Resilience Innovations and the Use of Food Order & Delivery Platforms by the Romanian Restaurants during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting work. The authors made a lot of efforts to investigate the relations between resilience innovations and the use of food order & delivery platforms by the restaurant managers incorporating the major components of TAM model. Some suggestions I advice the authors to consider during revising this paper.
1. Four kinds of resilience innovations, i.e. SI, BI, TI, and FI, were identified to affect the indicators of AT and BU. These four innovations are big concepts, the illustrations of them in section 2.1 are not enough for others to understand. It results in difficulties of understanding of the the items in the questionnaires under these four innovations as well. Additionally, There is a lack of theoretical basis to develop the hypothesis 1-8, leading to weakness of persuasive and rigorous of the development of these eight hypotheses.
2. The meaning of some items in the questionnaire is overlap. For example, The items in AT is similar to the items in PU. In addition, it is hard for readers to understand the difference between AT and BU. Attitude to use and intend to use is same but different from actual use.
3. I suggest the authors to rewrite introduction section. More specifically, the content about macro background should be reduced, the research objects, research questions, and motivation of conducting this work should be added. Moreover, in introduction, the authors gave the research questions and research aims but are not consistent.

4. In section 2, the pioneering studies related to the use of food and delivery information systems or other information systems need to supplement. 
5. There is some language mistakes in the hypothesis 7, and in other hypotheses. for instance, social innovations in H1 but social innovation in H5.

 

Author Response

It is an interesting work. The authors made a lot of efforts to investigate the relations between resilience innovations and the use of food order & delivery platforms by the restaurant managers incorporating the major components of TAM model. Some suggestions I advice the authors to consider during revising this paper

1. Four kinds of resilience innovations, i.e. SI, BI, TI, and FI, were identified to affect the indicators of AT and BU. These four innovations are big concepts; the illustrations of them in section 2.1 are not enough for others to understand. It results in difficulties of understanding of the items in the questionnaires under these four innovations as well. Additionally, there is a lack of theoretical basis to develop the hypothesis 1-8, leading to weakness of persuasive and rigorous of the development of these eight hypotheses.

Response: According to the reviewer request, the following paragraphs have been inserted to improve section 2.1.

Social innovations (SI).The practice of social innovation in restaurants has the role of uniting employees from different backgrounds, cultures and thinking, to align them around common business-specific objectives, to educate and improve them continuously through trainings, but also, in order to redesign and reconsider the working conditions, work safety [45].

Prioritizing employees' well-being in restaurants is another major coordinate of social innovations implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the specific procedures identified in the profile literature focus on: flexibility in organizing work exchanges and establishing days off [49-54], employee training on the use of digital tools designed to facilitate the relationship with customers and collaboration in work teams [47-48; 52] initiating open discussions with managers and co-workers to help reduce psychological stress among employees [47,49,54], encourage leisure activities, increase employees' attention to healthy eating, and possibly even reducing the weekly working time in order to reduce the overload during this period [54].

Business strategy innovations (BI). Business innovation strategies represent the commitment of the staff to a common innovation mission and to a set of activities meant to compete in the development of the organization in the future. Restaurants need clearly defined plans to achieve their growth and sustainable goals by identifying new consumer segments, by improving products, by identifying and adopting new strategies for presenting, promoting and delivering food [56].

Rethinking the product offering, mainly by simplifying the menu list, focusing on preparations that can be sold in the delivery system, reducing portions, purchasing smaller quantities of raw materials and reconsidering stock management [38, 48, 60], sale at reduced prices or donation of unsold preparations to various institutions, companies or employees [60], introduction into production of semi-finished products that can be marketed through the catering system [38], identification simple ways to support the identity of a restaurant through personalized take-away packaging and ensure the proper preservation of the temperature of the dishes [48] are measures that highlight the involvement of restaurants in finding innovative operating solutions during this period.

Technological innovations (TI). The implementation of product innovations involves radical innovation that aims to create new products with a different design, components and manufacturing methods and incremental innovation aims to improve the characteristics of existing products. On the other hand, process innovations involve the implementation of new or significantly improved production and delivery methods. In the case of restaurants, production methods involve techniques, equipment, software used to produce food, while delivery methods refer to supply systems, inventory management and the means of delivery of prepared food [65].

These solutions contribute to the improvement of the daily production planning and prove to be useful in the direction of sensitizing customers and employees on the need to mitigate food waste [60, 79].

Financial innovations (FI). Financial innovation is a complex process that involves the creation and development of new services and financial or investment processes, concomitant with the changing needs of people and organizations. It may include updating technological systems, ensuring adequate risk management, transferring risk, generating credit and expanding equity, and attracting new innovations [81].

The implementation of financial strategies so as to ensure the increase of restaurant revenues was the natural response during the COVID-19 pandemic, the measures taken in this regard consisting mainly in emphasizing the role of liquidity management, designing simplified menus and encouraging off-premises consumption, reducing significant increase in promotion expenditure during travel restrictions [85]. In this context, government regulations aimed at reducing financial pressure on restaurants during the crisis, such as lowering interest rates, suspending VAT or issuing coupons to increase consumption, are examples of beneficial measures that influence financial resilience [42].

 

The following bibliographic sources have been introduced:

54. Bufquin, D.; Park, J.-Y.; Back, R.M.; de Souza Meira, J.V.; Hight, S.K. Employee work status, mental health, substance use, and career turnover intentions: An examination of restaurant employees during COVID-19. Int. H. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 93, 102764. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102764.
55. Strotmann, C.; Baur, V.; Börnert, N.; Gerwin, P. Generation and prevention of food waste in the German food service sector in the COVID-19 pandemic – Digital approaches to encounter the pandemic related crisis. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2021. Article in Press. DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2021.101104.
56. Carrillo-Hermosilla, J.; Del Rí­o, P.; Könnölȁ, T. Diversity of eco-innovations: Reflections from selected case studies, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2010; 18, 1073-1083, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.02.014.
57. Divisekera, S.; Nguyen, V.K. Drivers of innovation in tourism: An econometric study. Tour. Econ. 2018, 24, 998–1014

 

 

2. The meaning of some items in the questionnaire is overlap. For example, the items in AT is similar to the items in PU. In addition, it is hard for readers to understand the difference between AT and BU. Attitude to use and intend to use is same but different from actual use.

Response: The technology acceptance model (TAM) is one of the most well-known and used theory in the literature (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1985). This theory of information systems models, in the case of our study, the way in which restaurant managers (users) end up accepting and using a food ordering and delivery platforms (technology) in the context of a major health and economic crisis.

The effective use of food ordering and delivery platforms is the end point where restaurants (through their employees) use technology.

Behavioral intention is a factor that causes restaurant managers (and implicitly their employees) to use platforms (technology).

Behavioral intention (BU) is influenced by attitude (AT) which is the general impression of technology. Our structural model suggests that when restaurant managers (users) were presented with food ordering and delivery platforms (a new technology), a number of factors influenced their decision on how and when to use these platforms. If before the pandemic the actual use of platforms was an alternative to supplementing restaurant revenues, during pandemic waves this option became a means of survival for most of them.

Attitude towards the use of platforms (AT) can be assessed based on factors such as: improving the learning experience, new knowledge, strengthening trust and a new idea or solution, which have direct effects on the intention to use.

For example, the item (AT4) is I think the use of food ordering & delivery platforms improves my learning experience.

Attitude towards the use of platforms (AT) can be assessed based on factors such as: improving the learning experience, new knowledge, strengthening trust and a new idea or solution, which have direct effects on the intention to use.

For example, the item (AT4) is I think the use of food ordering & delivery platforms improves my learning experience.

Perceived utility (PU) - is the degree to which managers believe that the use of platforms would increase the performance of restaurants. It means that managers perceive these platforms as useful for continuing the activity, have easy access and are a less expensive alternative than home delivery (Davis, 1989).

For example, item PU4 is “In the future I intend to use food ordering & delivery platforms;

Perceived ease of use (PE) - is the degree to which managers believe that the use of platforms would be effortless (Davis, 1989). If the platforms are easy to use, then the barriers have been conquered. If it is not easy to use and the interface is complicated, neither managers nor employees have a positive attitude towards it.

For example, item PE1 is “Learning to work with food ordering & delivery platforms were an easy thing for me and my staff;”

As can be seen, each variable (AT, PU, PE and BU) includes different items.

The questionnaire was analyzed by several specialists in the field of restaurant management, which enjoys extensive experience and recognition on the domestic market. Subsequently, it was pre-tested through interviews with potential research subjects, several times, up to the review and elimination of problematic elements related to the format, repetitive or unnecessary aspects and the ordering of questions. The final form of the questionnaire is the result of a pre-testing which contributed to its improvement in terms of content and structure.

3. I suggest the authors to rewrite introduction section. More specifically, the content about macro background should be reduced; the research objects, research questions, and motivation of conducting this work should be added. Moreover, in introduction, the authors gave the research questions and research aims but are not consistent.

Response: The study's decision-making problem involves answering the questions: (a) what were the resilience innovations stimulated by the COVID-19 pandemic, (b) what is the behavior of restaurant managers related to the acceptance of technologies (food platforms) and (c) how these measures influence attitude and intention related to the use of food order and delivery platforms so as to ensure the continuity and development of the activity of restaurants in Romania?

The main purpose of the research is to validate the conceptual model by assessing the impact of resilience innovations on the attitude and intention of using food order and delivery platforms in accordance with the influence of utility and ease of use perceived among restaurant managers in Romania, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The objectives of the research are: to identify the nature of the innovations in resilience and to evaluate their impact on the attitude and intention of managers regarding the use of food order and delivery platforms (O1); analysis of the influence of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use by the Romanian managers of the food order and delivery platforms, based on an empirical model of acceptance of technology (TAM) (O2); identification of significant differences between the groups specific to the analyzed socio-demographic characteristics - gender, age, education, types of restaurant managers and frequency of orders received per day.

The reason for the choice of this theme by the authors derives from the desire to know how restaurant managers came to think of resilience innovations, to accept and use ordering and fast delivery platforms in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. The huge impact that the COVID-19 virus has had on restaurants has led to the emergence of distinct needs related to digital infrastructure and, in particular, the use of delivery platforms and convinced managers that resilience innovations can contribute to the development of a business environment more intelligent (by integrating new products, technologies and applications), creating a more inclusive world and increasing the value of Romanian society, now and in the future.

4. In section 2, the pioneering studies related to the use of food and delivery information systems or other information systems need to supplement. 

Response: According to the reviewer request, a new paragraph has been inserted "Technologies along with staff, processes and data are part of an information system that restaurants use both to increase performance and to assess how employees interact with technologies in order to support the business process. At the level of each restaurant there is an information system that ensures the connection between the decisional and the operational system. Thus, the use of technologies has an overwhelming importance in the functioning of the information system, contributing to the development of numerous activities, among which we mention: the introduction in the operational system of the data regarding the acquisitions of raw materials and their processing regarding the assurance of food safety and security; taking orders and making deliveries respecting sanitary standards and maintaining food quality; obtaining information related to staff shortages, safety and the time needed to prepare food in order to adopt the best decisions that will be transmitted later to the operational system, performing control and monitoring compliance with all decisions taken by restaurant managers. However, the activities carried out by restaurants also involve computer systems consisting of electronic procedures and equipment that contribute to data processing and obtaining information, such as: stock management and sales price recording programs; food classification programs, recipe configuration and raw material requirements; programs for recording orders, invoices, payments and the situation of customers [76-80]”.

5. There are some language mistakes in the hypothesis 7, and in other hypotheses, for instance, social innovations in H1 but social innovation in H5.

Response: According to the reviewer's suggestion, hypothesis 1, 5 and 7 was correct. Moreover, the other hypotheses were verified.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Social innovations (SI) has a positive and significant effect on Attitude towards using the order & delivery platforms (AT).

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Social innovations (SI) has a positive and significant effect on Behavioral intention (BU).

Hypothesis 7 (H7). Technological innovations (TI) have a positive and significant effect on Behavioral intention (BU).

We are grateful for your consideration of this manuscript, and we also very much appreciate your suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving our manuscript.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a solid article, with good investigation of the impact of differences in the typ of respondent (often lacking in such studies). In one place (where the hypotheses are listed) you need to ensure all hypotheses are fully translated.

Author Response

This is a solid article, with good investigation of the impact of differences in the type of respondent (often lacking in such studies). In one place (where the hypotheses are listed) you need to ensure all hypotheses are fully translated.

Response: According to the reviewer's suggestion, hypothesis 7 was correct. Moreover, the other hypotheses were verified.

We are grateful for your consideration of this manuscript, and we also very much appreciate your suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving our manuscript.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The subject, resilience innovations and the use of food order & delivery platforms, is of great interest in the field in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The manuscript is well delineated and written. Some small details are pointed out along the text.

While I understand that the authors tried their best to provide a sufficient literature review, the literature reviews in sections Introduction and Literature review are too prolix and repetitive. I hope the author can highlight the analysis and discussion of key papers.

I suggest that the hypothesis and literature review part can be integrated into one section.

To increase the significance of the results, the discussion part should provide more information about the differences and similarities among your findings and those of other scholars such as Lines 865-868.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The subject, resilience innovations and the use of food order & delivery platforms, is of great interest in the field in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The manuscript is well delineated and written. Some small details are pointed out along the text.

While I understand that the authors tried their best to provide a sufficient literature review, the literature reviews in sections Introduction and Literature review are too prolix and repetitive. I hope the author can highlight the analysis and discussion of key papers.

Response: According to the reviewer's suggestion, changes have been made in this regard.

I suggest that the hypothesis and literature review part can be integrated into one section.

Response: The research hypotheses are included in the section 2 - Literature review. These are highlighted separately at the end of section 2, more precisely in 2.3. Proposed Structural Model and Research Hypotheses.

To increase the significance of the results, the discussion part should provide more information about the differences and similarities among your findings and those of other scholars such as Lines 865-868.

Response: Some previous research confirms a number of positive and significant correlations between Perceived ease of use, Perceived usefulness and Attitude towards using platforms. In addition, our study indicates, through the high size of the coefficients obtained from modeling, a positive, direct and strong impact exerted by the two latent variables Perceived ease of use and Perceived usefulness on Attitude towards using the order & delivery platforms.

We are grateful for your consideration of this manuscript, and we also very much appreciate your suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving our manuscript.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors has addressed all the mentioned suggestions. I recommend it to be accepted at this time.

Author Response

The reviewer has addressed as "The authors has addressed all the mentioned suggestions. I recommend it to be accepted at this time".

Therefore the authors made all the changes according to the reviewer's suggestions.