BA 1510: QUANTITATIVE METHODS

Student Name:

SRN:

Submission Date:

1
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Founder’s is a successful casual dining restaurant located in Egham offering a variety of fresh

food in a friendly family-oriented atmosphere. Recently, the owner raised some fundamental

questions about his restaurant’s operations and the future of his business. The owner would like

to better understand his customers’ attitudes and feelings. To address the research questions, the

owner has approached an online panel research company to collect data from patrons of

Founder’s as well as customers of the 2 main competitors (The Hub and Crosslands) within the

Egham area. The data is analyse by quantitative research methods which include T-test, Anova,

Corelation and regression. The last part of the report contains some recommendations and

limitations of the research.

2
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................5
RESEARCH QUESTIONS.............................................................................................................5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................6
SAMPLE..........................................................................................................................................6
THEORATICAL CONCEPTS........................................................................................................6
DATA ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................7
MEDIAN, STANDARD DEVIATION & VARIANCE.................................................................7
CORELATION AND REGRESSION............................................................................................8
T-TEST............................................................................................................................................9
ANOVA.........................................................................................................................................10
COMPETITOR ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................11
RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................12
DISSCUSSION..............................................................................................................................12
IMPLIMENTATION.....................................................................................................................13
LIMITATIONS..............................................................................................................................14
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................14
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................15
APPENDICES...............................................................................................................................16

3
TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 comparison chart...............................................................................................................6

Figure 2 scatter plot.........................................................................................................................7
Figure 3 Popularity..........................................................................................................................9

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1 Averages.............................................................................................................................5
Table 2 regression............................................................................................................................7
Table 3 Regression Anova...............................................................................................................8
Table 4 Single factor ANOVA........................................................................................................9
Table 5 most familiar.......................................................................................................................9

TABLE OF EQUATION

Equation 1 T-test..............................................................................................................................8

4
INTRODUCTION

The report is compiled using a quantitative method. Therefore, the main emphasis is on the

analysis of the journalists, where Egham is the subject of the casual restaurant situation. It is

parents who serve nutritious food who rely on the restaurant. The restaurant successfully

operates its operations. There are some issues that the restaurant owner has raised. Such

questions about current and future operations are significant. In Egham, Founder's is a popular

easy-going eating eatery offering a range of fresh food in a well-disposed family-situated

environment. As of late, the owner raised a few critical inquiries about the activities of his eatery

and the ultimate destiny of his company. He needs to gather insights from consumers on what

variables affect consumer choices about where to dine and what variables are more relevant.

Second, what is the view of consumers on the rival of Founder and whether or not Founder's is

up to the consistency and customer loyalty level? Finally, does the marketing approach of the

creator that is actually being used need to be changed or not?

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

 Which variables are used by clients when choosing a restaurant to dine at, and what is the

relative value of each of these variables?

 What picture do consumers have of Founder's and its main rivals?

 Is Founder's supplying its consumers with consistency and satisfaction?

 Do all of the latest marketing methods of the Founder need to be modified, and if so,

how?

5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

On the basis of research challenges and related goals, the company was retained to prepare the

report. The company is then presented with an online board. 200 respondents responded to the

survey form. Thus, random applicants who are considered to be founders by the respondents and

consumers are based on two major competitors who are participating in the online survey. The

questionnaire survey is the instrument used to compile the findings. Cantered on two

competitors, the data was then collected electronically from the customers and patrons of the

Owners. However, analysis problems and priorities relating to user experience, areas of contact

policy growth, the competitive advantage of the owners, various statistical methods and

techniques, such as mean, frequency, t-test-standard deviation, ANOVA, are considered.

(McClure et al. 2013)

SAMPLE

Sample size in this research is 200. As the number of participants which n=200. The survey was

conducted by 200 respondents, 86 of whom were most familiar with The Hub, 65 of whom were

most familiar with Cross lands and 49 with Founder's.

THEORATICAL CONCEPTS

In the article, the concept of continuity and the environment is illustrated. In making customer

satisfaction decisions by providing proper service throughout the restaurant, efficiency and the

experience play a crucial role. Customer satisfaction plays a key part in dining with every

company in a restaurant. The scale of the research is limited. Therefore, there will be no detailed

presentation of the empirical concept.

6
DATA ANALYSIS

MEDIAN, STANDARD DEVIATION & VARIANCE

As per the questionnaire, with the frequency of scoring 5 out of 7, the environment is also an

important factor, which indicates it has certain importance. Finally, people also check how fair a

restaurant's rates are when dining at, according to the mean that says 5.39, it has some meaning,

the average person rating is around 5. According to the report, the frequency of large portions

reflects the score of 4, which means that most consumers choose the rating of 4 out of 7 as the

neutral they do not disagree with or agree with.

Table 1 Averages

  Average MEDIAN STDV Varianc

e
X1 4.94974 5 0.858778 0.744937
9
X2 3.12562 2 1.351148 1.837673
8
X3 6.08542 7 1.020735 1.048221
7
X4 5.98492 6 0.902649 0.823004
5
X5 4.73366 5 0.951197 0.913558
8
X6 5.38693 5 1.043024 1.097
5
X7 3.26130 4 0.908171 0.830364
7
X8 3.87437 5 1.351148 1.837673
2
X9 6.10552 7 0.966424 0.943353
8
X10 3.40201 3 1.212838 1.484036
X11 5.65326 7 1.20727 1.470078
6
X12 5.33668 6 0.807945 0.658799
3
X13 5.65326 5 0.957862 0.924623
6
X14 5.35175 5 1.042833 1.097863
9
X15 5.45728 5 0.931652 0.875692

7
 6
X16 1.69849 2 0.679687 0.46419
2
X17 1.83417 1 0.87241 0.765291
1
X18 0.35175 0 0.47697 0.229176
9
X19 0.40703 0 0.491833 0.242577
5
X20 3.06532 3 0.946784 0.899751
7
X21 2.89949 2 1.443598 2.100959
7
X22 1.81909 1 0.800484 0.643876
5

4 Average
MEDIAN
3 STDV
Variance
2

0
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20 X21 X22

Figure 1 comparison chart

CORELATION AND REGRESSION

While the level of expertise of the creator is lower for staff than that of Hub and Cross lands. The

food quality score of the Founders is the same as that of the Centre, but better than the Cross

lands. Question 10 is smaller than Hub and Cross lands, which is the rating of Founders' pace

activities. The rating of the Founder's Ecosystem is the same as the hub, but better than Cross

land. However, issue 12, the price reasonability rating of Creator is the same as Hub but higher

8
than Cross lands. This allows us to easily imagine the strength of the variables' associations.

When faced with a correlation coefficients that appears to have many variables, this is a

particularly helpful trick since it helps one to quickly find the variables that have the largest

correlations. It helps to summarise a vast volume of details, as it is obvious in the table above

that the entire relationship between each variable is seen.

  “Coefficien Standar t Stat P-value Lower Upper “Lower Upper

ts d Error 95% 95%” 95.0%” “95.0%”
Intercep “3.05491 0.54832 5.57137 8.46E- 1.9734 4.13642 1.9734 4.13642
t 3 3 08
4 0.423495 0.12232 3.46197 0.00066 0.18221 0.66477 0.18221 0.664773
8 2 1 6 3 6
5 0.354021 0.06399 5.53244 1.02E- 0.22780 0.48023 0.22780 0.480234
9 07 7 4 7
6 -0.18169 0.09247 - 0.05089 - 0.00071 - 0.000717
8 1.96464 8 0.36409 7 0.36409
4 -0.0351 0.06879 -0.5103 0.61042 - 0.10057 - 0.100579
1 7 0.17079 9 0.17079
5 0.348925 0.07417 4.70422 4.86E- 0.20262 0.49522 0.20262 0.495223
3 7 06 7 3 7
5 -0.16926 0.13399 - 0.20805 - 0.09502 - 0.095029
2 1.26319 4 0.43354 9 0.43354 ”
Table 2 regression

SCATTER PLOT
12

10

8
Average
6

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 2 scatter plot

T-TEST
Difference Scores Calculations

9
N1: 10
df1 = N - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9
M1: 4.69
SS1: 13
s21 = SS1/ (N - 1) = 13/(10-1) = 1.44

T-value Calculation
s2p = ((df1/(df1 + df2)) * s21) + ((df2/(df2 + df2)) * s22) = ((9/20) * 1.44) + ((11/20) * 4.39) =
3.06
Equation 1 T-test

s2M1 = s2p/N1 = 3.06/10 = 0.31

s2M2 = s2p/N2 = 3.06/12 = 0.26
t = (M1 - M2)/√(s2M1 + s2M2) = 1.4/√0.56 = 1.87

The consolidated variance t-test was performed to determine the mean overall satisfaction. The

degree of gender preference rating independence indicates that perhaps the p-value is less than

0.05, meaning that the happiness rating of males and females does not vary. The big difference

between men and women of both sexes. The average score for women is lower than the score for

men. T-stat and p-value for the food safety score. The t-value is 1.87004. The p-value is .038094.

The result is significant at p < .05.

ANOVA

Try comparing the p-value by each term to the significant level to assess the null hypothesis to

determine whether each major impact and interaction effect is statistically significant. The

degree of meaning of 0.05 usually suits well. Since there is no measurable impact, a level of

significance of 0.05 shows a 5 per cent risk of believing that there is an effect. S is measured in

the dependent variables units and indicates how far the data values fall away from the values in

place. The smaller the value of S, therefore better the model represents the response. When you

add external determinants to the model, R2 also increases. For example, an R2 that would be at

10
least as high as the main advantages of composite model would also have the top rated model.

Also, when comparing variants of the same size, R2 is most accurate. In one direction, ANOVA

studied the effects of three restaurants, the Hub, the Crossland's, and the Founder's. For

restaurants customer satisfaction, the ANOVA test is performed and the F value is 51.19 and the

P-value is 0, which is less than 0.05. The partnership shows the satisfaction of restaurants, the

satisfaction contrast between Hub and Crosland, whose overall difference is 1.23, demonstrating

that the effects of means are distinct. (Levine et al. 2000) The distinction is made between the

Hub and the Founder's, implying that there is no distinction between the effects of means.

“ANOVA
  df SS MS F Significanc
e F”
“Regressio 6 94.5807 15.7634 34.0846 7.5E-28
n 5 6 3
Residual 19 88.7961 0.46248
2 4
Total 19 183.376      
8 9
Table 3 Regression Anova

“ANOVA
Source of Variation “SS df MS F P-value F crit”
Between Groups 14310.23 21 681.439 683.5309 0 1.734087
7
Within Groups” 4342.673 4356 0.99694
1

Total 18652.91 4377

Table 4 Single factor ANOVA

COMPETITOR ANALYSIS

Two competitors are selected for this analysis which is Cross lands and the Hub restaurant. The

analysis shows that out of 200 costumers only 49 knows about founder restaurant however the

hub restaurant is very popular among customers and cross lands takes second position in terms

on popularity.

11
 Most Familiar Frequency Percentage

With
1: The Hub 86 43%

2: Cross lands 65 33%

3: Founder's 49 25%
Total 200

Table 5 most familiar

POPULARITY
1: The Hub 2: Crosslands 3: Founder's

25%

43%

33%

Figure 3 Popularity

RECOMMENDATIONS

 Future researchers can include multiple restaurants rather than considering only one with

two competitors.

 The survey questionnaire survey does not include variables clearly. The future

researchers can make better questionnaire.

 Present research indicates that the trust of buyers in designers is lacking.

12
DISSCUSSION

While perception studies provide a clearer explanation of the characteristics, we should

remember how customers perceive the quality characteristics and the extent to and that they are

essential and affect their buying behaviours. Based on this memory-based interpretation of

features and multi-attribute structures and many study construction constraints that have to be

further considered from previous studies, several restaurant characteristics that are important to

customers have been established in this review. The value and actions of workers in the fine

dining restaurant boost, in particular, the cooperative and organised life of the restaurant

industry, the great restaurant commodity, in the course of trade. Changing operational

procedures, restarting customers in restaurant spaces, changing menus to respond to changes in

the preferences and desires of customers should be the top priorities. It is important to analyse

the various characteristics of respondents and customers of rivals such as Cross lands and Hub in

order to change the marketing strategy of the current marketing plan of the Founder. Customers

at Founders' eat with two or three children. The number reveals that 20% of women are aware of

the Founders, while 38% are aware of the Centre and 62% of the Crosslands.

IMPLIMENTATION

 The study results also indicate that workers play an important role in delivering effective

goods, so that focused restaurants remain inefficient until employees obtain favourable

opinions from customers. (Saad Andaleeb & Conway 2006)

 Changing operational procedures, restarting customers in restaurant spaces, changing

menus to respond to changes in the preferences and desires of customers should be the

top priorities.

13
  It is important to analyse the various characteristics of respondents and customers of

rivals such as cross lands and Hub in order to change the marketing strategy of the

current marketing plan of the Founder.

 In this way, in order to make market awareness effective and future buyers accordingly,

the Founders Restaurant wants to increase its advertising budget.

 In order to retain, sustain, and visit customers every day to gain a strategic advantage, the

owner of the founding restaurant must enhance a marketing campaign in the media.

LIMITATIONS
 This analysis has a few limitations, such as inadequate time and funding for this study.

The research sample is one of the major downsides of this analysis.

 Through the use of culturally similar communities, the thesis limits the generalisation of

results. (Jack Kivela 1997)

 The homogeneity of the survey coupled with clustered findings needs many more

quantitative statistical strategies that highlight the effect on preferential development of

other business variables, such as demographics.

 To fix this restriction in the future, similar studies are also planned. For restaurants only

in the hospitality industry, this analysis was carried out, though the findings cannot be

generalised.

CONCLUSION

The analysis is conducted for the betterment in strategies for the owner of a famous food

restaurant founders. This study is conducted in a quantitative method and multiple tests are

performed to get the reliable output results. In this study two competitors are also evaluate to

14
conduct the competitor analysis. Therefore, the study demonstrates that restaurant catering

efficiency, quality of service, and costs are essential factors. When participants took part, the

Hub witnessed and nurtured interest in excellent food quality, enticing environment,

technological competence, and equal pricing. Crossland Restaurants that participants trust in a

friendly atmosphere, equal prices, and the best choice for food. Overall, the speed of service was

rated by participants as low.

REFERENCES
Jack Kivela, J 1997, ‘Restaurant marketing: selection and segmentation in Hong Kong’,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 116–123.

Levine, RA, Sincich, T, Levine, DA & Stephan, D 2000, ‘Practical Statistics by Example Using
Microsoft Excel’, The American Statistician, vol. 54, no. 2, p. 151.

McClure, AC, Tanski, SE, Gilbert-Diamond, D, Adachi-Mejia, AM, Li, Zhigang, Li, Zhongze &
Sargent, JD 2013, ‘Receptivity to Television Fast-Food Restaurant Marketing and Obesity
Among U.S. Youth’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 560–568,
viewed 21 October 2019, <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3934414/>.

Saad Andaleeb, S & Conway, C 2006, ‘Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an
examination of the transaction‐specific model’, Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 20, no. 1, pp.
3–11.

15
16
APPENDICES

17
18