Search results

The purpose of this systematic review is to highlight some of the business model changes restaurants, bars and beverage producers undertook to modify their operations in order to not only stay in business but also to better serve their employees and communities during the COVID-19 crisis.

An analysis was conducted on 200 industry articles and categorized into three major themes: expansion of take-out/delivery, innovative practices, and community outreach/corporate support, each are further subdivided into additional themes. The systematic review is further supported by personal interviews with industry professionals.

This research finds that there were many different approaches used in adjusting business models in response to the dining restrictions put in place due to COVID-19. From these approaches, themes were developed which resulted in uncovering some suggestions such as developing contingency plans, being flexible and creative, eliminating menu items, investing in a communication platform and getting involved with local government. In addition, some practices operators should be mindful of such as selling gift cards and starting a crowdfund.

This research provides a systematic analysis of business model changes that occurred due to COVID-19 dining restrictions. Researchers can use this information as a guide for further analysis on a specific theme introduced herein.

This research offers several practical implications which will assist the industry should another similar event occur in the future. The systematic analysis describes and documents some suggestions as well as practices to be mindful of in preparing contingency plans for the future.

This research documents an unprecedented time for the hospitality industry by examining how restaurant, bar and beverage producers around the country responded to COVID-19 restrictions. Distilling the multitude of information into succinct themes that highlight the business model changes that occurred will aid future research as well as operators.

The purpose of this paper is to study the crisis management process for project-based organizations (PBOs) by developing a comprehensive model and propositions.

This paper is based on a conceptual study. A literature review is considered a primary source for studying contemporary research, including 171 publications in total, which embody qualitative, quantitative, conceptual and theoretical studies. For data analysis, content analysis is used, which is comprised of descriptive and thematic analysis.

This study identifies five imperative elements of crisis management for PBOs which include (1) sense-making (information gathering and crisis interpretation), (2) decision-making (accurate and timely decision), (3) response (reactive response), (4) outcome (success/failure) and (5) learning. Based on these findings, this study proposes an integrative model of the interplay between sense-making, decision-making, response, outcome and learning. Furthermore, the findings lead to propositions for each of the elements. The paper contributes to the literature on dynamic capability theory.

This paper explores the crisis management process for PBOs. The proposed model deepens the understanding of the practices and processes of project-based crisis management.

Calls for the development and dissemination of evidence-based programs to support children and families have been increasing for decades, but progress has been slow. This paper aims to argue that a singular focus on evaluation has limited the ways in which science and research is incorporated into program development, and advocate instead for the use of a new concept, “scientific accompaniment,” to expand and guide program development and testing.

A heuristic is provided to guide research–practice teams in assessing the program’s developmental stage and level of evidence.

In an idealized pathway, scientific accompaniment begins early in program development, with ongoing input from both practitioners and researchers, resulting in programs that are both effective and scalable. The heuristic also provides guidance for how to “catch up” on evidence when program development and science utilization are out of sync.

While implementation models provide ideas on improving the use of evidence-based practices, social service programs suffer from a significant lack of research and evaluation. Evaluation resources are typically not used by social service program developers and collaboration with researchers happens late in program development, if at all. There are few resources or models that encourage and guide the use of science and evaluation across program development.