusses

each product�s potential based on design, financial, andmarketingman-agement guiding principles. Guiding principles are a set of rules andpredetermined policies that guide selection of strategies and actionsconsistent with the vision and goals of the project. Alternatively, a prod-uct design team and a group of consumers could simultaneously evalu-ate prototypes and comparatively evaluate their responses. For eitheralternative the expected outcome is to move to the next stage those pro-totypes with the best prospects for success based on the guiding princi-

Concept Paper 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

47 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

012

ples, project objectives, and design specifications. The product designteam, however, may need a broad focus to evaluate potentially valuableideas and concepts outside the original objectives, specifications, andprinciples.Although this appears to be an intriguing and useful approach, it may

also be costly and time consuming. This issue may be especially true forteams formed across companies or involving public supported productdevelopment versus teams constructed within a given firm. However,there are various cross-functional team scenarios one could tailor giventhe goals and resources of the project.Crucial elements in this stage include adaptability and team work.

Chefs incorporate the feedback from the product design team and con-sult with food scientists to create multiple prototypes for iterative test-ing and evaluation. Various research questions may be developed andexplored (e.g., how does variation in fat content affect sensory attrib-utes of the prototypes?). Throughout the process, the design specifica-tions are refined into a more detailed and relevant list of technical andmarket specifications.

Stage 2: Concept Development

Prototypes are further tested and evaluated to help guide the decisionto redefine, redesign, or eliminate. Decision criteria include: processingissues and constraints, production and cost feasibility, sensory attrib-utes, market concepts, food safety and regulatory issues, shelf-life andpackaging, product portion size, and proximate nutrient analysis.Through an iterative process, chefs refine the prototypes based on

feedback from the product design team, small sets of consumers, and/ora team of chefs, retailers, or food service representatives. Consumer andmarket research methods are employed to elicit response and interest tokey concepts and product characteristics. Promising techniques such as�social network observation� can be employed in this stage to evaluateconsumer response within the confines of their own home (Jorgensen,1989). This qualitative technique gathers information by observing theconversations that occur within a group of people who are familiar witheach other. This methodology provides more realistic information onhow consumers perceive, use, evaluate, and enjoy food products. Cook-ing techniques, product sampling, and information about product char-acteristics can be explored. This method can also be extended to settingssuch as restaurants or food service venues. Results can then be used to

66 JOURNAL OF AQUATIC FOOD PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

47 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

012

redesign and conduct further rounds of prototype development and as-sessment.

Stage 3: Concept Commercialization

When one or two feasible prototypes have been identified from theconcept development stage, large-scale consumer testing and evalua-tion of the prototype(s) is conducted. This stage examines how usersand consumers� sensory, cognitive, social, and cultural characteristicsinfluence their preferences for the prototypes, as well as testing prefer-ences for packaging, labeling, and pricing strategies.

Stage 4: Detailed Design and Prototype

Using the results of stage three, at least one prototype will be rede-signed and test marketed. It is expected that private firm(s) would havebeen actively involved in the previous stages of product development.At this final stage, it would be appropriate for a firm, excited about theproduct and with the financial resources to begin full-scale production,to embark on a commercial venture utilizing the information that hasbeen generated through the Culinology® process.

DEVELOPING VALUE-ADDEDALBACORE TUNA PRODUCTS

The albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) fishery is changing rapidly inresponse to the lack of support from traditional canneries in the 1998season (Warren, 1998). For 25 years the industry has collectively con-sidered alternative production and marketing concepts, yet over 95% ofharvests continue to be processed into traditional canned product byoverseas plants. In 1998, however, market security was shattered whencanneries met their production needs with alternative supplies and fish-ermen were left with boat-holds full of unsold albacore. Allegiancesthat were once strong between the fleet and the canneries were weak-ened and fishermen and processors began exploring new opportunities.Because the albacore industry is comprised of many heterogeneous andindependent small businesses, the industry lacks the resources to con-duct research on product development. Researchers secured funds toexplore the design and development of value-added albacore products

Concept Paper 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

47 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

012

and the first stage of the Culinology® framework has been applied tothis process.Stage 1 was implemented by conducting an initial �Idea Develop-

ment� meeting. The objectives of this meeting were to (a) develop ideasfor potential value-added albacore products, (b) evaluate feasible prod-uct profiles based on the guiding principles, and (c) determine the nextsteps in developing select products. Examples of guiding principles forthis project include: efficient use of the entire fish, products based onusing frozen fish, high quality products, economic value retained in thelocal economy, all sectors are profitable, long-term sustainability, andmarket driven-consumer education.A product design team was formed and asked to participate in the

Idea Development meeting. A discussion paper was provided to theteam prior to the meeting that included the background, project strat-egy, objectives, proposed guiding principles, and seafood and foodtrends. The 17-person team included albacore fishermen, seafood pro-cessors, chefs, food scientists, product development experts, marketers,retailers, storage and packaging experts, and consumer experts. Be-causeWest Coast albacore is a public resource, and the industry is char-acterized by heterogeneous and independent small businesses with littleintegration or long-term contractual obligations, it was important to as-semble a diverse team to assess the opportunities and challenges of thisfishery.A seafood chef was hired to assist in preparing a range of prototype

products prior to the meeting. The chef developed and prepared a rangeof 12 albacore products (Figure 2) based on past ideas and the chef�sown experience. Feedback from the chef after this initial stage of proto-type development suggested it would be useful to involve other chefs todiscuss ideas and concepts. During the meeting, the products were dis-played, visually evaluated in their uncooked form, cooked, and thentasted and evaluated by the product design team. The evaluation con-sisted of the teams� initial reactions of the uncooked and cooked proto-types; issues they anticipated related to quality and safety, processing,profitability, sensory attributes, marketing, and storage and packaging;and an overall score for the prototype based on a 10 point scale (1 =small potential, . . . , 10 = great potential).Overall, the participants were impressed with the versatility of West

Coast albacore tuna. Figure 2 presents an overview of the teams� sub-jective assessment of the prototypes. The intent of the figure was tocompile the information gained from the Idea Development meeting. Atthis point in the design process, all prototypes are being considered for

68 JOURNAL OF AQUATIC FOOD PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

47 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

012

the next iterative stages. The figure places each prototype in a specificquadrant by weighing both the market potential and the feasibility is-sues discussed with each product. For example, the two products in thesoutheast quadrant, albacore sausages and nuggets, are depicted as hav-ing a high market potential with few feasibility issues. Smoked bellyflaps were also assessed as having high market potential, but the teamexpressed concerned about needing a HACCP plan because the proto-type was hot smoked (QS = quality and safety issue), and requiring spe-

Concept Paper 69

Factor 1Diverse Issues

Few Issues

Low MarketPotential

Factor 2High MarketPotential

Fillets�bias cut(QS, P, S, M)

Smoked strips(S, M, SP)

Marinated loins(QS, P, M, SP)

Salad w/ smokedalbacore (QS, SP)

Burgers (QS, M, SP)

Smoked belly flaps (QS, P)

Nuggets (QS, P)

Sausages (S)

Fish tacos (SP)

Loin steakswrapped in bacon (S)

Smokedalbacore inpasta (SP)

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

Tuna Balls in BBQsauce (S)

Diverse Issues with:Quality of safety (QS)Processing (P)Sensory factors (S)Marketing (M)Storage or packaging (SP)

Small potentialLow profitabilityLow volume market

Great potentialHigh profitabilityHigh volume market

Few Issues with:Quality or safety (QS)Processing (P)Sensory factors (S)Marketing (M)Storage or packaging (SP)

FIGURE 2. Overall Prototype Assessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

47 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

012

cial handling to process this high quality product (P = processing issue).Those products viewed as having a lower market potential (westernquadrants) included: tuna balls with barbecue sauce, smoked albacorein pasta, albacore tacos, steaks wrapped in bacon, smoked strips, andbias-cut fillets.Besides discussing various strategic marketing ideas, the team iden-

tified other issues that need to be addressed: (a) the potential dryness ofcooked albacore, (b) the influence of varying fat content on taste, (c) theslightly rancid taste associated with some products that did not have asauce or seasoning, (d) comparison of prototypes developed using com-petitive (e.g., Yellowfin, Tombo) products, and (e) other potential prod-ucts.The next steps will follow the development framework (Figure 1) and

refine several of the prototypes. These prototypes stimulated excitementand insightful input from the product design team. Through an iterativeprocess, the teams� feedback will be used to design the next phases ofproduct development. Overall, the first stages of the product develop-ment meeting were successful which can largely be attributed to the ex-cellent work of the chef who created a diverse range of prototypes.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The proposed system extends current product development models byintegrating the Culinology® framework into a broader interdisciplinaryand participatory system for designing and developing new food prod-ucts from publicly managed natural resources. The important role of thiscreative system approach is combining art and science to create newproduct possibilities. There are various paths that will offer creative waysto cultivate art and science in seafood product development. Other pilotprojects and trial and error will be needed to determine the feasibility andvalue of this broader Culinology® framework. We hope this article willbe viewed as an invitation for further exploration into this area.

REFERENCES

Andrews, B. 1975. Creative Product Development: A Marketing Approach to NewProduct Innovation and Revitalisation. Longman, New York, NY.

Brody, A.L., and Lord, J.B. 2000. Developing New Food Products for a ChangingMarketplace. Technomic Publishing Co., Lancaster, PA.

Dahm, L. 1999. Hats off to the chefs. Food Proc., 60(10): 69.

70 JOURNAL OF AQUATIC FOOD PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

47 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

012

Fuller, G.W. 1994. New Food Product Development: From Concept to Marketplace.CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Hoban, T.J. 1998. Improving the success of new product development. Food Technol.,52(1): 46.

Jorgensen, D.L. 1989. Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies.Applied Social Research Methods Series Vol. 15. Sage Publications, NewburyPark, CA.

Kuczmarski, T.D. 1988. Managing New Products: Competing Through Excellence.Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Love, R.M. 1997. Biochemical dynamics and the quality of fresh and frozen fish. InFish Processing Technology, 2nd ed., G.M. Hall (Ed.), p. 1. Chapman and Hall,Blackie Academic and Professional, London.

Nuese, C.J. 1995. Building the Right Things Right: A New Model for Product andTechnology Development. Quality Resources, New York, NY.

Pszczola, D.E. 1999. From culinary to nutraceutical: Flavors take new directions. FoodTechnol., 53(9): 124.

Saguy, I.S. and Moskowitz, H.R. 1999. Integrating the consumer into new product de-velopment. Food Technol., 53(8): 68.

Walsh, V., Roy, R., Bruce, M., and Potter, S. 1992. Winning by Design: Technology,Product Design and Internal Competitiveness. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Warren, B. 1998. Tuna special report: Troubled at the top. Pacific Fishing, 19(8): 30.

Concept Paper 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

47 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

012