*3.4. Results*

The model's centre consists of the concept of service, which must always keep in mind that the goal is to provide the necessary framework based on staging that provides the ideal conditions for memorable and transformative tourism experiences. According to Goldstein et al. [99], how service is conceptualised plays a central role in the process of developing new services. This concept not only defines the form or 'how' and the content or 'what' of service design, but also ensures the necessary integration between form and content and mediates as needed between companies' strategic intentions and customers' needs. Goldstein et al. [99] assert that one of the reasons for services' failure is the mismatch between what organisations intend to provide (i.e., strategic intention) and what customers need and expect (i.e., customer needs). This gap can be the result of inappropriate marketing or development processes that have not taken into account clients' needs. Edvardsson [100] offers a similar perspective, highlighting the concept of service's importance in terms of establishing the link between primary and secondary customer needs and the central and support services offered. Based on Edvardsson [100], Goldstein et al. [99] and Johnson et al.'s [31] research, the present study defined the concept of service as the integration of customers' needs with destinations' resources. These are both tangible resources such as built heritage, museums, monuments, beaches, mountains, and intangible resources such as image, identity, lifestyle, atmosphere, narrative, creativity, equipment, and other resources necessary for services or particular themes' development. Once the concept of service incorporates clients' needs, the destination resources available, and the selected theme, the development process can be designed. In this first phase (i.e., the design phase), the working group and objectives to be achieved must be defined, and the storyline must be developed so that this narrative can be used to guide all stakeholders and ensure that they develop the remaining service components within the spirit of that narrative.

#### *3.5. Design Phase Process*

Some authors [13,101] highlight the importance of involving di fferent stakeholders in all phases of new product development. However, this perspective is not commonly found in the literature on new product or service creation or in models that have served as a reference point for innovative tourism product development (e.g., Scheuing and Johnson's [26] model). The question of involving di fferent stakeholders or defining project teams to develop new products is not explicitly addressed. However, Müller and Scheurer [74] sugges<sup>t</sup> that, in the first phase of staging tourism experiences, a working group that can coordinate the entire development process should be formed. In addition, the cited authors assert that the project team needs to involve all stakeholders who can contribute to the process. If a single organisation is able to carry out the product's full development process, the identification of relevant departments and employees is easier. When several organisations are needed to develop the tourism product, establishing the working group is much more complex, potentially involving public and private sector organisations. In all cases, the process leadership should be clearly defined, and external experts need to be recruited who can contribute specific know-how and coordinate the overall process [74].

Regarding the definition of strategies and objectives, Scheuing and Johnson [26] observe that these two steps are decisive because they drive and direct the entire service innovation process and infuse this with the required e ffectiveness and e fficiency. The other topics listed under the design phase of the tourism product development process were proposed for the present study, including the definition of the storyline, scenarios, attractions and activities and dimensions of the experiences to be achieved. These items are not usually present in models of tangible product or service development, because they do not focus on how products or services can generate memorable and transformative experiences for customers. At this point in the process, the level of costumer involvement and co-creation should be analysed and addressed.

Various authors such as Trott [15] agree that stage-gate models do not have to be applied to new service development, arguing that their sequential nature is a limitation, as "each stage of the process is needed to be completed before proceeding to the subsequent stage" (p. 535). However, the present study found that applying stage-gate and Agile-stage-gate [18] models' principles can o ffer added value to tourism product development that depends on several independent entities during the creation process. Formal meetings with all stakeholders involved in the project can be used to analyse the information collected and the measures taken during the previous phase, as well as providing support for decision-making regarding sending the project on to the next stage. Notably, stakeholders may also want to consider retreating to the previous phase for re-evaluation or even abandoning the project. If the decision is made to move on to the next stage, these meetings will also serve to define the tasks each intervener should carry out during the subsequent phase [102]. Thus, the present proposed model includes that the process's design phase needs to end with a formal meeting of stakeholders, in which they deliberate on the process's evolution and the tasks to be accomplished in the next stage, namely, the information to be collected.

#### *3.6. Evaluation Phase*

This phase is part of most existing models, regardless of whether they focus on the development of tangible products, services, or tourism products [28,31,42,102], but the components integrated in this phase can vary between models. Johnson et al. [31] and Scheuing and Johnson [26] assert that the analysis phase should include business or economic analysis and project authorisation, while Cooper and Kleinschmidt [102] subdivide this phase into a preliminary evaluation and a more detailed assessment. The preliminary evaluation includes a rapid appraisal of the project's technical, financial, legal, and market aspects, and the detailed assessment consists of a definition and justification of the product, as well as a description of the project plan, market research, and competitive, technical, production, and financial analyses.

The final decision to move on to the development phase is based on financial criteria. As Johne and Storey [19] point out, a good idea is not in itself a guarantee that the new service will succeed, so the current proposed model followed Cooper and Kleinschmidt [102], Johnson et al. [31], and Scheuing and Johnson's [26] suggestion that this phase should include an analysis of the project's economic viability. According to Cooper and Kleinschmidt [102], an analysis must also be conducted of the legal constraints that may a ffect the project's development, in addition to competitive analysis, in order to verify that no similar products exist in the market. The present study's model further adds an analysis of how the new product can be integrated into existing products, given that Tax and Stuart [103] consider understanding new products and services' potential impacts on the existing offers important at this stage. The last topic listed within the proposed model's evaluation phase is the project's authorisation, which can be done in a formal meeting with the characteristics mentioned in the preceding paragraph. In addition, the decision to authorise the project's transition into the development phase must be based on the information collected during this phase on legal and competitive aspects, as well as the assessment of the project's economic viability.

#### *3.7. Development Phase*

Shostack [104] argues that, although processes can be reduced to steps and stages, these should be understood as interdependent and interactive systems and not as disconnected or isolated parts. The researchers are in agreemen<sup>t</sup> that specific techniques can make analyses of the process of new service development more objective and enable more e ffective and e fficient management. According to Shostack [104], one useful approach to visualising service systems is a mapping technique called 'service blueprint,' which is also advocated by other authors [9,15,74,103]. In essence, a service blueprint is a diagram that shows all the elements that constitute the service under study and whose main purpose is to facilitate more objective analyses of the service process. This technique documents all the steps and points of divergence in a specific service, identifying weaknesses and anticipating the occurrence of any problems that may have a negative impact on the way customers will perceive that service [104,105]. The results can provide important insights into how best to manage tourist or visitor flows and ensure their comfort and well-being. Shostack [104] notes that service blueprints must not be generic but rather quite specific, as a separate blueprint needs to be prepared for each service. In addition, Laws [105] states that the service should be mapped based on clients' explicit actions that allow them to receive the service and that the blueprint needs to include the moments of contact between people and internal procedures for providing the service.

Services in general and tourism in particular are characterised by an inseparability of consumption and production, clients and/or tourists' close involvement throughout service processes, and the issue of spatiality. Therefore, the necessary elements for staging experiences must also be present at this stage (i.e., clearly defined scenarios, attractions, and activities and dimensions of experience). According to Müller and Scheurer [74], these aspects need to be dealt with both strategically and operationally. The relevant strategies should be implemented in the process's design phase, and the development phase should focus on the operational side of the process. At a more advanced stage of the development phase, training needs to be o ffered to employees in direct contact with clients [21,26,28,31,103], that is, service providers who interact with customers in the co-production of experiences. Direct experience with the tourism sector also suggests that employees involved in selling these products should also receive special training after the prelaunch test and before the new products are introduced to the market. Destination managemen<sup>t</sup> organisations and tour operators customarily invite key personnel to visit the destination and experience new products directly, especially people who are linked to outgoing travel agencies, so that they can become more at ease with selling these services. Tour operator representatives begin their training at the destination by watching and participating in all products sold to customers (e.g., excursions or theme park tickets) in order to be able to explain to clients the types of experiences that the products can provide.

The development phase ends with a prelaunch test [21,26,28,31,103]. However, this test is not always conducted, but, according to Tax and Stuart [103], it may be performed in di fferent configurations, such as surveys or experimental o ffers in selected branches.

#### *3.8. Market Introduction*

Before moving on to the launch phase, the proposed model requires another formal meeting with all relevant participants. Based on analyses of the information collected during the development phase, in particular the service blueprint and the prelaunch test of the service—if this has been run—the decision is made to move forward or go back to the previous stage to reassess possible weaknesses [102].

The last phase consists of the market launch. Depending on the target tourist segments, the project team selects the most appropriate distribution channels [33,43]. Despite the decisive importance that this phase has in new products' or services' success or failure, the planning, execution, and launch of marketing campaigns fell outside the scope of the present study, so they were not subjected to further analysis. After the launch, the working group needs to meet again to re-evaluate the entire process. Following Johnson et al.'s [31] lead, the proposed model emphasises the circular nature of the process (see Figure 2 above), as a main objective of the current study was to demonstrate the dynamic nature of new tourism product development and the constant need to re-evaluate these products. Contrary to Johnson et al. [31], however, the arrow linking the launch and design phases cannot be represented as dashed as this would indicate only a possibility of redesigning the process. The entire process of developing new products is based on destinations' resources and customers' needs, which are both constantly changing, so an accurate model of innovative tourism product development must include continuous re-adaptations of these services.
