lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 30 (2009) 184–193

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Knowledge-based network participation in destination and event marketing:A hospitality scenario analysis perspectiveq

Ad Breukel*, Frank M. GoCentre for Tourism Management at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University p/a Annette Bartels (room T10-28),P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 12 December 2007Accepted 21 May 2008

Keywords:Destination marketingHospitality sectorKnowledge-based networksInformation and communicationtechnologies (ICTs)Scenario analysis

q This paper is based on a conference paper prTourism Marketing Conference’ at the University of2007.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ31 10 4082629/753;E-mail addresses: abreukel@rsm.nl (A. Breukel), fg

0261-5177/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.05.015

a b s t r a c t

This paper examines how enterprises may decide to bring about effective network collaboration eventhough present mediation forms have proven inadequate. One of the main problems of these enterprisesis that they lack a clear picture of the potential future ‘‘modular business’’. The Dutch hospitality sectorfaced such dilemma and commissioned a scenario study, a tool that can aid the interactive process offuture image formation, in the midst of uncertainty, and support decision-making. The findings indicatethat modern ICT may offer support to establishing hospitality networks that shape a physical and virtualenvironment for the delivery of services to developing client demands. These findings enable entre-preneurs to participate in efforts to enhance their ICT capabilities and moderation of effective knowledgesharing within a destination and event marketing platform. The resulting understanding should leadstakeholders to ‘re-create’ the past view of hospitality towards emerging, strategic options for hospitalityenterprises.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This paper focuses on the impact of information and commu-nication technologies (ICTs) on the capability of hospitality enter-prises to simultaneously compete and cooperate, within thedestination and event network context. The effects of the formerappear to be profound in that they seem to spread fast and changenot only the methods of production, but what is being produced,and how, as well. The digital society is said to replace the industrialeconomy (Keen,1991; Malone, 2004). The latter deals with the viewof ‘hospitality’, ranging from a commercial point of view to an in-stitutional perspective (Cassee & Reuland, 1983; Nunez, 1979). Thispaper applies the scenario technique to understand the nature ofchange brought about by the transformation to the digital societyand the alternative possible dimensions of responses the hospi-tality businesses may provide (Ciborra, 1999; Star, 2004).

The theme of digitalization, destination marketing and hospi-tality is positioned in the overlap of three knowledge domains:private business, public sector and ICTs. So far, these domains havedeveloped largely independently of each other. The structure of our

esented at the ‘Advances inValencia, 10–12 September,

fax: þ31 10 4089011.o@rsm.nl (F.M. Go).

All rights reserved.

arguments depends upon their synthesis. This synthesis leads toa preliminary question whether the hospitality sector participatesin stimulating and sustaining the knowledge-based destinationnetwork in the context of rules and stimuli decreed by govern-mental agencies at different levels. We are especially interested ininvestigating the network from a developmental model perspectiveinstead of a technological system’s perspective (Larsen, Urry, &Axhausen, 2007). In particular, we seek to identify insights intohow network stakeholders, both ‘insiders’ (local) and ‘outsiders’(global) deal with the key issue of disruptive innovation, its impacton business processes and the subsequent need for participation inthe supportive context of ICTs to reduce transaction cost andimprove service quality within a network environment.

The research in this paper concerns hospitality entrepreneurs inthe Netherlands, who feel that their performance potential isconstrained by a myriad of rules, imposed by government. Ourpurpose is to understand how Dutch stakeholders, possibly incombination with foreign partners, may apply an effective strategyof knowledge development, knowledge sharing and application asa means of underpinning their destination and event marketingorganization function. To this extent, we investigate the usage ofknowledge management in the context of the ‘host–guest en-counter’ and, by extension, the network of providers in relation tothe destination platform to jointly address the issue of Dutch labormarket shortages.

Hospitality customers may be reasonably satisfied at present.But demographic developments, particularly the ‘greying’ of

A. Breukel, F.M. Go / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 184–193 185

Western society cast a long shadow over the sector’s future,because, it signals the underlying issue of an impending laborshortage. One of the main challenges the Dutch hospitality sectorfaces presently is how to mobilize no less than 102,900 new em-ployees annually by 2010.1 For all intent and purposes, it should benoted that the former consists for the most part replacement staff,which figure should be compared to the 81,500 employees, who arecurrently required on an annual basis. The present labor issue iscomplex in nature, and there is no quick fix solution due to con-straints that are ‘embedded’ in the current labor market: such asa 75% participation rate in 2005, which is considered relativelyhigh, resulting in a ‘tight labor market’ offering entrepreneurs littleroom for maneuvering. Moreover, the labor market is shrinking, theadoption of innovation for value adding in the hospitality sectortends to lag behind other service sectors while the pressure onreturn on investment continues to increase. On another level thechallenge is aggravated, due, in part, to the present supply – policyorientation practiced by vocational educational institutions. Inparticular, this approach has dire consequences and within theDutch hospitality sector raises doubts about the ability of the for-mer to function effectively and efficiently in an increasinglydynamic labor market. Finally, it is feared that a surplus of rules thatgovern vocational educational institutions are likely to ‘kill’ in-novation initiatives within vocational schools.

Using the Dutch hospitality sector as our case study, the presentinvestigation explores the challenges and opportunities froma scenario research perspective and seeks to identify relevant fu-ture images, i.e., those ‘uncertainties’ that are likely to impact theevolution of the hospitality sector. In particular, the increasingdemands of customers, the ICT opportunities and the mentionedlack of competences of employees on the supply-side may be seenas salient feature of the present hospitality market and results ina ‘climate’ of growing uncertainty and potential dys-functioning of‘service as usual’.

The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we scrutinize theliterature about coordinating productive efforts and developing cli-ent demands in order to find new, knowledge-based coordinationmodels. This theoretical section ends with the rationale for takinga cultural perspective towards coordination issues that views hos-pitality as a means to offer a feeling of security to network members.This view results in the main research question whether the hospi-tality sector is ready to offer the required organizational and lead-ership behavior, within the scope of the (digital) network context.

In Section 3, we introduce scenario technique as study method.Scenarios can be viewed as possible visions of future uncertaintiesas opposed to predictions (Van der Heijden, 1996). We justify theapplication of the scenario technique, as our study is concernedwith the impact of new technologies and networks on the model-ing of the future development of knowledge-based networkswithin the hospitality sector. And the latter is unpredictable.

Section 4 presents the scenarios and so chronicles the Dutchhospitality industry trends, particularly taking into account thecauses that are likely to impact the evolution of hospitalityenterprises.

Subsequently, Section 5 identifies options that may be used for thestrategic decision-making process. Section 6 concludes with our in-terpretation of the results of the present scenario planning exercise.

Particularly, our structural analysis provides a framework forunderstanding three future scenarios including their potentialimpact on the ‘shaping’ of knowledge-based networks in the con-text of the present stage of the hospitality sector life cycle. Thelatter is under pressure of forces, including long-run changes in

1 Labor market analysis (2005), publication of ‘Bedrijfschap Horeca (hospitalitybusiness) en Catering’.

growth, changes in the cost of resource, particularly labor andcapital costs, government policy changes and changes in thestructure of related sectors. As a result hospitality executives shouldnot only possess an understanding of their own industry, butespecially the structure of destination and event marketing, whoseworkings and success in the field of process innovation is in-extricable intertwined with those of the hospitality sector.

2. Hospitality business participation in knowledge-basednetworks

2.1. Hospitality in the knowledge-based society

The present paper positions the economic functioning in thetourism and event destination marketing context. The hospitalitybusiness takes center stage to understand the relationship of theformer and latter; it is an establishment where travelers, com-muters, and shoppers among others, turn into ‘guests’. Their loca-tion and conduct impact the spatial structure of the tourism andevent destination. However, in turn, the tourism and event desti-nation, particularly its accessibility and amenities, affect the envi-ronment wherein the hospitality business operates. Therefore,knowledge of this mutual relationship is important to understandwhy network participation in destinations depends to a large ex-tent on effective relationships and can contribute, importantly tothe performance of both enterprises and destination. In manyEuropean regions this relationship and the strategic position ofdestinations has been altered by two major factors, which are in-extricably connected and significantly affect knowledge-basedbusiness performance: ICTs and internationalization.

Recently, the chairman of the Commission Stevens used a met-aphor to summarize the functioning of organizations in a knowl-edge-based society as follows: How should Dutch societalinstitutions transform from a ‘traffic light’ scenario to a ‘round-about’ model to ensure an uninterrupted business flow andresilient performance so as to respond effectively to the disruptiveinnovation scenario (Stevens, 2007)? In essence, these metaphorssuggest that a business model rendering greater flexibility isneeded to meet the challenges of a knowledge-based society(Malone et al., 2006). Several factors justify our argument that ananalysis from a knowledge-based destination network context isrelevant to understand the forces that collectively determine theperformance potential of the hospitality sector.

Firstly, the impact of digital media, which tourism enterprisescannot ignore because bookings are increasingly made via the web.It implies that the dictum ‘no enterprise is an island’ applies tohospitality enterprises, because they derive their trade, directly orindirectly, via e-commerce transactions. Therefore web-serviceshave turned the hospitality sector on its head. The hospitality en-terprise can be variously defined as ‘brick-and-mortar’ type busi-ness. Many companies build the Internet into their activitiesbecause it leverages their efforts. Traditional hospitality companies,including restaurants, hotels, catering and conference facilities andrelated services, tend to add on-line opportunities while dotcomstypically find their ways into traditional channels. They may differaccording to type, but share the same core capability, namely theface-to-face host–guest service encounter. Hospitality marketershave to deal with customers who increasingly interact with theircounterparts through the Internet. For example, electronicallybased discussion forums, bulletin boards, chat rooms and newsgroups afford customers opportunity to share their know-how,experiences and opinions. These examples illustrate the popularityof electronic consumer exchanges and justify the urgent need oftheorizing network opportunities for hospitality and event anddestination organizations in a digital world along a decentralizingcontinuum (Malone, 2004). Furthermore, from a practitioners’

A. Breukel, F.M. Go / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 184–193186

perspective it should render relevant membership within a com-munity of practitioners, web-hosting to promote and supportencounters with a host community.

Secondly, the influence of internationalization, which is mani-fest in an onslaught of global brand advertising unleashed bymetropolitan tourism destinations, has raised need to re-considertraditional brand strategy in favor of an approach that conceptu-alizes ‘‘the tourism system as a network of interacting serviceproviders rather than as a channel of distribution’’ (Gnoth, 2002, p.262) designed to formulate and implement an alternative per-spective on tourism destination branding.

Thirdly, as a consequence of blurring geographic and culturalboundaries in combination with the acceleration of informationdiffusion, our world has transformed, not only into a more com-pressed, but also riskier environment. The damages suffered asa result of disruptive innovation, due to man-made or naturalcalamities, can be extremely costly to a tourism destination, interms of lost market share, decreased productivity and damagedbrand reputation.

At the level of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), manyhospitality entrepreneurs may be unprepared to interpret the risksand respond to potential threats in an effective manner. One of thereasons that hospitality SMEs may lack resilience is that they tend tomake decisions in isolation as opposed to levering the decision-support system that is typically available on the group level, forexample, via a destination management organization (DMO). Thisstudy assumes that knowledge-based network participation ina destination and event marketing platform offers a considerableadvantage for the integration of both intra- and inter-organizationalinformation and afford entrepreneurs the opportunity to identifyand pro-actively respond to various scenarios. Accordingly, thepresent study frames hospitality enterprises as nodes in a destina-tion and event platform to understand the vision that entrepreneursmay have about their decision-making options. The latter is amongothers rooted in the observation that: ‘‘no other component is morecrucial to the long-term efficiency of the service organization than itsculture and philosophy, which shape and rejuvenate the very valuesand ethos on which the company thrives’’ (Normann, 1984, p. 22).

The quest for realistic decision-making options of hospitalityentrepreneurs starts with a description of the elements that shapethe knowledge-based network in which they participate. The fol-lowing section introduces intra- and inter-organizational co-ordination as a building block for networks, and subsequentlydiscusses cultural and virtual elements seen to enact the contentand dialogue, that are main tacit ingredients shaping the contoursof the knowledge-based environment.

2.2. Intra-organizational coordination versus inter-organizationalmarket coordination

The field of Organization Studies has its antecedents in intra-organizational coordination theory. In Administrative Behavior,Simon argues that administration basically means ‘‘getting thingsdone’’ (Simon, 1976, p. 1). In particular, Simon concentrates ondeliberate decision-making (including its realization) that controlsthe behavior of laborers who perform the firm’s primary processes.In Organizations, March and Simon (1958) focus on routines,decision-making activities to solve particular problems, for thesmooth functioning of primary processes. Routines are difficult tochange because they concern functional activities (sales, logistics,service operations management, marketing) that are linked todecision-making and coordination in the face of goal-setting andperformance achievement (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). In addi-tion to that Chandler considers the coordinative routines, whichlink the functional routines, as even more important than thefunctional routines themselves (Chandler, 1992). Mintzberg has

based his typology of organizational structures on these co-ordinative routines. Within this framework, the term ‘structure’describes how work is divided into sub-activities (tasks) and mustbe coordinated to optimize both, the flow of work and decision-making processes (Mintzberg, 1979).

The field of Economics had a specific focus on inter-organizationalcoordination as one of the causes of the market structure.Williamson was one of the leading writers who put another internaldevice on the economic card, namely the governance of organization.Transaction costs economics (TCE) focuses on transactions thatconcern the allocation of resources between technologically sepa-rable production units. Williamson distinguishes two basic gover-nance mechanisms that control those transactions. First, the marketmechanism resulting in prices of marketable resources. Second, thefirm hierarchical authority designed to approve the within-firmtransfer of resources. TCE holds that firms seek to economize ontransaction costs. Hence, in opportunistic and uncertain marketsettings with rising transaction costs both those between firms andas a consequence of the internal setting, bureaucratic allocation ofresources may be lower than the costs of making and controllingmarket transactions of (the same) resources (Williamson, 1985).

2.3. Networks: integrating intra- and inter-organizationalcoordination

In the field of Organization Studies, certain authors recognizedthe significant impact of the notion of ‘coordinative reach’ of theroutines across the boundaries of business organizations. As long asdeliberate coordination relates to primary tasks, for instance, in-stances of vertical integration, diversification or networks (in-tegrated logistics), it is relevant to refer to the concept ofmanagement control. The same holds true for those cases that theallocation of resources is performed by the price mechanisms. Thismeans that (independent) firms cooperate via organizational de-vices (planning, managerial decisions) that are also used withinorganizations. The resulting networks cover major parts of theproduction system.

The work of Langlois (2003) and Miles and Snow (1994) conjureup images of future production systems’ characteristics with high-quality demands and improved technologies. Both studies indicatethat high throughput is a relevant competitive necessity in contextsfeaturing high-quality and rapidly changing products. Such systemsrequire analyzable tasks, supported by ‘diagnostic’ technologies thatare determined on chain level (network), as opposed to productionunit level (centralization). ICTs play an indispensable role in supportof coordination and control capabilities. Examples are web sites andlinked back-office information processing systems of various differ-ently owned hospitality companies around a central theme orphysical area (such as a city square or street), the diffusions of cus-tomer and provisions information through the logistics chain andthe travel agent, who creates and maintains in his practice variouskinds of electronic relations (Keen, 1991).

The above does not suggest that all products and services shouldbe based on high mass-production throughput. For example, onecan think of specific projects and complex activities for the re-alization of innovative vocational services where speeding up theprimary processes is not yet an option with the state-of-the arttechnology. For example, certain culinary skills cannot be stan-dardized and therefore, typically require a way of cooperation,which is embedded within a cultural context such as the one sharedby chefs de cuisine.

2.4. Culture-based networks

Also, within the field of Economics, Williamson (1985) paidattention to hybrid structures where long-term relations between

A. Breukel, F.M. Go / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 184–193 187

different firms caused a network structure that was positioned onthe continuum between market and hierarchy. Boisot and Child(1996) discuss the market–hierarchy continuum and translate thegovernance mode of transactions, which they coined ‘‘the level ofdiffusions’’ (¼the degree of spread throughout the population).Furthermore, they introduce a second dimension, namely thecodification of knowledge (¼the degree of formal representation)in order to grasp the nature of information more thoroughly.

The first dimension (the level of diffusion) addresses the issueof information dispersion. This dispersion is centrally controlledwithin hierarchies while market companies can afford to diffuseinformation on a virtually unlimited basis. However, such unlimiteddiffusion is only fruitful for formal relations if the flow concernsquantitative information. It is not suitable to deal with complexmatters; specific problems may be too complex to be formalized sothat they are not addressed properly in the case of formalization.Intangible services and information are already valued more highlythan the tangible, physical goods (Collis & Montgomery, 1995). Therole of both data and immaterial resources tends to becomeeven more important and preferred by users in the context of a morecomplex and dynamic global information economy (Boisot, 2002).

The second dimension pays attention to how to deal with un-certainty. It underscores that human knowledge is not only explicitin nature, but has a tacit dimension as well (Nonaka, 1991). Knowl-edge is present in a web of people, documents, routines, hardwareand information systems (Boersma, 1995). Uncodified, qualitative ortacit information often flows slowly and requires an informal contextbecause it is caused by uniqueness, path dependency (historicalaccumulation of knowledge) and causal ambiguity.

The application of both dimensions creates a cultural spaceor C-space (Boisot, 2002). Within this C-space one can distinguisha typology of business systems, that range from codified rule-driven‘bureaucracies’ and ‘market systems’ to ‘fiefs’ (isolated cultureswherein information is usually controlled by one powerful in-dividual who generally decides whether and with whom toshare information) and ‘clans’ (see Table 1). Clans can be regarded ascultures where information tends to be shared by a group who arepositively imposed to sharing same with other clans. Fiefs and clansare typically seen to steer themselves through processes of informallinkages and moral contacts that are based on shared values.

As stated before, the network economy levers the advantages ofboth the market scope and specialization of specific companies tofoster the use of modular business processes. However, the latter, in

Table 1Different business systems (Boisot & Child, 1996)

2. BUREAUCRACIES• Information diffusion limited and under

central control• Relationships impersonal and

hierarchical• Submission to superordinate goals• Hierarchical coordination• No necessity to share values and beliefs

STR

UC

TU

RE

DIN

FO

RM

AT

ION

1. FIEFS• Information diffusion limited by lack of

codification to face-to-face relationship• Relationships personal and hierarchical

(feudal/charismatic)• Submission to superordinate goals• Hierarchical coordination• Necessity to share values and beliefs

UNDIFFUSED INFORMATION

UN

STR

UC

TU

RE

DIN

FO

RM

AT

ION

itself, may be an insufficient mechanism to respond to complexity. Amarket structure comprised of clans may serve to bridge the gap inthat it offers a means of information diffusion (although not in thesame quantities) without necessarily losing the ability to deal withcomplex problems. The clan members share relational contracts andinter-firm alliances that, may possibly, involve governmental and civilagencies in supporting communal advantages. Networks possessingimplicit and trust-based relational characteristics are well-equippedto handle uncertainty and complexity. Particularly, because theirshared values make superfluous the reliance of codified informationand trustworthy relations serve as buffer against failures.

But, the clan structure has also salient disadvantages. First,among these is the notion of inertia, which creeps into processes,simply because the development of trustworthy relations typicallytakes an inordinate amount of time, at least, compared to Westernstandards. Second, access to other clans tends to be low, as estab-lished clans cling to their own traditions, in contrast to the flexi-bility within Western societies, which apply modern ICTs.

2.5. Virtual networks and ICT

In order to grasp the appropriateness of ICT, we must shift fromthe traditional communication model (the sender’s main functionis trying to persuade the receiver of the former’s value) tocommunication that is driven by a user who sends her questions asmessages via the Internet in search of an optimal (made-to-measure) response. The former is ‘static’ and relatively ‘simplistic’in nature, the latter is dynamic and rather complex in kind. Themade-to-measure concept raises the notion that communication isuniquely an individual phenomenon. It is not only information thatcounts, but also how an individual interprets it. Our ‘intelligence’adds value to content of media and conversations.

The existence of social networks in the context of neighbor-hoods and within web communities, for instance offer evidencethat individuals rarely function as an island. Rather their thoughtsare often profoundly shaped through the interaction with otherindividuals, who together form a reference group. Within suchcontext individuals can, of course, have membership in more thanone reference group.

Based on Gummesson’s (2004) ‘network-to-network marketing’perspective contemporary social interactions tend to follow aprocess that is more akin to ‘tribal communication behavior’,which, in turn, is posited diametrically opposite the traditional

3. MARKETS• Information widely diffused, no control• Relationships impersonal and competitive • No superordinate goals - each one for himself• Horizontal coordination through self-

regulation• No necessity to share values and beliefs

4. CLANS• Information is diffused but still limited by

lack of codification to face-to-face relationships

• Relationships personal but nonhierarchical• Goals are shared through a process of

negotiation• Horizontal coordination through negotiation• Necessity to share values and beliefs

DIFFUSED INFORMATION

A. Breukel, F.M. Go / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 184–193188

communication model. Projections indicate that new ICTs willallow more contextual data to be transmitted. In the past there wasno alternative, but to encode messages in a telegraphic form, andsubsequently sent same by telex. Presently, users can choose fromvarious options to mail their correspondence. For example, they cansend it by fax; e-mail, or alternatively select videoconferencing asa substitute for their memo; so much for convenience. Moreover,the increasing bandwidth availability is reducing the ratio of whatneeds to be communicated face-to-face and what can be trans-mitted over a communication network (Boisot, 2002).

The above discussion concerning the different communicationsmodels, which individuals and organizations lever to perform andcoordinate their efforts has blossomed since the advent ofe-business. Malone et al. (2006) state how different taxonomies anddefinitions of components of so-called business models have re-cently entered the scene. A good example are the elements referredto in the European Commission supported ISTAG report about sce-narios for Ambient Intelligence (Ducatel et al, 2001). It mentions‘start-up’ and ‘spin-off’ opportunities (for meeting new serviceneeds), mass customization, customer’s attention economy (where‘free’ end-users services are paid for by advertising) and self-provision (where user communities mutually provide information).These elements presently are manifest in different models, whichinclude inter-organizational arrangements that we can observe inphenomena such as outsourcing, partnerships, leasing and fran-chising structures. The impact of ICT on society and the rise of in-dividual needs create both opportunities and threats for the futureevolution of the hospitality sector. Currently, the hospitality sectorfaces an important challenge within the ICT context. Simply put, itlacks in the means for knowledge-based network participation in adestination and event marketing platform. It is argued that a modelthat integrates the analytical strengths of ICTs with the inter-organizational knowledge sharing process of public and privateorganizations is likely to yield knowledge that ‘can be utilized tounderpin and enhance the marketing management function’(Chaston, 2004), that yield results for both the hospitality enterpriseand destination.

The complex tasks require ‘free-flowing’ information as if thevirtual community was a physical one. Modern ICT may serve asa leverage to create a virtual community for not only employees andintermediates but also customers. With good supportive in-stitutions the virtual community results in a clan. But ICT, eventhough it enables de-codified communication, is by itself in-sufficient to bring about clan formation. Within the digital agecharacterized by outsourcing and ‘loose ties’, the needs of pro-fessional knowledge-workers can be viewed as being increasinglyboth ‘temporary’ and ‘distributed’. Therefore, the authors followCiborra’s (1999) perspective who claims that the professionalknowledge-worker should be typified as a ‘stranger’ who in pursuitof livelihood through project-oriented assignments has a regularneed of temporary support. Not only the hard and software type, butespecially the ‘hospitality’ kind, i.e. a degree of emotional support,that has its origin in the social interaction with group-members,who display shared values, within an atmospheric environment,that match his tastes and services that cater to his profile needs.

2.6. Hospitality

Hospitality may be interpreted, from an anthropologicalperspective (Nunez, 1979) as an ancient institution involving anunderstanding of patterns of interaction between local residents,the host, and individual or groups of visitors (the guests). In thepreindustrial age, being away from home was dangerous; travelerson the route Florence–Champagne–Bruges needed caravans forsecurity and safe havens to spend the night (Hunt & Murray, 1999).Hospitality meant offering an institution of safety.

A series of recent events, in particular the press coverage of 9/11,SARS, tourism targeted terrorist attacks in Bali, Amman and Sharm-el-Sheik, the London bombings and the reported disappearance ofNatalee Holloway has had dramatic effects on tourist destinationsand caused them to take measures with regard to destination im-age recovery. From a commercial perspective in Cassee and Reuland(1983, pp. xiv) ‘hospitality’ is defined as ‘‘a harmonious mixture ofproduct, environment and behavior to satisfy the needs of guests’’.Due to the ‘intrusion’ of ICTs as a stranger as seen by Ciborra (1999)the hospitality phenomenon has moved beyond the physical space,for example in the form of ‘web-hosting’. It implies that cyberspaceaffords people to include and be hosted along a continuum of fourworlds or time dimensions as proposed by Go and van Fenema(2006): a material world, an information world, a mental world anda world of social interaction.

How might hospitality enterprises capitalize on the opportuni-ties afforded by the Internet and related web-services? John SeelyBrown, former chief scientist, Xerox Corporations suggest that the‘‘idea is to create a physical space that enables you to move aroundin that space, and to create a social space that encourages you toswap and share and help each other. If you can design the physicalspace, the social space and the information space together to en-hance collaborative learning, then that whole milieu turns intoa learning technology’’ (Brown and Isaacs, 2005, p. 60).

So, in essence the forces of digitalization and globalization leadus towards a ‘mobilizing of hospitality’, requiring not only newforms of mobility but also presumably a new ‘ethics of ‘mobilesocial life’, comprised of a mixture of traveling, visiting, and hostingincreasingly conducted at a distance (Larsen et al., 2007). At thesame time that technological transformation affords the creation ofvirtual communities where people who have never met can seekand retrieve data for their mutual purposes. But it raises many is-sues regarding the adoption of ICTs in the workplace and ‘work-lifebalance’. In short, many people require forms of social supporta space, which Zuboff and Maxmin (2003) refer to as the ‘supporteconomy’. Within their framework the hospitality paradigm is seento offer workers, beside host–guest interaction, a sense of ‘sanc-tuary’, i.e. a genuine ‘home-away-from-home’ feeling. Also, soci-ologist Richard Sennett relates, albeit using different words, to thephenomenon of sanctuary. In particular he refers to the role of thechurch in Western civilization, which creates a zone of ‘immunity’for the citizen, an ordered place in which the person experiencesa sense of security (Bull, 2006).

A dimension that Larsen et al. (2007) argue has been all butignored in research and only recently are researchers addressingthe issue of (re)producing social networks with (re)visiting andreceiving the hospitality of friends and kin living elsewhere andfulfilling social obligations. Finally, Little et al. argue that newnetworked relationships afford opportunity to bind ‘‘distant loca-tions into virtual neighborhoods’’ (Little, Holmes, & Go, 2006, p. 10).For instance, it caused ‘a new sense of connection between Westerntourists and the communities that hosted them in the tsunami-affected regions of Asia’.

The authors feel the need to emphasize the potential role ofthe hospitality to, once again, support an institutional context ofsecurity. It is the expectation that, due to the mentioned de-velopments, work and personal time will mingle more and more.And it is in this situation that people need places where they canwork and relax in terms of the ‘support economy’. We propose a rolefor hospitality entrepreneurs to offer such place and give threeexamples of clients for whom such a contribution by the hospitalitysector could be relevant.

We give three examples of clients for whom such a contributionby the hospitality sector is relevant. First, there are the foreign(Chinese, Indian) guests who are willing to explore Europe and theNetherlands in particular. At home, information about the journey

A. Breukel, F.M. Go / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 184–193 189

and services is needed for navigational purposes (e.g., where arewe, are there alternative accommodations, can I contact home?).

Second, communities within the civil society are organizingthemselves virtually but need physical places to meet as well. Dueto blurring borders between ‘branches’ in the economy neighbor-hood meeting venues and the centers of volunteer organizationsmight play a more prominent role in this regard, in future.

Third, the hospitality sector could leverage the capacity of freelancers to complete tasks (administrative and marketing e.g. direct‘traffic’ the way of entrepreneurs who are located elsewhere) atlower costs. Michael Wolff (2004), for instance, refers to ki-working, a modern adaptation of home-sourcing. Ki-workers (ki isthe Japanese expression for trusted relationship) earn roughly thesame amount per effective hour as the UK employee but needs to beavailable only 70% of the total time. Working as a member ofa network, this home-shoring approach supports the work-lifebalance while it is at the same time competitive with off-shoringbecause of lower operational overheads.

So, especially in complex situations where clients requirea context that exists of more than only ‘bits and bytes’, the hospi-tality business can play a major role in delivering the ‘nodes’ ofa suitable environment. Hence, we translate our preliminaryquestion in the following main question whether the hospitalitysector is ready to offer the required organizational and leadershipbehavior, within the scope of the (digital) network context.

2 Compass for policy (2005), publication of ‘Bedrijfschap Horeca (hospitalitybusiness) en Catering’.

3. Scenario analysis methodology

In order to answer the aforementioned question, we use thescenario technique to examine the future uncertainties which theDutch hospitality sector faces. Scenario analysis develops futurescenarios as ‘‘caricatures’’ of what the world would look like in thefuture to learn from it. As stated before, we apply a non-linear,Schumpeterian view of innovation, where the future is unknownper se. Therefore, it is impossible to predict the future, but it doesnot exclude the development of plausible scenarios, which stillmake sense in 10 years time (Star, 2004).

3.1. Population and sample

The hospitality sector consists of hotels, restaurants and cafesthat may be viewed as public places of accommodation that offer anatmospheric environment and services that cater to the tastes ofspecific market profiles. From an institutional viewpoint, the hos-pitality sector may be viewed as a stakeholder who affords peopleto connect with other people on a face-to-face basis. Hospitalitydemand may be best qualified as ‘derived’ in nature, i.e. in generalthe guests’ motive to visit a particular hospitality facility is exoge-nous of that facility, for instance, a visit to a business relation, thebeach or another tourist attraction. Therefore, the essence of hos-pitality is the ‘social encounter’, in theoretical parlance the conceptof interaction within networks plays a dominant role in the objectsystem, designed with the overarching purpose to support peoplewho want to meet others or ‘the Other’ on a temporary basis ata location and in surroundings that match their needs, raging fromutility oriented facilities (e.g. fast food) to more hedonic orientedfacilities for purposes of social gathering.

The Dutch hospitality industry has a scope of 40,000 companiesthat create 11 billion euros annual sales (1% of total business sales).The companies are generally small and medium sized (often with nomore than nine employees with part-time contracts). They generatework for 340,000 employees with an annual demand of 100,000 newemployees because of their high throughput. Suppliers and producerscreate 219 billion euros sales and outside competition, other serviceproviders such as garden centers, book shops and furniture

companies, have 100 billion euros sales.2 In the network context,wherein transactions are marked by speed and ties are increasingly‘loose’, the Dutch hospitality industry has to reflect on its currentposition. Our study identified the host–guest relationship aroundwhich services are rendered in the destination and event marketingcontext as a common ground. Following on from and reiterating theearlier cited Normann (1984, p. 22) the hospitality sector should so-lidify, shape and rejuvenate its very values and ethos around thecultural perspective around the ‘host–guest encounter’.

3.2. Scenario method

Scenarios are explicit and internal consistent images of futuresettings. Scenario analysis uses a starting point and mutual relatedtrends to develop future scenarios. Trends paint the developmentsof influential factors, varying for industry factors to global issues.Van der Heijden (1996) views scenario analysis as a learning pro-cess where organizations learn how the different factors impact herso that dynamic strategic decision-making is stimulated. In thisstudy we have conducted three rounds of data-gathering andprocessing, the determination of the most influential trends andscenarios development including its strategic consequences.

3.2.1. Round 1: gathering dataRelevant secondary material on institutional context, the hos-

pitality industry, and individual hospitality companies in the period1997–2005 has been studied. Examples are sector studies, policystudies and labor market analyses. Furthermore, we have gatherednew public material (national department reports, Chambers ofCommerce, OECD reports) during the course of the study early2006 (www.horeca2015.nl). We have added new material to thesedata by interviewing members of and experts in the Dutch hospi-tality business (www.horeca2015.nl).

The institutional context consists of governmental policy andagencies, the labor market, social–economic–demographic–ecological–technological developments, stakeholders (unions,employers associations) and the civil society. The industry takesinto account customers, inter and intra-competition and suppliers.Finally, we have gathered information at the level of companies, inparticular focusing on issues concerning staff, management, in-novations and raw materials. These data enable us to gain sub-sequently insights to pursue the central object of this study, that isto say, to identify whether and to what extent the hospitality sectorparticipates in the knowledge-based community, which, in turn, ispart of a wider institutional context.

In order to identify network communities, we have dispersedthe trends as follows:

� Elements for operations and operational management: staff,technological applications and raw materials;� Industry relations within and between members: suppliers/

producers and competition;� Elements that define the identity of the community: cus-

tomers/strategic management.

Furthermore, we have described the network community by:

� Material facilities representing the traditional production fac-tors land, labor and capital: staff, ICT (inventions andinnovation) and raw materials;� Immaterial facilities that represent the cultural nature of net-

works. This offers emotional support in order to match the

Table 3Data matrix

Trend no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Passive

1 X 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 12

A. Breukel, F.M. Go / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 184–193190

tastes and services that stimulate (visiting) members: knowl-edge of and strategic behavior towards customers, partners andemployees, coordinative competences and insights in socialand emotional needs.

2 2 X 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 113 3 2 X 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 244 2 0 0 X 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 1 0 0 0 X 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 136 1 0 1 0 0 X 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 1 1 2 2 1 1 X 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 238 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 X 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 239 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 3 1910 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 611 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 X 2 1 1 3 3 3 1 2812 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 0 2 X 2 0 1 3 2 1 2513 1 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 X 1 1 1 1 0 1814 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 X 0 2 2 2 1815 2 1 3 1 0 1 2 2 2 0 3 1 1 1 X 3 1 1 2516 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 X 2 2 3317 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 X 1 1518 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 X 13

Active 24 15 23 13 14 13 19 22 20 10 20 18 18 16 14 25 20 12 316

3.2.2. Round 2: ordering trendsThe data are translated into a list of trends measured by their

indicators. The primary and secondary data analyses lead to a datamatrix that structure the trends by their mutual impact. Each trendhas an active score and a passive score. The influence of a trend onother trends gives the active score, the impact that trends receivefrom other trends is the passive score.

3.2.3. Round 3: creating scenarios and strategiesA series of three round table discussions with entrepreneurs,

consultants and policy makers (linked directly or indirectly to theindustry) is used to test the validity of the trends, scenarios andstrategic recommendations.

� Round table 1: verifications on the order of trends;� Round table 2: discussions on the scenario framework;� Round table 3: discussions on the strategic recommendations.

These three rounds offer industry specific information so thatthe present and possible role of the hospitality sectors for knowl-edge-based communities becomes visible.

4. Empirical findings

4.1. Round 1: gathering data

We have detected 18 trends, which are described by their mainindicator (Table 2).

4.2. Round 2: ordering trends

The scoring of the trends leads to the data matrix (Table 3).

Table 2Trends under scrutiny

No. Trend Indicator

1 Governmental influence Centralized versus decentralized controls2 Stakeholders Active versus passive support3 Labor market Matching supply and demand versus

mismatch4 Capital market Oppressive versus stimulating5 Civil society Active civilians versus passive civilians6 Demographic developments Stabilization versus destabilization7 Economic developments Downward versus upward8 Social developments Dependency versus emancipation9 Technological developments Low innovative ability versus high

innovative ability10 Ecological developments Low awareness versus high awareness11 Customer behavior Stable profiles (recognizable groups)

versus fluctuating profiles (empoweredcustomer)

12 Competition within the sector Low versus high competitive struggle13 Competition outside the sector Shrinking versus growing outside

interests14 Supplier/producer behavior Reactive versus passive15 Staff developments Competent versus incompetent16 Strategic management Stability (versus development learning

abilities)17 Technological applications Decrease of innovations versus increase of

innovations18 Raw materials Fresh components versus prefab

components

From the data matrix, the five most important trends have beenderived (Table 4).

4.3. Round 3: creating scenarios and strategies

The two highest active trends have been chosen to form a sce-nario framework. Strategic management is, however, postponedbecause we apply this trend to react on the scenarios. Furthermore,the discussion during the first round table made clear that the trendof the Government has a rather general influence; it is not specif-ically aimed at the hospitality business and is therefore less in-teresting in this study. Besides, several issues from Socialdevelopments are taken into account at customer behavior. Finally,the trends on Technology are assessed as interesting, but less rel-evant than customer behavior.

After this discussion, we chronicle the trends of Labor market(annual demand for 100,000 new employees) and customer be-havior, resulting in a scenario framework by stretching these trends(Fig. 1).

The x-axis (labor market) runs from a total mismatch betweenemployer needs and labor market supply (quantitative and quali-tative) to a total match (the employer can work with perfect em-ployees). The y-axis stretches between the customer of traditionalmarket segments (known by demography, taste etc.) and empow-ered customers who cannot be known by their backgrounds. Eachof them has a specific profile of needs, which changes over time(today diner at a high class restaurant, the next day to McDonalds).

Scenario 4 (the traditional comfort zone) resembles the presenttimes. At present times, the industry is in a transition from stablemarket segments to profiles, and the customers are satisfied withthe services offered by the employees (average 7.63).

In its ‘traditional comfort zone’, however, the Dutch hospitalityindustry does not seem to grasp the opportunities offered by thetwin forces of changing client needs and ICT developments thatsupport a culture-based network for the effective coordination ofbusiness-to-consumer (b2c) and the business-to-business (b2b)relationships. Independent hospitality entrepreneurs’ practiceswithin networks either facilitate or constrain the group decision-making and how external market demands are internalized ormodified in the destination and event knowledge system.

3 www.foodstep.nl.

Table 4Most important trends

Position Trend Trend number Score

1 Strategic management 16 252 Governmental influence 1 243 Labor market 3 234 Social developments 8 225 Technological developments 9 20

Technological applications 17 20Customer behavior 11 20

A. Breukel, F.M. Go / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 184–193 191

We continue with the three remaining scenarios to explore thepossible role of culture-based virtual networks with nodes andICTs to enhance personal exchanges. The scenarios are presentedby keywords. The numbers between the brackets refer to thetrends.

Scenario 1. Your new private paradise.� Positive economic development (7) with many foreign and

professional guests (6, 11);� Virtual and physical elements in services create high added

value and do-it-yourself (DIY) applications (9);� Guests are present in changing personal and business networks

and look for fun and supportive moments; senior guests clusterthemselves (5, 11);� Education is differentiated for technical and social skills (3, 15);� New chains and networks of service offering organizations

have risen. Customers may participate in these chains (14).

Scenario 2. Hospitality business (horeca), but not as we know it.� Positive economic development (7) with many foreign and

professional guests (6, 11);� Guests are present in changing personal and business networks

and look for fun and supportive moments; senior guests clusterthemselves (5, 11);� Virtual and physical elements in services create high added

value and do-it-yourself (DIY) applications (9);� New chains and networks of service offering organizations

have risen. Customers may participate in these chains (14);� A shake-out of traditional hospitality companies takes place,

partial due to the fact that outside competitors (producers,other service providers such as garden centers, book shops andfurniture companies) successfully attract the former hospitalitycustomers (13, 14);� Small- and medium-sized companies have problems with the

mix of conceptual thinking (new strategies) and professional

Quadrant 1: up and fit -

Your new private paradise

Mat

ch L

abor

MA

rket

Labor market: m

ismatch

Guest: traditional segmentation

Guest-empoweredconsumers: different andchanging profiles

Quadrant 2: up and misfit –

Horeca , but not as we know it

Quadrant 4 : low and fit –

The traditional comfort zone Quadrant 3: low and misfi

t –

Our traditio

nal paradisel ost

Fig. 1. Scenario framework (customer behavior versus labor market).

daily services (creating effectiveness and efficiency) and sohave difficulty with approaching and hiring the appropriateemployees (15);� The skills of employees are lagging those of the outside

competition (15, 17);� The adolescent attitude (high level of assertiveness) is seen as

a burden (8); schools combine education with raising children,which causes problems in traditional hospitality educationcenters (3).

Scenario 3. Our traditional paradise lost.� The global economy has stagnated (5). Consumers are co-

cooning although there are large niches of independent con-sumers who find each other by the Internet (11). Foreign gueststravel to Europe but are dissatisfied with rendered hospitalityservices (6);� Eminent convenience food results in more DIY home cooking

(9, 18);� The development of home cooking increases the issue of food

safety (18);� The quantitative and qualitative lack of employees is high,

partly due to the non-professional adolescent attitude (3, 8,15);� Small- and medium-sized companies have problems with the

mix of conceptual thinking (new strategies) and professionaldaily services (creating effectiveness and efficiency) and sohave difficulty with approaching and hiring the appropriateemployees (15).

The aforementioned three scenarios may differ strongly, but allmake clear that entrepreneurs may expect different contexts, de-manding flexible, efficient and/or innovative hospitality. Theseresults lead us to the following answer to the research question. Thepresent situation of the hospitality industry, as described in sce-nario 4, reveals a high number of unrelated functioning companiesof stakeholders, i.e., an untidy mix of exchanges between user, pro-amateurs, civilians, civil servants and the recreation, education and(new) media sector. Therefore, it may be characterized by a dearthof collaborative efforts, which are needed to create a culture-basednetwork for the effective coordination of business–consumer re-lationships. In the face of developing trends, such perceived lack ofwillingness to grasp the impact of different scenarios, includingsuch topics as the shifting nature of the competitive game and itsimpact on the hospitality sector, the intentions and capabilities ofcompetitors offering ‘substitutes’, and the opportunities affordedby ICTs result in three possible scenarios, including competitiveshifts. The discussion that follows suggests alternative responses.

5. Discussion of strategic options

Several strategic recommendations are added to the individualscenarios, which may be useful in those cases that call for the mon-itoring of future developments. First the recommendations arespecified, after which hypotheses are presented in the case theserecommendations are followed or ignored.

Strategic option for Scenario 1. Your new private paradise.The central claim of this strategy is the mixtures of entrepre-

neurship (conceptual thinking) and professional services (theprovision of effective and efficient services).

1. Align with communities of guests and involve them with newproduct developments;

2. Combine new products development with the service of theearlier and proven concept until the new concept is effective;

3. Seek cooperation with marketing agencies to understand newmarket developments;

A. Breukel, F.M. Go / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 184–193192

4. Coordinate the chain or network;5. Cooperate with hospitality competitors to offer a common

service (virtually and physically);6. Continue educational efforts after the formal education

(granulation).

The aforementioned efforts may result in the emergence ofdominant hospitality companies within a service network. Theysupport (the combination of) physical and virtual communities bycooperation with volatile customers. This is especially effective inthe combination of physical and virtual elements. This is not to saythat mass elements cannot be present in the business model; en-trepreneurs should be careful to seek the places where specificservices can be delivered by mass-production techniques. Beingpart of a chain opens outsourcing and partnering opportunities tocreate such a situation. Even more, the labor force problem hasbecome a shared problem: the network approach relieves the in-dustry for the obligation to acquire all of the labor itself; it mayexploit other participant’s abilities to do so.

Without strategic efforts, that introduce ‘novelty’ in the busi-ness, a situation may occur in which other hospitality companiesbecome the leading organization in the sector.

Strategic option for Scenario 2. Hospitality business (horeca), butnot as we know it.

Entrepreneurship and professional attitude is stimulated byalignment with the practices of international competing foodproducers and suppliers, and competitors from outside the hospi-tality business.

1. Hospitality entrepreneurs could diversify by exploiting theirhospitality knowledge for project in other industries;

2. Participation in chains from raw materials, components to endproducts without being the main coordinator;

3. Design alternative educational trajectories after the formalgraduation from schools;

4. Reach out for adolescents by combing their attitude with ‘oldfashioned’ practices. Cooperate with business initiatives whooffer learn-work internships;

5. Involve inhabitants with a foreign background by makingschool more important and give it a function as incubator.Schools and neighborhood projects are optional;

6. Mix older employees (by acknowledging their earlier gainedexperiences) and younger employees in order to reach conti-nuity without sticking to traditional practices.

The application of strategic option 2 is likely to result in domi-nant ‘third parties’ from other sectors in combination with hospi-tality companies, for the joint-exploitation of their complementaryknowledge and to learn to master their inter-organizational capa-bilities. Here, we see that the spin-off and sourcing business modelhas given third parties the opportunity to enter the hospitalityindustry, often backed by powerful holding companies with scaleand scope advantages. Where appropriate, the stellar reputation ofthe latter may help hospitality companies to manage its position inthe network as a critical task and their enhanced position in thenetwork may aid recruitment, training opportunities and reward ofstaff. By contrast, the lack of such strategic exercises may lead toa monopoly of third parties from other industries. From the point ofview of the hospitality companies, innovations have then beencompetence destroying (Tushman & Anderson, 1986).

Strategic option for Scenario 3. Our traditional paradise lost.Entrepreneurship and professional attitude is stimulated by

paying attention to counter trends and communities of guests, civilsociety and governmental participants.

1. The present attention for convenience food may result ina counter trend for fresh and artisan regional food. Companiesmay support home preparation;

2. The civil society has become more important to fill the holesthat the hospitality companies leave. Several entrepreneurscooperate with these civil initiatives;

3. Because the labor market does not offer sufficient full timeemployees, it is recommended to seek for more part-time op-tions without the creation of a high throughput (labor pools, ki-workers). It prevents illegal practices and reinvestments in newstaff;

4. More attention for technology is useful in order to parry thelabor market problems.

Strategic option 3 aims at getting a strong position as nicheplayer, supportive to the functioning of the destination and eventmarketing community of practice in which civil society and thirdparties play a major role. Especially, the drive of the civil commu-nity is important here. Civil society groups (created aroundneighborhood, lifestyle and so on) may use the self-provisionbusiness models to organize themselves in order to create a marketentry. From the point of the traditional hospitality entrepreneur,the concept of co-creation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004) may befruitful to cooperate with these groups and so participate in theresulting niches, not alone where it concerns the demand of ser-vices, but also of the supply efforts and labor force.

If strategic option 3 fails to perform successfully, local hospi-tality companies may have to relinquish their role to other industryplayers (brand-name transnational corporations) and stakeholders,who are able to add value through service delivery and currentlyoperate beyond the boundaries of the destination and event mar-keting community of practice.

6. Conclusions

This study applied a scenario analysis perspective to underscorethe significant potential that knowledge-based network participa-tion in destination and event marketing platform holds for theformulation of hospitality business strategy. It claims that the host–guest relationship and the chain relations between providers con-tinue to play a central role in the competitive positioning of thehospitality industry, but the sector should be aware of the influenceof the innovation environment, particularly, the role of ICTs insetting the overall strategic direction, affect the coordination offunctional activities and their outcomes, including their contribu-tion towards resolving the labor market shortage. If the sector isunable to capitalize on the opportunities, substitutes and supplierswhose bargaining power exceeds that of the hospitality sector arelikely to step into the void.

The contribution of the paper is the demonstration of howa different vision on ‘hospitality’ leads to different venues whereentrepreneurs, public institutions and ICT-developments meet(Normann, 1984). On the one hand, it elucidates that hospitalitysites, being ‘nodes’ in a network, do not have to solve all labor andICT demands themselves (Malone, 2004; Miles & Snow, 1994). Onthe other hand, they can concentrate on their main capacity,namely the offering of a place where the ‘stranger’, in his or herquality as worker, traveler or private person, is welcome. The in-tegration of both sides leads to business models that intertwine ICTand networks from ‘hosting’ as the point of departure, in order tooffer clients the opportunity to realize a healthy mixture of workingand ‘living’ activities (Larsen et al., 2007). It is these businessmodels, which represent the ‘support economy’ meaning of hos-pitality, that we see arise in the scenarios (Zuboff & Maxmin, 2003).

In summary, scenario 1 shows a future where a shake-out oftraditional hospitality companies has taken place and only

A. Breukel, F.M. Go / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 184–193 193

hospitality companies that support physical and virtual communitiesby cooperation with volatile customers while using virtual andphysical elements, have filled the gap. In scenario 2, one of the mainissues is the matter of sourcing of network knowledge beyond theentrepreneurs’ own trade. Actors from other sectors (food producers,suppliers) take over coordinative efforts and gain a central positionin the service network. Hospitality companies may have a comebackby first aligning with these companies, then by learning from themand finally by becoming a serious network partner. In scenario 3,customers might abandon the independent pursuit of business infavor of destination network-driven approach wherein proliferatingdestination/event and web-based social organizations serve both theindividual and collective interests. In fact, the social network ofguests and civil society members takes over. Following scenario 3,hospitality companies could perform an important supportive roleby aligning its internal atmospheric context to the one established bythe destination and event marketing network.

In all three scenarios discussed, the necessity of network crea-tion and implementation emerged as a converging theme to solvedemand and supply of (labor) services and infrastructure. Newmedia offer significant potential for platform development to en-hance connectivity and market-based coordination between allstakeholders. But still the face-to-face encounters of networkmembers are not to be ignored in order to share complex in-formation with one another. Combining these virtual and physicalworlds results in so-called knowledge clans. In all scenarios moreemphasis could then be put on material facilities, including ICT, forinstance for the improvement of formal logistic procedures that area prerequisite for intelligent business development.

It is concluded that aforementioned innovative learning trajec-tories ask for transformational strategies, not only of individualhospitality entrepreneurs, but also of the destination network asa whole. Further study will be aimed at finding settings neighboringout of the ‘standard’ hospitality sector where the offering of servicesis related with hosting the guest as a welcome client. We think of theinsourcing of hospitality services and education in the area of privatebanking, the provision of journeys within multinationals and so on.These services, in business as well as in private situations, can beleveraged by seeing hospitality as an institution of security.

The application of transformations towards these networks isfeasible because throughout its history the hospitality industry hasoften changed its organizational patterns (Ganter, 2004). Suchtransformation requires, however, a combination of high-impactexplorative changes with a high impact followed by exploitation,meaning fine-tuning efforts (O’Reilly & Tushman, 1996). For thecustomer, however, the power structure within networks is un-important. Instead, what counts are the decisions and plans thatstakeholders make about network applications to cope with con-temporary dilemmas. Particularly, in the overlap of differentknowledge networks, destination and event marketing, the hospi-tality sector and the planning intervention to revitalize local com-munities, lies opportunity to develop support and implement newsolutions that respond in quicker, more flexible, less costly ways tothe desires and lifestyles of many different and changing individuals.

References

Boersma, S. K. Th. (1995). Kennismanagement: een creatieve onderneming. Inauguraladdress. the Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Boisot, M. (2002). Information, space, and the information-space: a conceptualframework. Draft. Available from. www.uoc.edu/in3/gnike/eng/docs/dp_02_boisot.doc.

Boisot, M., & Child, J. (1996). From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: ex-plaining China’s emerging economic order. Administrative Science Quarterly,41(4), 600–628.

Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The world cafe shaping our futures through conversa-tions that matter. San Francisco: Berett-Koehler.

Bull, M. (2006). Iconic designs: the Apple iPod. Third International Workshop onMobile Music Technology, 2–3 March, University of Sussex, UK.

Cassee, E., & Reuland, R. (Eds.). (1983). The management of hospitality. Oxford:Pergamon Press.

Chandler, A. D. (1992). Organizational capabilities and the economic history. Journalof Economic Perspectives, 6(6), 79–100.

Chaston, I. (2004). Knowledge-based marketing. London: Sage.Ciborra, C. U. (1999). Hospitality and IT, Prima Vera working paper 99-02. Available

from. University of Amsterdam. http://primavera.fee.uva.nl/PDFdocs/99-02.pdf.Collis, D. J. & Montgomery, C. A. (July–August 1995). Competing on resources.

Harvard Business Review, 118–128.Compass for Policy 2005: Trend Study for the Dutch Hospitality Business. (2005).

[Kompas voor beleid 2005: trendstudie voor de Nederlandse Horeca. (2005)].Zoetermeer: Bedrijfschap Horeca en Catering.

Ducatel, K., Bogdanowicz, M., Scapolo, F., Leijten, J., & Burgelman, J. C. (2001).Scenarios for ambient intelligence. Available from. Luxembourg: EuropeanCommission. www.cordis.lu/ist/istag.htm.

Ganter, H.-D. (July 2004). Changes in work organisation in French top-quality res-taurants. Business History, 46(3), 439–470.

Gnoth, J. (2002). Levering export brands through a tourism destination brand. BrandManagement, 9(40-5), 262–280.

Go, F. M., & van Fenema, P. C. (2006). Moving bodies and connecting minds in space:a matter of mind over matter. In S. R. Clegg, & M. Kornberger (Eds.), Space,organizations and management theory (pp. 64–78). Copenhagen, Denmark: Liber& Copenhagen Business School Press.

Gummesson, E. (2004). From one-to-one to many-to many marketing. The PlenarySession presentation. The Quis 9 Symposium, Karlstad University, Sweden. InB. Edvardsson, A. Gustafsson, S. W. Brown, & R. Johnston (Eds.), Service ex-cellence in management: Interdisciplinary contributions. Proceedings from theQUIS 9 Symposium, 15–18 June, (pp. 16–25). Karlstad, Sweden: Karlstad Uni-versity.

Hunt, E. S., & Murray, J. M. (1999). A history of business in medieval Europe, 1200–1550. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keen, P. G. W. (1991). Shaping the future: Business design through information tech-nology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Labor market analysis. (2005). [Arbeidsmarktanalyse 2005. (2005)]. Zoetermeer:Bedrijfsschap Horeca en Catering.

Langlois, R. (2003). The vanishing hand: the changing dynamics of industrialcapitalism. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(2), 351–385.

Larsen, J., Urry, J., & Axhausen, K. W. (January 2007). Networks and tourism: mobilesocial life. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 244–262.

Little, S., Holmes, L., & Go, F. (2006). The skill of travel: networks into neighbor-hoods. European Spatial Research and Policy, 13(1), 9–22.

Malone, T. W. (2004). The future of work. How the new order of business will shapeyour organization, your management style, and your life. Boston: Harvard Busi-ness School.

Malone, T. W., Weill, P., Lai, R. K., D’Urso, V. T., Herman, G., Apel, T. G., et al. (May2006). Do some business models perform better than others?. MIT Sloan Re-search Paper No. 4615–06. Available from SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract¼920667.

March, J., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley.Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1994). Fit, failure and the hall of fame: How organizations

succeed or fail. New York: The Free Press.Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-

Hall.Nonaka, I. (November–December 1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard

Business Review, 96–104.Normann, R. (1984). Service management strategy and leadership in service busi-

nesses. Chicester: Wiley.Nunez, T. (1979). Touristic studies in anthropological perspective. In V. L. Smith (Ed.),

Host and guests the anthropology of tourism. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managingevolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4),8–30.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition co-creatingunique value with customers. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior. A study of decision-making processes inadministrative organization (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. (First published1945).

Star, J. (2004). The Edinburgh scenarios. Global scenarios for the future of eLearning.World summit eLearning, Edinburgh.

Stevens, L. G. M. (2007). Regels op maat. Eindrapport Commissie Stevens, Slo-taanbevelingen aan het kabinet voor de aanpak van de regeldruk. The Hague:Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategicmanagement. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.

Tushman, M. L., & Andersen, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organi-zational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465.

Van der Heijden, K. (1996). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. New York:John Wiley.

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.Wolff, M. (28 December 2004). Homely solution to the offshore exodus: the office at

home could help stem the flow of jobs leaving UK. The Guardian.Zuboff, S., & Maxmin, J. (2003). The support economy: Why corporations are failing

Individuals and the next episode of capitalism. Allen Lane: The Penguin Press.