INTRODUCTION

In order to assess the quality of service including areas of progress for better functioning and creating a
positive reputation in the restaurant business in the Egham region, this project included the comparative
analysis including its survey by both the research firm hired by Founder's restaurant. That questionnaire
contained questions that concentrated on the reputation of three restaurants together with the
restaurants' services. As a consequence, it was discovered that the restaurant of Founder lacked service
consistency and Hub and Crossland's had the best reputation and quality service than Founder's. Each
restaurant wants to know the precise position of its rivals. When contemplating their business, they
should also realize their strategies or possibilities for creativity. Like Crosslands as well as HUB, Founders
is an ordinary restaurant. And, in general, they all have rivalry and they are able to stand next to each
other and not collapse. Founders should take their numbers into account and concentrate in a creative
manner on rush hour customer loyalty that does not expense them and instead becomes a boost.
Founders provide consistency, value to clients, hospitality, safe and comfortable surroundings.
Exceptionally, certain people prefer their servings. If they don't look carefully at their stock and storage,
restaurants will make big losses. Most of the chefs often consume a few things from their stock. Instead
of being clever or imaginative, average restaurants are more labor-oriented.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This data covers problems that fall into three major groups, including assessment, connectivity issues,
importance ranking, phases of comprehension, phases of relationships, and qualified questions. The
survey consisted of 200 participants randomly chosen who were not contacted to gather their
responses. Provided that both men and women are clients of the 3 restaurants in the restaurant, this
model involves both men and women. For more review and inference, the information received from all
comments will be written in bold. T-Test: To conduct the gender-based study of restaurants, two
strategies of the same variant approach are used. There are various ways to achieve the aims of this
initiative, but the best way to achieve the reputation of the restaurants and the interests of individuals
in selecting the restaurant is to take into account the available information in the form of responses
from 200 individuals. The approaches used in the study to evaluate the data include the classification of
the data for the purposes of age group, ethnicity and income and the mean, low and maximum answers
of the individuals.

SAMPLE
The questionnaire included questions that centered specifically on people's interests in selecting a
restaurant in particular, together with the opinions of all the restaurants, namely Founder's, Hub and
Crossland's. In the study, it was concluded that a significant number of individuals, 86 in number, were
comfortable with the Hub out of 200 respondents. Second, individuals were most familiar with
Crossland's, which was 65 in all, and only 49 individuals were most associated with the Founder's
restaurant, so the comparative study of the responses of 200 individuals participating in the survey had
the potential to improve the good picture of the Founder's restaurant.

THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK
DISCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

VARIABLES MEAN MEDIAN STDV Varianc

e
1 5.0 5 0.86 0.7
2 3.1 2 1.35 1.8
3 6.1 7 1.02 1.0
4 6.0 6 0.90 0.8
5 4.7 5 0.95 0.9
6 5.4 5 1.04 1.1
7 3.3 4 0.91 0.8
8 3.9 5 1.35 1.8
9 6.1 7 0.97 0.9
10 3.4 3 1.21 1.5
11 5.7 7 1.21 1.5
12 5.3 6 0.81 0.7
13 5.7 5 0.96 0.9
14 5.4 5 1.04 1.1
15 5.5 5 0.93 0.9
16 1.7 2 0.68 0.5
17 1.8 1 0.87 0.8
18 0.4 0 0.48 0.2
19 0.4 0 0.49 0.2
20 3.1 3 0.95 0.9
21 2.9 2 1.44 2.1
22 1.8 1 0.80 0.6
Table 1 descriptive analysis

The findings reveal that in selecting the location, individuals often choose professional workers because
the standard of service is maintained at a high level by the skill and competition of employees in a
restaurant. People offer second priority to the quality of food because the primary objective of visiting a
diner is to enjoy good customer service together with good food quality. The environment of the
restaurant is the third most preferred criterion that individuals use when entering a restaurant, aside
from the competitive staff and good food value. Competitive workers, food consistency, environment,
speed of service, fair pricing and big portions are among the priorities in the questionnaire. The findings
in this case were indeed the same as that of average of the first 6 questions suggesting that the
alternative explanation is acknowledged, stating that the reputation of the restaurant of the Founder
needs to be strengthened and that the level of service offered by the restaurant can be improved based
on the results of the survey already mentioned in depth.
T-TEST
Gender based satisfaction
T-test for Founder’s    
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances    
     
  Male Female
Mean 5.55 4.333333
Variance 0.407692308 0.25
Observations 40 9
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0  
df 15  
t Stat 6.243826439  
P(T<=t) one-tail 7.86E-06  
t Critical one-tail 1.753050356  
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.57E-05  
t Critical two-tail 2.131449546  
Table 2 gender t-test

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means    

     
  SATISFACTIO RECOMMENDATION
N
Mean 5.645 5.35
Variance 0.923592965 1.092965
Observations 200 200
Pearson Correlation 0.754481921  
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0  
df 199  
t Stat 5.897185432  
P(T<=t) one-tail 7.82E-09  
Table 3 customer satisfaction t-test

ANOVA
ANOVA            
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Between Groups 221.078 5 44.2156 96.7997 1.42E-59 2.245345
2 5 5
Within Groups 131.551 288 0.45677      
4
             
Total 352.629 293        
3
Table 4 ANOVA TEST FOR FOUNDERS

ANOVA            
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Between Groups 195.015 5 39.0030 52.8510 1.15E-41 2.237492
4 8 7
Within Groups 283.384 384 0.73798      
6 1
              
Total 478.4 389        
Table 5 ANOVA TEST FOR CROSSLAND

ANOVA            
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Between Groups 1173.19 5 234.639 338.095 2.6E-159 2.231689
6 1
Within Groups 353.941 510 0.69400      
9 4
             
Total 1527.13 515        
8
Table 6 ANOVA TEST FOR HUB

CORELATION AND REGRESSION

  Coefficient Standar t Stat P-value Lower Upper Lower Upper
s d Error 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
Intercept 1.096386 0.97785 1.12121 0.26673 -0.8603 3.05306 -0.8603 3.05306
4 6 9 8 8
x2 -0.23329 0.09007 -2.59003 0.01207 -0.41353 -0.05306 -0.41353 -0.05306
3 1
x3 0.084552 0.07175 1.17836 0.24338 -0.05903 0.22813 -0.05903 0.22813
4 4 2
x4 0.504516 0.07460 6.76214 6.83E- 0.35522 0.65380 0.35522 0.65380
9 09 4 9 4 9
x5 -0.0213 0.07285 -0.29229 0.77108 -0.16709 0.12449 -0.16709 0.12449
9 9 5 5
x6 0.188271 0.10345 1.81977 0.07386 -0.01875 0.39529 -0.01875 0.39529
8 7 7
Table 7 CROSSLAND REGRESSION

  Coefficient Standar t Stat P-value Lower Upper Lower Upper

s d Error 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
Intercept 0.275111 1.24437 0.22108 0.82559 -2.20127 2.75149 -2.20127 2.75149
3 4 1 2 2
x2 0.131629 0.14492 0.90825 0.36647 -0.15678 0.42004 -0.15678 0.42004
6 1 3 1 1
x3 0.035634 0.13130 0.27138 0.78679 -0.22567 0.29694 -0.22567 0.29694
6 2 6 1 1
x4 0.35255 0.087 4.05231 0.00011 0.17941 0.52568 0.17941 0.52568
6 7 5 5 5 5
x5 0.570501 0.10112 5.64162 2.46E- 0.36925 0.77174 0.36925 0.77174
4 3 07 8 3 8 3
x6 -0.12912 0.10433 -1.23755 0.21950 -0.33675 0.07851 -0.33675 0.07851
4 1 2 2
Table 8 THE HUB REGRESSION

  Coefficient Standar t Stat P-value Lower Upper Lower Upper

s d Error 95% 95% 95.0% 95.0%
Intercept 2.191961 1.80326 1.21555 0.23078 -1.44466 5.82858 -1.44466 5.82858
5 6 1 1
x2 -0.35869 0.09789 -3.66405 0.00067 -0.55612 -0.16127 -0.55612 -0.16127
 5 7
x3 -0.05816 0.17168 -0.33874 0.73645 -0.40438 0.28807 -0.40438 0.28807
1 1 1 1
x4 0.706675 0.08714 8.10885 3.33E- 0.53092 0.88242 0.53092 0.88242
8 9 10 3 6 3 6
x5 -0.02008 0.07310 -0.27467 0.78488 -0.1675 0.12734 -0.1675 0.12734
1 5 3 3
x6 0.115826 0.07723 1.49959 0.14102 -0.03994 0.27159 -0.03994 0.27159
8 7 1 1
Table 9 THE FOUNDER REGRESSION

CORELATION
  x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6
x1 1          
x2 -0.31801 1        
x3 0.324555 -0.1746 1      
x4 0.579546 -0.22811 0.202254 1    
x5 0.430609 -0.3643 0.173907 0.205015 1  
x6 -0.20709 0.676374 -0.13159 -0.29119 -0.17301 1
Table 10 CORELATION

LIMITATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Figure 1 TUKEY KRAMER

Figure 2 ALL SURVEY REGRESSION

Figure 3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 1

Figure 4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 2

Figure 5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 3

Figure 6 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS 4

Figure 7 FOUNDERS ANOVA

Figure 8 FOUNDERS REGRESSION

Figure 9 CROSSLANDS ANOVA

Figure 10 CROSSLANDS REGRESSION

Figure 11 THE HUB ANOVA

Figure 12 THE HUB REGRESSION
Figure 13 SURVEY 1

Figure 14 SURVEY 2