You are on page 1of 14

Data Analysis Report on

“Food For Fork”

Data Analysis Report on
“Food For Fork”

1

which provides many fine services like the entrees. . Therefore. so he also willing to know about behavior of consumers. he needs a lot of information about current market scenario of restaurant industry. Since. upscale restaurant. he has saved a lot of capital and for additional capital. whether he should open his restaurant or not in to this city and what will be outcome of problems. Mr. design and ambience of the restaurant and so on.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” 2 Introduction This report is data analysis for the company “Food for Fork”. Jenkins and the banker are ready to invest in this project to open a new restaurant. drinks and dessert with an elegant atmosphere. This restaurant is going to be opened in a large metropolitan area. the analysis of market survey has been done with the help of proper analysis methods via Ms Excel and hypothesis. To open a restaurant in a metro city. location for the restaurant. Jenkins is going to open an upscale restaurant. since he served his work in this industry as a supply sales representative. Jenkins.000. which help the owner of the “Food and Fork” to start a restaurant business in a metro city in a proper way. like desirable amount pay for an upscale entrée. This report will suggest Mr. Jenkins is willing to open a fine. Mr. Jenkins is liked to open his own restaurant. Mr. he talked with a banker and both Mr. the population of this metro area is nearly 500. He has quite good knowledge of restaurant industry. In this context. For this. Background of the Study “Food For Fork” is a name of a restaurant which is going to be opened by Michael Jenkins (restaurant supply sales representative).

5 1444.critical 1.500? T test can be defined as a statistical examination. Annual Income Mean Standard Error Median Mode Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness Minimum Maximum Sum Count Degree of freedom 72087. 2003).84 64 72000 60000 28896.5 t.criticcal 0.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” 3 Description of Each Hypothesis Does the average income of the people surveyed differ from $68.06673 52 -4000 156000 288350 00 400 399 t-caluclated 3587.13849 97 0. T test of two-sample determines that whether two samples are different from each other or not and this testy is generally used when the variances of two normal distributions are not known and when the experiment is using small amount of sample size (Graham.0000 0 . which is conducted for two population means.9 28 835032 425 0.9659 272 P.

which is taken as a standard amount of salary per year of people who will be able to spend in the restaurant. The alternative hypothesis or H1 is accepted and it indicates that the income of the surveyed people is not equal to $68500.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” 4 Here we have used one sample t test as one sample t test is used to compare single mean of a population to a specified fixed number. the questioned has asked to measure whether the average income of the people who are surveyed is different from $68500. We have taken two hypotheses. the null hypothesis or H0 is rejected. Here in this case. The value of t calculated is 3587. Thus as the value of t calculated is higher than the value of t critical. Apart from this.5. Here the mean of the sample annual income is 72087. Specifically in this one sample t test. which is higher than $68500. the null hypothesis or H0 defines that the income will be equal to $68500 and the alternative hypothesis H1 states that the income is not equal to $68500.5 and the value of t critical is 1.9659272. We need to conduct the t test to determine the acceptance and rejection of hypothesis. It is used to compare results of the sample with a given value. single sample is gathered and the mean of the sample is compared with the value of interest which is also known as gold standard and that is not based on the sample what has been taken for comparison. . as the value of p is less than the significance level of 5% thus null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted.

51323 9 Pvalue 4.0016 R Square 7 Standard 28920.59E +08 8.12E+ 09 3.0% 48983 78617 .32E+ 11 3.5 99 Regressio n Intercept 2 MS 5.99E16 Lower 95% 48983.33E+ 11 Coeffici ents 63800.0% 78617 .0033 R Square 55 Adjusted 0. 37 Standa rd Error 7536.74 Upper 95.0579 Multiple R 19 0. Error 99 Observati ons 400 ANOVA df Residual 397 Total 399 SS 1.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” 5 Is there a difference in preference for simple décor and elegant décor? Normal Probability Plot income 200000 100000 0 -100000 Sample Percentile SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics 0.7 4 Upper 95% Lower 95.465 406 F 0.36E +08 t Stat 8.668 136 Signific ance F 0.

Thus it can be concluded that both the simple décor and elegant décor are not validate for the explanation of the annual income of population in this study. In the graph it can be seen that the dependent variable is plotted in the Y axis and independent variables are plotted in the X axis.34%. 456 Here we have used multiple regression to determine the relationship between various independent variables and one dependent variable. ANCOVA. A general preamble to ANOVA and an examination of the general points in the analysis of variance systems. 373 69% 4830.18 3181.1 41 2037. post-hoc correlations.124 339 0. we have chosen single factor Anova Test to conclude the result.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” Simple_D ecor Elegant_D ecor 3622. see likewise Variance Components (subjects identified with estimation of variance .7 8 824. difference impacts.81 9957. Simple décor and elegant décor have been taken as the independent variable. Is there a difference in the mean amount spent in restaurants each month across people with different marital status? To analyze this problem. 373 3181. For related data. and so forth. 18 9957.404 58 6 26% 2711. MANOVA. presumptions.36 1 3222. In this case the p value for t statistics of both simple décor and elegant décor Since p-value for t-statistic for simple decor is greater than 5% thus we can conclude that simple décor and elegant décor both cannot be considered as the significant factor in explaining the annual income of population. The value of R square is 0. including rehashed measures plans.5 91 1. uneven and inadequate outlines. 456 2711. 81 4830. Here we have taken the income of the people as the dependent variable.

0008 58 F crit 3. 59 df 2 397 399 Avera ge 227.0184 52 .7 01 1. and Repeatability and Reproducibility Analysis (themes identified with particular outlines for assessing the unwavering quality and accuracy of estimation frameworks) (Graham.6 33 967. SUMMARY Groups Total Spent_Single Total Spent_Married Total Spent_Other ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Count 147 174 79 Within Groups SS 13909. Experimental Design/DOE (points identified with specific applications of ANOVA in mechanical settings).2 44 F 7. ANOVA will deliver the same comes about as the t test for free samples (on the off chance that we are analyzings two separate gatherings of cases or observations) or the t test for ward samples (in the event that we are looking at two variables in one set of cases or observations) (Graham.05E24 1535. 42 17266.53 5 Varian ce 1810. All in all.1879 91 Pvalue 0. If we are thinking about two means.56 44 MS 6954.26 694 384111. the motivation behind analysis of variance (ANOVA) is to test for noteworthy contrasts between means. 2003). 2003).4 141 Total 398020. 1 40773.32 04 234.6 811 Sum 33416.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” 7 segments in blended model plans). Primary Concepts gives a short prologue to the rudiments of statistical centrality testing.33 218.

5644 in average. It also can be seen that. the populations with single marital status are liked to spend $ 227.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” 8 The hypotheses of this problem are: Ho: Mean Total Spent by Single = Mean Total Spent by Married = Mean Total Spent by Others H1: At least one of Mean Total Spent by Marital Status is different.33 in average. where as the number of single marital status is 147 out of 400.3204 in average. since p-value is less than significance level (5%) H0 is rejected. there is a difference in the mean amount spent in restaurants each month across people with different marital status. The marital status with married. Hence H1 is accepted. Interpretation: The above the result is stating that. the number of respondents is 147 out of 400 and they like to spend $ 234. H0 is rejected. . Also. So it can be seen that the all categories have different thinking to spend the amount of money in this restaurant and the single marital status population are mostly like to pay high amount of money in to the restaurant. Other marital status of the population is divorce and separated and the respondent number of this category is 79 out of 400 and they like to spend amount of $ 218. Hence H1 is accepted. Decision: Since F-calculated >F-critical.

we have used single factor Anova Test to get the result of this question.5480 81 F crit 2.7073 28 Pvalue 0. so we can interpret it in a better way to present the output. 42 396 Total 35626.121 82 F 0.27981 651 23.69951 923 MS 63. 5 2205 2568.48592 134 Varian ce 86.29588 374 89.88 77 35436. SUMMARY Groups Evening_Meal_Pri ce_A Evening_Meal_Pri ce_B Evening_Meal_Pri ce_C Evening_Meal_Pri ce_D ANOVA Source of Variation Count 93 109 94 104 Sum 2303. 31 399 Between Groups df 3 Average 24.988 66 97.650 14 83. . 75 2537. 75 Within Groups SS 189.77150 538 23.45744 681 24.986 07 88.6274 41 The hypotheses of this problem are: Ho: Mean Evening Meal Price for Postcode A = Mean Evening Meal Price for Postcode B = Mean Evening Meal Price for Postcode C = Mean Evening Meal Price for Postcode D H1: At least one of Mean Evening Meal Price for Postcodes is different.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” 9 Is there a difference in average price people are willing to pay for an evening meal across postcodes? To solve this problem.

and income: Normal Probability Plot Total_Spent 400 200 0 Sample Percentile SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics 0.0466 R Square 2 Adjusted 0. H0 is accepted.2159 Multiple R 17 0. since p-value is more than significance level (5%) H0 is accepted. age. Hence H1 is rejected. Therefore. Hence H1 is rejected. so it can be conclude that people are like to pay same amount of money for evening meal for different location. the average meal price of four postcodes are nearly same.180 Error 34 . family size.0345 R Square 22 Standard 42. it can be seen that there is no difference in average price people are willing to pay for an evening meal across postcodes. Also. location factor for this restaurant is not affecting.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” 10 Decision: Since F-calculated < F-critical. gender. Can the average amount people spend on food each month be explained by the average price people are willing to pay for entrees. Interpretation: From above data. Since.

897 834 1.05 32 10. multiple regression is the one.02 24 22.000 359 Regression can be defined as the statistical measure.33E05 MS 6855. On the other side.712 95 2.379 17 2.897 834 1.212 92 0.087 508 13.0532 0.44421 12.444 21 13. which uses one independent variable to explicate or determine the outcome value of Y.7299 52 7.941 104 1.12E -05 Upper 95.986 Upper 95% 288. Linear regression is the one.2404 67 6.6176 8 9. .2 946 0.51 28 7.14 03 4.000 359 Lower 95.012 565 10. which is independent and denoted by X (Graham.00202 2 Pvalue 1.49E33 Lower 95% 213.347 228 4.2817 3 0.168 626 0. 181 t Stat 13. There are mainly two types of regression such as multiple regression and linear regression.949 378 0.003 511 22.2 399 735276 Coeffici ents 251.3362 41 3. which uses two or more than two independent variables to determine the outcome.5128 7.936 8 F 3.949 378 0.0776 7 5.0224 0. 766 1779. 2003).28 897 0.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” Observati ons 11 400 ANOVA df Regressio n Residual Total Intercept variety unusal famsize gender income SS 34278.853 327 Signific ance F 0.60 591 0.0% 288.2 946 12. which is used to determine the relationship strength between one variable that is dependent and generally denoted by Y and another series of changing variables.60 591 0.212 92 3. 5 83 700997 394 .898 4 4.12E05 3.507 37 1.0 % 213.5480 64 2.0808 51 6.9 86 4.0002 15 Standa rd Error 18.

gender. family size and income of the people is 4. . Here the p value for t statistics of the factors variety and unusual is more than 5%. income and family size.59% and the value of R square. From the calculation. Other factors like family size. we can conclude that the variety of the restaurant negatively influences the restaurant price. since the coefficient of variety is negative. unusual. income of the people and gender of the participants have got p-value for tstatistic for less than 5% thus we can conclude that the variety of the restaurant is a significant factor in explaining the total spent of the restaurant. Further.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” 12 Here we have used multiple regression as the main purpose of the multiple regression is to determine the relationship between various predictor or independent variables and a criterion or dependent variable.66%. Now we need to see that whether the model is significant or not. it can be seen that the value of multiple R is 21. we can conclude that the variety of the restaurant is not significant factor in explaining the total spent of the restaurant. Here we need to determine that whether the average amount that people spend on food per month is depend on the price they have agreed to pay for age. Thus it can be said that the factors variety and unusual is not significant with the study and the factors family size of the participants. entrees. gender. spent of the restaurant that is explained by the variety. which is proportion of variation in total. and income of the people are significant with the factor of the total amount spent in the restaurant.

which is more than expected amount i. . but the people like to spend same amount of money for evening meal for different postcodes.500 annual income. This restaurant will be definitely liked by the population of this metro city and it will give high return of investment. $ 68. All data and figures of this report is favoring towards to open an upscale restaurant. So it can be conclude that the most population of this metro city are describe for this restaurant and they will to visit this upscale restaurant.e. The idea to open an upscale restaurant in this city is very good and workup. that he can open his restaurant in location of this metro city and it will be liked by the people and they enjoy it. Jenkins.5 annual income. So I would like to suggest Mr. The simple décor and elegant décor has no difference.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” 13 Summary and Recommendation Summary Average of the population has $ 72087. Recommendation “Food For Fork” is a best option and good idea for Mr. the different marital status person like to pay different amount of money. Jenkins. However.

Statistics (1st ed. A. Ohio: McGraw-Hill.Data Analysis Report on “Food For Fork” Reference Graham. [Blacklick. (2003).). 14 .