final presentation of rm

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    1/21

    Presentation of Research

    Methodology

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    2/21

    Introduction This study was conducted on the subject customer

    satisfaction in restaurants.

    The basic purpose was to determine the factors that explaincustomer satisfaction in the full service restaurant industry.

    It touches nearly every household in one way or another.

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    3/21

    Objective OfThe Study Is going to restaurant daily a social status.

    To study how demographic variable (age, gender,

    income, occupation) affect consumer preferences andsatisfaction.

    To see whether brand name of restaurants makes anydifference on customer decision in selecting a

    restaurant.

    To see whether region or cultural background helps todevelop any special taste preference.

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    4/21

    Methodology

    The research was conducted on sample size of101respondents.

    Region selected for research was Chandigarh.

    Convenient sampling .

    Response rate - 100%.

    The research was conducted in the month ofApril 2010.

    Scale used were :

    Likert scale

    Ranking scale

    Demographics

    Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used.

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    5/21

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    6/21

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    7/21

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    8/21

    male

    50%

    female

    50% male

    female

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    9/21

    AGE

    9%

    74%

    5%12%

    below 18

    18- 25

    26- 35

    36 and below

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    10/21

    Pie Showing Respondents Belonging To Different

    Annual Family Income Groups

    ANNUAL INCOME

    17%

    50%

    33%150000- 300000

    300000- 500000

    500000 and above

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    11/21

    Table showing Average responses of the respondents ondifferent categories offood.

    Gender

    Chinese PunjabiSouthIndian Continental Mexican Italian

    Male 1.86 1.51 2.45 2.00 1.90 2.04

    Female 1.94 1.86 2.22 2.04 1.82 2.24

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    12/21

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    13/21

    Analysis Of Variance

    Aim To study the relation between the preference of food withdifferent age groups.

    Setting up of Hypothesis

    Alternate Hypothesis: There is significant difference in thepreference of food with different age groups.

    Level of significance at 5%.

    Summary table:

    continued.

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    14/21

    From the above table it is calculated that the null hypothesis is rejected and alternate

    hypothesis is accepted.

    The calculated value is less than the critical value.

    So there is significantly difference in the preferences ofdifferent age groups.

    ANOVA

    Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

    Chinese Between Groups 3.469 3 1.156 1.224 .306

    Within Groups 80.328 85 .945

    Total 83.798 88

    Punjabi Between Groups 7.022 3 2.341 1.996 .120

    Within Groups 109.040 93 1.172

    Total 116.062 96

    south Indian Between Groups 2.105 3 .702 .471 .703

    Within Groups 120.648 81 1.489

    Total 122.753 84continental Between Groups 2.154 3 .718 .414 .744

    Within Groups 100.620 58 1.735

    Total 102.774 61

    Mexican Between Groups .790 3 .263 .256 .857

    Within Groups 33.967 33 1.029

    Total 34.757 36

    Italian Between Groups 3.533 3 1.178 .606 .614

    Within Groups 93.236 48 1.942

    Total 96.769 51

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    15/21

    The minimum expected count is 2.02.

    The alternate hypothesis is accepted as the calculated value is more than the

    critical or table value.

    So there is significant difference in the annual family income with the money

    spent on per visit.

    Chi square test

    Aim To study the relation between the annual family income and themoney spent on per visit to a restaurant.

    Setting up of hypothesis

    Alternate hypothesis : There is significant difference in the annual family

    income with the money spent on per visit to a restaurant.

    Level of significance- 5%

    Summary table-

    Value df Asymp. Sig.

    (2-sided)

    PearsonC

    hi-Square 3.357a

    4 .500

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    16/21

    The minimum expected count is 4.46.

    Null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted as the

    calculated value is more than the table value.

    The gender plays a role in frequency of visiting a restaurant.

    Chi square test Aim- To study whether gender plays any role in frequency of visiting a

    restaurant. Setting up of Hypothesis

    Alternate hypothesis : The gender plays role in frequency of visiting arestaurant.

    Summary table:

    Value df

    Asymp. Sig.

    (2-sided)

    PearsonChi-Square 7.442a 4 .114

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    17/21

    The minimum expected count is 4.46.

    The alternate hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.

    Chi square Test Aim To study whether gender affects choice to explore different

    restaurants of the city.

    Setting of Hypothesis Alternate hypothesis: Gender affects choice of exploring different

    restaurants of the city.

    Summary table:

    Value df Asymp. Sig.

    (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square .101a 1 .750

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    18/21

    The minimum expected count is 3.96.

    Alternate hypothesis is accepted as the calculated value is more than the

    critical value or table value.

    So the brand name ofrestaurant makes difference in the opinion of gender.

    Chi square test Aim- To study whether the brand name of the restaurant makes

    difference in the opinion of gender.

    Setting of hypothesis:

    Alternate hypothesis : The brand name of the restaurant makesdifference in the opinion of gender.

    Summary table

    Value df Asymp. Sig.

    (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square

    18.541a 4 .001

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    19/21

    Limitations

    Due to constraint of resources region for research wasrestricted to Chandigarh on the sample size of 101 only.

    In case of few respondents guinea pig effect was alsoseen.

    There was hesitation in case of many respondents in

    disclosing there monthly spending.Use of convenient sampling.

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    20/21

  • 8/7/2019 final presentation of rm

    21/21