Research

Critical Success Factors affecting the FIIB Business Review

1–19
2021 Fortune Institute of
Restaurant Industry: Insights from International Business
Reprints and permissions:

Restaurant Managers in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india

DOI: 10.1177/23197145211042429
journals.sagepub.com/home/fib

Bharti Sharma1, Rakhi Arora1 and Manjeet Kharub2

Abstract
This study identifies, prioritizes and ranks a list of critical factors that impact consumers’ perception of the restaurant industry from
a restaurant managers’ perspective. A mixture of the modified-Delphi method and multi-criteria decision-making method, the best-
worst method (BWM), is adopted to achieve the study aim. The integrated approach has been employed with the help of seven experts
from different units working under Hyderabad Restaurant Industry, India. The study identifies five main and twenty-five sub-categorical
factors impacting consumers’ perception of restaurants. In particular, the study offers insights into the restaurant business after
implementing a new taxation system (i.e., GST). The ranks showed that 66% of restaurants success depends on two critical factors, that
is, ‘food quality’ and ‘cleanness and ambience’. The top choices can be improved by emphasizing the ‘use of fresh ingredient’ and ‘use
of regular cleaning and sanitization’. The findings provide managerial and policy insights to direct efforts and resources more efficiently.

Keywords
Critical factors, consumers’ perception, modified-Delphi & BWM, GST, food quality, cleanness and ambient

Introduction perception is personal desires. As reported by International

Nowadays, the market focuses on consumers’ perception,
and consequently, it has become critically important for
business (Bhatia & Jain, 2013; Bruschi et al., 2015). This
study assesses consumers’ perception from restaurants
managers/owners’ point of view; here, it is defined as a
marketing idea that includes consumers’ opinion, impression,
awareness or mindfulness about a business or its brand and
offerings (Demakova et al., 2020). It is driven by logic and
profoundly impacts the customer’s buying habit (Gupta &
Barua, 2016). This habit is generally influenced and shaped
by multi factors that directly, indirectly, or contextually
(time, quality and social) interact with the product(s) (IFIC,
2018). As per the definition given in Jaeger et al. (2019),
the contextual interaction in the restaurant industry is not
only the food being served but how well it fits into the
situation.
A suitable example is presented in Bschaden et al.
(2020), where authors found a positive impact of ambient
variables (light intensity, temperature and scent) on
consumer perception towards quantity and duration of food
intake and taste. Another factor influencing consumer
Food Information Council (IFIC) in 2018, about 50% of
the consumers adopt a new eating pattern every year to
pursue personal ambitions (such as lost weight, sugar
control, etc.). Such findings are also seen in the work of
Savelli et al. (2019), who observed that younger adults are
more familiar with mindful and intuitive eating. Similar
work has been pursued by others (Pontual et al., 2017), in
which the food taste was found the prime drive to the older
consumer whereas price to the youngers. Some similarity
can be found in the work of Barreda et al. (2015), where
they found that 3 out of 10 consumers recognize ingredients
and trust a particular brand. As per the earlier work by
Barcellos et al. (2012), the restaurants managers (or food
units) that understand customers’ perspective quickly
identify business opportunities and ways to enhance their
profits via improving consumers’ satisfaction. Likewise,
Kindstrom et al. (2013) pointed out that firms can expand
their market scopes and acquire innovative products and
services by comprehending key business opportunities
such as online deliveries, focusing on dark kitchens.
Therefore, acknowledging customers’ perspective is a
golden key that opens the door to many opportunities.

1 University School of Business (USB), Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab, India.

2 CVR College of Engineering, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.

Corresponding author:
Manjeet Kharub, Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR College of Engineering, Ibrahimoatnam, Hyderabad, Telengana, 501510, India.
E-mail: manjeetkharub@gmail.com
2
Need of the Study
There are 17.5 million foodservice outlets worldwide, with
more than 500 billion transactions daily (Data Monitor,
2013). With tens of millions of chefs and cooks in the world
preparing hundreds of thousands of meals, it is clear that the
foodservice industry and associated partners have a
tremendous opportunity globally. The apparent rise in
demand for prepared meals can be seen particularly among
users with limited to no skills in food preparation or who do
not have enough time to prepare (Brunner et al., 2010).
However, recent data from the IFIC report and Newson et al.
(2015) suggest that globally only 18% of consumers are
satisfied with the current healthy restaurant menus.
Approximately 50% of participants reported that there is
room for further improvements in the industry. This implies
a clear need to change operating procedures in the prevailing
establishments and act as a wake-up call to the industry.
The food consumption pattern has recently evolved
worldwide and resulted in numerous business opportunities
(Aung & Chang, 2014). This has led to the differentiation
of products and the strong growth of the local food players.
Previous research highlights that a firm’s competitive
strength largely depends on demand condition and the
availability of relative industries (Kharub & Sharma, 2017).
Under modern spring, Indian companies saw a perfect
market to expand (Singh et al., 2019). The increased
number of working-class groups, mainly in the middle-
income range, has led to the heightened demand for ready-
to-eat foods. Consumers’ perception has been changed
towards the restaurant industry after implementing goods
and service tax (GST). It had a positive impact on the
business holder in this field (NRAI, 2019). It has created a
perfect opportunity to become the most extensive food
industry globally. However, to take strategic advantages,
units need to attract more consumers while maintaining an
existing one. This provides the food units with opportunities
to execute new concepts into their business model and
showcase new marketing strategies (Bibi et al., 2017). To
reap this opportunity, units need to attract new consumers
and maintain existing ones by underrating and adhering to
business strategies. First, they must understand factors that
consumers analyse before deciding whether and where to
eat out of the home. Second, the need to prepare an action
plan/business strategy to tackle these factors. Despite the
huge demand and future opportunities, the sector faces
tremendous problems in understanding the current market
scenario. The majority of them are young units and cannot
even decide on: (a) Whether an extensive customer base
buys food due to its quality, taste, flavour or brand?
(b) What is the consumers’ perception of a healthy,
nutritious diet concerning the price including GST?
(c) How to deal with increasing variant demands? (d) How
to embrace customers’ expectations?
The situation makes it essential for restaurant managers
and owners to investigate the factors that derive consumers’
FIIB Business Review
perception and influence the decision to eat out under such
circumstance. It has been noted that many owners know the
importance of customers’ perspective, they struggle to act
on it (Filimonau & Sulyok, 2021; Lindberg et al., 2018).
Besides being small in size, these units face challenges
when attempting to improve their image in customers’ eyes.
Ergo, it is required to identify the correct factors that
directly impact customers’ perspectives so that owners of
units can act on them and implement them to upgrade their
values in terms of business. Further, it is practically
impossible for these units to simultaneously work on all
factors due to invariances such as location, layout,
government policies, and lack of resources, but identifying
critical factors can help them create a pathway to reach
consumer expectation. This requires scholars and
practitioners working in the field to identify, list down and
analyse these critical factors so that units can prepare their
guidelines to act on them. Many studies have investigated
customers’ perspectives (Grunert, 2011; Troy & Kerry,
2010); others have insight into their impact on business
performance. This study will focus on the area which has
not been touched and reached by previous researchers in
the Indian context. It is observed that tasks specific to
identifying critical factors, embarrassment, implementation,
and upscaling are slender. Consumer perception regarding
quality food, price, nutrition, sanitation, and delivery time
respect is missing in the Indian context. Previous studies
have not considered local consumers perception regarding
awareness, social–economic factors, nutritious values,
implementation of GST and branding. Therefore, more
research is needed to understand critical factors and a plan to
act on them. This study attempts to undertake these issues to
offer an ungraded pathway to sustain and one step ahead of
rivals in current fierce market competition. This article,
therefore, proposes a framework composed of various
factors that can have a forthcoming impact on the recognition,
embarrassment and upscaling of customers’ perspective.
More specifically, the objectives of this article are:
• To identify and rank the critical success factors for
business holders in the restaurant industry that may
impact consumers’ perspective after GST imple-
mentation in India.
• To develop an action plan concerning each critical
factors to embarrass and upscaling of the consum-
ers’ perspective.
• To provide a pathway for practical applicability of
the model within the restaurant industry.
For quintessence, the multi-case approach from the Indian
restaurant sector is taken into consideration. The food
sector in India is one of the most significant and growing
sectors. Recently, India has gone through a substantial
tax reform system, so does the restaurant industry. After
implementing GST in July 2017, the other direct and
Sharma et al.
indirect taxes have merged into one form, that is, GST. As
a result, eating out has become economical (NRAI, 2019).
This case-based investigation provides top managers with
insights and helps them act on upcoming opportunities via
embarrassing critical factors.
The rest of the article is structures as follows: Section 2
present the literature review and framework design. In
section 3, the research methodology for the evaluation and
ranking of critical factors is presented. The restaurant
industry is shown in the 4th section, followed by the
discussion in the 5th section. Section 6 offers the study
implication. Limitation and future scope are presented in
section 7.
Literature Review and Framework
Development
Consumers’ Perception and its Impact
This section introduces the concept, definition, and
importance of consumers’ perception. Consumers’
perception is how consumer sense, stimulus, and organize
information about the market and a particular product
(Krishna, 2012). The data is perceived to evaluate product
features and values, significantly impacting consumers’
belief and buying decision. Based on this judgment,
consumers deduce the value of a company its name and
products. It is one of the critical determinants of a product’s
overall success or a business in common (Kersten & Koch,
2010). The consumers’ opinion can determine how much
goods a firm can sell and how it is recognized on micro
and macro-economic levels. Shao et al. (2019) find that
consumers perception influenced by intrinsically or
extrinsically traits. Here, intrinsic means product’s
attributes, characteristics, features, physical properties,
packaging, and brand image, whereas extrinsically means
advertisements, promotional messages such as visual,
symbolism, salespeople, and marketing communications.
Sensing the importance of consumer perception and
considering these criteria in the restaurant industry, recently
published articles are considered.
Most consumers chose restaurants based on quality,
taste, price, freshness, convenience, cooking skills, or
brand. Some of them focus more on health, nutrition and
price (Bajaj & Dudeja, 2019; Lee et al., 2020). Their
understanding can create a pathway to sustainability
(Lindberg et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2016).
The quest for customer perspective has changed many
businesses models’ competitive landscape, including the
food sector (Grunert et al., 2004). As per Grunert (2011);
Hlee et al. (2019), the importance of consumers’ perspective
is stratosphere in the food industry. It has made restaurants
and food chains rethink their processes, technologies,
products, and business models (Lillford & Hermansson,
2021). It is a key to advancing and achieving sustainable
goals by costumer’s satisfaction. The proper insight can
3
help guide, modify, and design novel practices (processes,
technologies and systems) (Chen et al., 2020). In other
words, the awareness of the critical factors aids the units in
dealing with performance issues within and outside. These
insights should offer more excellent value, better and clean
technologies that would ultimately enhance customer
satisfaction. It is highly required after seeing that consumers
have raised their bar for food quality. New rules and food
security regulations permit consumers to ask questions on
food procedures, standards, and other processing activities
(King et al., 2017; Tuholske et al., 2020).
As mentioned above, research is dominated to
understanding consumer perception that motivates them to
choose one restaurant over others. It has been shown in
(Zhou et al., 2016) that the customers tend to vacillate.
However, with diligent efforts on certain factors, restaurants
have successfully increased their satisfaction and frequency
(Lu et al., 2020). As found in the study conducted by
DiPietro et al. (2012), with persistent efforts, units have
made an explicit connection and social networks. These
connections further utilize to build brand reliability and
referrals (Barreda et al., 2015).
Similarly, evidence has been found favouring word of
mouth (WOM) publicity or best convenience (Li et al.,
2018). With the WOM approach, more and more customers
are likely to engage with, eating, and advocate for the
restaurant. By taking care of its patron, a restaurant can
build an optimistic customer bank that ramifies in a highly
competitive edge over others in the market. Therefore,
building trust with befitting responses to consumers’
demand is essential for businesses (Drescher et al., 2012). It
requires a deep understanding of consumer perception.
With timely actions on consumer perception, a firm can
leverage consumer satisfaction and establish trust and sales.
On the other hand, lack of knowledge about customer
perception coerces firms to make untimely, aberrant,
uncertain, and unprecedented decisions. In such a scenario,
firms must face complex incidents or incur heavy losses if
they go wrong or are based on incorrect parameters.
Therefore, understanding consumer perception is vital for
the restaurant sector.
Critical Success Factors Impacting
Consumers’ Perception
This section presents studies on factors relevant to
consumers’ perception from the restaurateurs’ viewpoint.
Mainly, we considered studies conducted in the hotel and
restaurant industries. The following sub-sections elaborate
on identified critical factors to consumers’ perception as
per the article’s theme.
Food Quality [FQ]
Food quality is the linchpin of the restaurant industry on
which every other thing depends (Gupta et al., 2007).
Whatever emphasis a restaurant makes on improving
4
business, its performance would be trivial if it cannot
provide quality food (Carranza et al., 2018). Aligned with
Jaeger et al. (2019) conceptual ideas, quality (what is
delivered) and rotational quality (how it is dispatched) are
stable characteristic and represent the core quality of a
restaurant. Suppose only the menu has the best combinations
of flavours but not fresh ingredients; in that case, it fails the
entire purpose of eating. A portion of quality food always
lies in fresh ingredients (Chen et al., 2018). The attribute of
fresh ingredient is likely to improve core quality.
Ingredients consumed in preparing food have a strong
influence on caloric intake. One research revealed that
each extra meal consumed outside adds an average of 134
calories for that day, compared to the same diet cooked at
home. In other words, holding all aspects constant, one
extra meal consumed at the restaurant each week could add
about two extra pounds per year. Therefore, it is not
surprising that consumers think twice before deciding on
the place and frequency of eating away from home.
According to Ha and Jang (2010), Chen et al. (2018),
Kersten and Koch (2010), a restaurant can stand out in the
current competitive market only if it provides the best
quality dishes in the vicinity. Demakova et al. (2020)
stressed that a restaurant’s food quality shapes its image in
the community. Also, the study shows that the use of fresh,
natural and seasonal ingredients helps to retain patron with
an eatery and brings new customers. In other words, it
enhances customer loyalty.
Nowadays, consumers are becoming more and more
health-conscious (Shimoda et al., 2020). They tend to
choose food that claims natural ingredients, low in sugar,
cholesterol, and sodium, rich in probiotics and high
antioxidants. A study conducted by Tomlinson and Rhiney
(2018) concluded that if consumers in a given vicinity
become conscious about using local ingredients, promote
local farms’ products, and stick to local brands, it shifts
consumers’ perception of the quality of the product foods.
Further, following standardized quality control for the
ingredients also ensure food quality (Grossmann et al.,
2021). The food quality standards must consider when a
restaurant receives raw ingredients and delivers food to
the consumers (Galstyan et al., 2018). The staff must
understand the system and able to check if components do
not meet the standards.
Food Delivery Support System [FDSS]
Nowadays, people are too busy. Only a quick delivery can
help them grab a bit in the busy schedule. Fast food delivery
services are critically important for restaurants to grab
physical orders inside the dining hall and meet online
orders’ demands (Goyal & Singh, 2018). Apart from quick
delivery on the table, it has become essential to meet
growing demand from online services such as Uber eat,
Zomato, Swiggy, Food panda and just eat (Chandrasekhar
et al., 2019). Sensing its reach and revenue increasing
number of entrepreneurs has turned their eyeball towards
FIIB Business Review
delivery support system. They are delving into a system that
can satisfy both offline and online orders. Consumers
admire a simple, transparent, and straightforward food
receiving system. A 24/7 available system where consumers
are free to decide what they order, how they pay and
when and where they receive the food is the need of the
hour (Chandrasekhar et al., 2019). Moreover, after GST
implementation, and due to COVID-19 pandemic, many
restaurateurs have closed their dining and started focusing
only on online delivery system, and dark kitchen. The
system ought to be flexible enough to meet varying
consumers’ demand. As per Maimaiti et al. (2018), an online
delivery system’s availability offers more convenience and
consumers choices. Consumers prefer to order from multiple
restaurants based on restaurants’ specialty of cuisines
(Italian, Thai, Chinese, etc.) and various dishes (pizza, pasta,
burger, etc.). A better delivery system offers more payment
options like a credit card, debit card, net banking, and so on.
Further, the availability of the wallet also helps in promos
and increase engagement with the system.
Many consumers discern their judgment based on food
preparation methods and how it is being served. Having
fresh ingredients is not enough to be the best, but trained
chefs, the right equipment, and prompt service are critical
in the field. The quicker the food reaches the eating table,
the better is the taste. In a recent study by Chemat et al.
(2020), the restaurants that make the best use of modern
techniques, processes, human resources, and other support
systems to get the food as quickly as possible on the table
can find niches to customer satisfaction.
Cleanliness and Ambient [CA]
Eating out is all about gaining experience. It starts from
food quality, ingredients, delivery services and cleanliness.
There are many factors consumers keep in mind when
deciding to eat out. One of the essential factors is cleanliness
(Kim et al., 2021). As per a study conducted by Kim and
Bachman (2019), 90% of consumers take cleanliness as a
critical factor while deciding whether they will repeat the
restaurant or not. Though the criticality of food quality is
discussed in the above section, it is equally essential to
ensure that consumers have a clean dining area. Therefore,
the optimum frequency of the cleaning process is required
to create a pleasant environment. It shows a restaurant’s
intention to care about and wants its customers to have a
quality/good time while dining. A clean ambient is critically
important to establish the first impression on consumers,
ultimately increasing customers’ loyalty.
Previous studies documented those ambient conditions
within the dining area play positively or negatively affect
consumers’ perceptions. Ambient conditions include
environmental aspects such as temperature, lighting, noise,
music, and scent. As a rule, these conditions affect the five
senses and can strongly impact satisfaction level; an
intelligent manager must be aware of it (Bschaden et al.,
2020). Further, a clean environment represents the safety
Sharma et al.
of the food. Whatever the food test a restaurant can
improve, consumers always associate it with poor kitchen
sanitation if the establishment is dirty. Also, health-
conscious consumers may associate it with the food safety
they will consume (Kim et al., 2021). Food safety problems
are damaging to large chains, especially to local businesses
whose reputations can become significantly damaged by a
food safety scandal Poltarykhin et al. (2018)—regular and
thorough cleaning of the kitchen and dining area abate
pathogens spreading to consumers. Business cannot
abdicate that customer choose one restaurant over the other
because of the menu and the feeling or the ambience. A
clean facility is essential for maintaining the restaurant’s
ambience. Sticky booths, dirty floors, or dusty lights disrupt
that atmosphere, making customers feel uncomfortable
(Kim et al., 2013). Cleanliness contributes significantly to
the restaurant’s vision and mission. As mentioned above,
an unclean facility can lead to food safety questions and
concerns over how well the restaurant is managed.
Customers might begin to speculate whether management
is invested in customer and employee safety. The surfaces
areas that customers can see and the areas they cannot see
should be regularly cleaned to demonstrate the business’s
dedication to safety (Shimoda et al., 2020). The bottom
line is diners can let go of a bad waiter or not-so-great
meal but most likely will not forget about an unclean
environment.
Food Price (FP)
In this study, the price concept is the sum of money
consumers have to pay to get food from a restaurant. It is
fixed by the restaurant based on charges or other pricing
components. The high food prices stimulate consumers’
notice. As per a report published last year, a 25% rise in
vegetable cost has been observed in India, which caused an
increase in price in restaurant menus (Kushwah et al.,
2019). It can also make consumers demand low-priced
food or raise their voice against the unfairness of incentive
pricing. According to Palacios and Jun (2020), customers
always tend to make sensible decisions and maximize
saving by looking for the lowest acceptable price. However,
many health-conscious consumers look to make different
choices and prefer high-priced food products compared to
lower prices. Consumers may refuse to deal totally if they
feel that quoted price is unfair. Understanding consumers’
perception of costs in the food industry is immensely
challenging (Aschemann-Witzel, 2018; Aschemann-Witzel
et al., 2018; Pontual et al., 2017).
Consumers’ capacity to seek price information and learn
more advanced prices has been an academic scholarly
research subject for several decades. Results have proved
that customers’ value theory seems restricted, particularly
with low-involved goods such as foods (Song et al., 2019).
For many decades, researchers have been trying to
understand how customers’ price evaluations forecast
buying behaviour. Therefore, consumers’ recognition of
5
prices is a critical point to think about competitive pricing
strategies. On the one hand, failing food prices have
become a threat to food quality and safety.
On the other hand, consumers are unwilling to pay
expensive food prices. This has become a global concern
linked to food quality, costs, health and expenses (Aung &
Chang, 2014; Hoffmann et al., 2019). For example, high
prices hinder consuming more natural products, such as
fresh fruits, fish and vegetables. Also, it is a barrier to
attaining dietary guidelines. Declining food price has been
considered a threat to the quality and food safety (Hoffmann
& Moser, 2017). In several studies at the international
level, the link between a low income and low diet quality
has been identified (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018). Ergo,
the importance of low food prices to low-income families
is evident. In the binary circumstances between cheap and
costly food, the Indian food industry must execute strategic
decisions. In one case, they might have to invest more
in the volume of products to reduce per-unit prices and
maintain compatibility. In the second case, the unit
(restaurant) may develop high-value food stocks to respond
to the high quality and differentiated demand. However,
under the later plan, new food discoveries or unique
production circumstances will most likely increase food
prices. Therefore, consumers’ acceptance of prices is a
critical issue to consider in competing pricing policies.
However, in India, using price as a rival feature in the
restaurant industry seems as recently as 2017 when a new
taxes system, that is, GST implemented. However, there is
not yet enough investigation on this issue. More perception
of the function of price in getting food is undoubtedly
needed. According to the National Restaurant Association
of India’s 2019 India Food Service (IFS) Report, the size
of the Indian food service industry was `1,48,353 crore in
2018–2019 and is projected to grow to `2,57,907 crore in
2022–2023 with a CAGR of 15%. This growth is further
fuelled by the growth of the great Indian middle class.
Rapid urbanization, growing awareness of western lifestyles,
more women joining the workforce, and higher disposable
income were some of the factors that contributed to the
growth of the restaurant industry. As a result, customers
generally themselves waiting in queues in most of the
restaurants during the weekend.
However, the rates under GST are vastly different from
what these would find before the tax policy change.
In Table 1, current GST rates are shown. It is observed
that most of the restaurant categories charge 5% GST rate
on food without getting input tax credit (ITC) and the
restaurants/hotels having room tariff more than `7,500
charge 18% GST with ITC facility (NRAI, 2019).
Brand Image (BI)
In general, when we talk about a brand, the brand is the
novel blending of product features and values attached
within its trademark, style, packaging, promotion, pricing,
base ingredients and nutritional properties and user
6
Table 1. Current GST Rates in Restaurants
Sr. No. Type of Restaurant
1. Railways/IRCTC
2. Standalone restaurant (both A/C and non A/C)
3. Standalone outdoor catering services or food delivery service
4. Restaurants within hotels (Where room tariff is less than `7,500)
5. Normal/composite outdoor catering within hotels (Where room tariff is less than `7,500)
6. Restaurants within hotels (Where room tariff is more than or equal to `7,500)
7. Normal/composite outdoor catering within hotels* (Where room tariff is more than or
equal to `7,500)
Source: NRAI (2019).
involvement. Based on these distinguishes, consumers,
make their viewpoint about a particular business or
product(s). Branding performs an essential role in publicizing
and differentiating a product from the other. It helps attract,
convince and keep their faithful consumers to own or to
consume a product. An active brand strategy can act as a
significant advantage in today’s markets. Thereby it
extends the key to profit.
Regarding processed food, Baskar et al. (2014) found
that trust and safety are two vibrant factors while deciding
on the food to eat. For instance, take an example of soft
drink Coke vs general soda, since Coca-Cola has built
substantial brand equity and its trust that charge higher for
its product. In some studies, authors have highlighted the
role of location on consumers perception. For instant,
Demakova et al. (2020); Newson et al. (2015) found the
national brand on top priority, whereas Lang and Lemmerer
(2019) found the significant impact of private/local brands.
In another interesting study, Kazmi (2012) carried out
customer insight and factors that dictated pasta purchasing
decisions. It was found that branding tricks affect buyers’
habits initially, but they fail to hold the customers’ attention
for an extended period. Eventually, consumers come down
to essential factors such as value-for-money derived from
the product. But it is expected that solid branding can
efficiently persuade customers to change their priorities
from healthy food to food that acquire a higher feeling of
well-being by agents such as flavour, aroma, brand value
and perception (Avila et al., 2020).
These days, people are studying product nutrition and
chosen based on the products’ brand quality. Optical
packaging and labelling directly impact the consumer’s
opinion of the food quality and brand choice. For instance,
a recent study shows that customers in the processed foods
market prefer to pay according to the product labelling and
an array of other commitments offered by the brands (Yi
et al., 2018). A significant relationship has been found
between packaging and consumer’s purchase decision
(Galstyan et al., 2018). It has found that consumers seek
the help of packaging, notably in terms of product security,
hygiene; other pieces of information, such as manufacturer
name, address the brand of the food product. Carranza et al.
(2018) pointed out that consumers go behind some brand as
FIIB Business Review
GST Rates
5% without ITC
5% without ITC
5% without ITC
5% without ITC
5% without ITC
18% with ITC
18% with ITC
a source of awareness and become familiar. Consequently,
they buy the product of a familiar brand either out of habit
or because of loyalty. Under these circumstances, consumers
are even willing to pay more for their familiar brand than
for a non-familiar or generic product.
Research Methodology
This research implies a dual-phase multi-case methodology
to identify and classify the critical success factors for
restaurant business point of view that can impact consumers’
perception in the restaurant industry. The research
methodology consists of two phases. In the first phase, a
mixture of comprehensive literature review and the
modified Delphi method is employed to identify the critical
factors. In the next phase, the Best Worst Method (BWM)
assesses and ranks the identified critical factors. Here, the
essential elements are rated based on their weight. BWM
has been considered the most potent multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) technique used to obtained criteria
weights (Gupta & Barua, 2016; Rezaei, 2015; Torkayesh
et al., 2021). It has advantages over other frequently
used MCDM techniques such as the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP), decision making trees, influence diagrams
approach (IDA), and Heuristic methods. It needs relatively
fewer pairwise comparisons for the same unique number of
criteria with more consistent results. The steps for BWM
are explained below:
Step 1: Identify a relevant list of criteria.
Step 2: Choose best (B) and worse (W) criteria for
main and sub-criteria.
Step 3: Using a scale of 1 to 9, ask each expert to elicit
a pairwise comparison between best criteria B
over all the other criteria. This results in vector
AB = (aB1,aB2, …, aBn).
Step 4: Like the above, each of the experts was asked to
elicit a pairwise comparison rating of all the
other criteria with the worst criteria (W). This
also results in vector Aw = (a1w,a2w, …, anw)T.
Step 5: Next is to obtain the optimized weight
w 1*, w 2* ...... , w n* for all the criteria.
Sharma et al. 7

That is, we obtain the weights of criteria so that the the Hyderabad restaurant industry. Hyderabad is a two-state
maximum absolute difference for all ‘can be minimized for capital city contributing significantly to revenue generation
{[wB – aBjwj], [wj– ajwww]}. The following minimax model for both states and countries (IBEF, 2018). The city has
is obtained: secured the fifth position in the number of restaurants in
India with excellent reviews. According to Shah et al.
Min - max {[w B - a Bj w j ], [w j - a jw w w ]}(1) (2018), Hyderabad is a fast-emerging market for the
hospitality, travel, food, and tourism sectors. Statistics
Such that | j w j = 1 shared by the state government show that the city witnessed
an impressive 76% rise in foreign tourist arrivals (FTAs) in
wj ≥ 0, for all. 2017. Domestic tourist arrivals (DTAs) have also been
continuously increasing over the years. The city has the
Model (1) is transformed to a linear model and is shown as: largest segment of the working-class from middle to upper-
min£L, level income with a vibrant culture of eating out. Therefore,
such that it represents the perfect combination of market traits to
[wB –aBjwj] ≤£ L*, for all ‘j’ assess consumers’ perception and business analysis in a
developing country.
[w j - a jw w w ] # £ L* , for all ‘j’(2) For a comprehensive study, all experts were selected
from a diverse segment of income level. All elected experts
| wj = 1 were referring to restaurants serving in separate locations
j
in the city. Without acknowledging each other, they were
wj ≥ 0, for all. representing the entire area under consideration. While
selecting experts, one of the criteria was that they must
Model (2) can be solved to obtained optimal weights have diverse experience with a minimum of 10 years. To
w 1*, w 2* ...... , w n* and optimal value £L. achieve homogeneity and generalization of results, experts
Consistency £L of attribute comparison close to ‘0’ is were selected from different profile and background.
desired (Gupta & Barua, 2016). Experts’ details are given in Table 2.
Once the global weight of each criterion is obtained by
multiplying the local weight of both primary and sub- Critical Factors Identification and
criteria, the next step is to compute the overall score of Finalization for the Restaurant Industry
alternative using the additive value function:
In this section, main and sub-critical factors are finalized
n and presented. Initially, a list of 30 potential factors was
V=| w j u ij(3)
j=1
identified from a comprehensive literature review. Then,
applying the modified-Delphi approach players (experts)
Where ‘i’ is the index of any alternative uij is the normalized from the Hyderabad restaurant business helped refine and
score of alternatives ‘i’ concerning criteria ‘j’. The value of develop consumers’ perception’s critical factors. This
uij can be obtained using expressions (4) and (5), is used for modified Delphi method allows experts to independently
positive criteria (beneficial criteria), and term (5) is used decide on the same model until a comprehensive agreement
for negative criteria (cost criteria). meets. In this study, a three-round of the modified Delphi
process was carried out using the same set of experts. Each
x ij round helped to refine, focus and development of critical
u ij = for all ‘j’(4) factors. In the initial two rounds, the study could not reach
| i x ij
a consensus. The third round was conducted where experts
1 were asked to vote ‘yes mean accept’ and ‘no mean reject’
x ij on each critical factor. The third step ended in an ultimate
u ij = for all ‘j’(5) set of 5 main critical factors and 25 sub-critical factors.
|i 1 The final list of 5 main and 25 sub-critical factors is
x ij
presented in Table 3.
Where, xij is the actual score of alternatives ‘i’ concerning After concluding the main and subcritical factors, the
criterion ‘j’. next step was to rank the critical success factors. As per
BWM, each expert was invited to choose (through email)
the best and worst factor among the main and subcategory
Study Design and Results of critical factors. The experts were further required to rate
best-to-others and others-to-worst for all the main and
Unit’s Information and Experts’ Background subcategory of critical factors using a 1 to 9 Likert scale.
To achieve study objectives, seven experts were selected Pairwise comparison for main critical factors is prepared as
from different units. The selected units are registered under presented in Table 4.
8 FIIB Business Review

Table 2. Experts’ and Case Restaurants’ Profiles

Total Experience Educational

Expert Current Position (Years) Previous Experience Background Restaurants’ Type
Expert 1 Restaurant manager 11 Cashier, supervisor, Diploma education Fine dining
and manager
Expert 2 Restaurant manager 12 Maintenance and Degrees in Casual dining
cleaning hospitality
Expert 3 Restaurant manager/owner 14 Host, cashier, Graduation with art Family style types of
operation manager restaurants
Expert 4 Senior manager 16 Runner, Server, High school Fine dining
supervisor, manager
Expert 5 Restaurant manager/owner 13 Head chef, operation Diploma Casual dining
manager
Expert 6 Restaurant manager 11 Maintenance and host BTech Fine dining
Expert 7 Restaurant manager 12 Cashier, manager BSc. Fine dining
Source: The authors.

Table 3. Critical Factors of Customers’ Perception

Main Factors Subcategory Code Description Supporting Literature

Food quality Promoting local farm
(FQ) produced
Use of fresh ingredients
Follow standardized
quality control
Use natural and seasonal
food
Food tests and quality
Delivery A payment service DSS1
support system provider (PSP)
(DSS)
A simple and DSS2
transparent system
FQ1 Locally produced food generates essential Aung & Chang (2014)
business opportunities, gives health advantages Ha & Jang (2010)
and offer benefits to the environment. The aid Savelli et al. (2019)
makes the community collectively and enables Wolfson et al. (2016)
people to make positive transformations. Kim et al. (2013)
Additionally, numerous consumers believe local Newson et al. (2015)
food tastes more reliable and lasts longer. Lang & Lemmerer (2019)
FQ2 When cooking with fresh ingredients, food retains Bertan (2020)
comparatively more nutrients and consumers Grunert et al. (2004)
experience more flavours.
FQ3 The quality check ensures quality food production,
which enhances customers’ faith and reliability
in the eatery. It is vital to retain the current
customer base and to create new demand.
FQ4 Season foods carry more nutrition. Grains
used only when they are harvested have more
antioxidants and healthier than those picked early
and stored.
FQ5 The overall food quality describes a firm’s
safeguard against contamination that may occur
during any processing steps. It also deals with
the firm’s ability to trace natural products or any
ingredient if required.
Convenience is essential to consumer satisfaction. Chandrasekhar et al.
Apart from serving delicious food, cleanliness and (2019)
quick delivery, offering payment choice is another Maimaiti et al. (2018)
way to make consumers happy. Customers want Wolfson et al. (2016)
to pay in various ways these days and are looking Kim et al. (2013)
for a restaurant that accepts credit cards and
ensures digital payments.
Food transparency commits to the tradition
of staying honest and open with consumers in
terms of food sourcing, ingredient lists, nutrition
facts, allergen concerns and ecological impact.
The volume of data hosted to clients can vary
anywhere from illustrating calorie calculations
on the website to providing the diet and living
conditions of the chicken being served.
(Table 3 Continued)
Sharma et al. 9

(Table 3 Continued)
Main Factors Subcategory Code Description Supporting Literature
Flexible and versatility DSS3 The way restaurants react to changing rapid
(F&V) consumer demand is vital. It has become critically
important to keep an eye on modern trends what
consumers exactly want. Flexibility, along with
versatility, seems a viable solution to this situation.
24*7 availability DSS4 It creates a nightlife opportunity and helps
the restaurant to generate more revenue and
employment.
Online and offline DSS5 The mixture of both offline and online delivery
delivery option improves your restaurant’s visibility. It creates
essential brand awareness because your patrons
who already know your place are highly likely to
visit and order online. They see your brand on
various online platforms (offline and online).
Cleanliness and Hired a professional CA1 The purpose of choosing a cleaning service in Kim et al. (2021)
ambient (CA) cleaning company the restaurant is that they are professionals and Kim & Bachman (2019)
appropriately trained to clean, dust and sanitize. Poltarykhin et al. (2018)
They know the way to give the restaurant a clean King et al. (2017)
setting it needs to attract customers.
Cleanliness is a part of CA2 It represents restaurants’ seriousness towards the
the vision and mission factor and makes employees habitual of clean and
tidy working procedures.
Regular cleaning and CA3 Cleaning and sanitizing is very important for the
sanitization food industry because it removes dirt, bacteria, or
other pathogens and ensures food safety.
Emphasis upon the first CA4 Cleanliness is a vital element in creating an
impression excellent first impression of a restaurant. It
serves to get customers back to the place. Manage
equipment in shipshape and food prepared visually
appealing. Keep restrooms clean and tidy.
Safe food handling CA5 An SFHPP refers to handling guidelines and
practices and obtaining food production processes to stop and
procedures (SFHPP) protect them from undesired and harmful agents.
These methods and procedures depreciate danger
from possible risks or hazards and improve food
quality and productivity.
Food price (FP) Flexible food price with FP1 To corroborate the consumer sovereignty in Song et al. (2019)
quantity (total or half) order based on appetite and need. Kim et al. (2013)
Special packages (family, FP2 A family-style offers more flexibility, a comfortable Aschemann-Witzel et al.
birthday party, etc.) environment and price packages. In such an (2018)
eatery, families have more control and freedom. If NRAI (2019)
planned tactically, such restaurants can have more Yi et al. (2018)
satisfying food cost than a regular menu.
Competitive menu FP3 It represents the best reasonable pricing based on
pricing strategy specialization. A restaurant can get a competitive
edge if a restaurant offers the best food in a
particular category at a comparatively lower or
equal price.
Impact of GST FP4 It represents the inclusion of GST instead of
previous VAT (value-added tax) in the restaurant
bill, which is currently a total of 5% in most of
the restaurant types. By replacing VAT with GST,
restaurant bill has come down and provided a big
relief due to other taxes for eating out.
Price fluctuation due to FP5 It describes if the restaurant changes price based
unprecedented events on external factors such as geopolitical issues,
global trade, market prices, state or central
government policy, natural and physical resources
for agriculture. Further, differences in soil and
climate issues immediately affect food prices.
(Table 3 Continued)
10 FIIB Business Review

(Table 3 Continued)
Main Factors Subcategory Code Description Supporting Literature
Brand image Words of mouth BM1 WOM recommendations are convenient and Barreda et al. (2015)
(BM) (WOM) crucial for any brand. Since people get them from Demakova et al. (2020)
well-known sources such as colleagues, friends Palacios & Jun (2020)
and family, they are reliable and worthy.
Importance of brand BM2 People tend to buy a familiar brand because
awareness they assume that a regular brand is reliable and
reasonable. A known brand is thus usually chosen
over an unfamiliar brand.
Importance of brand BM3 The value of a brand name is usually based on
association distinct associations connected to it. Associations
can build a positive emotion or attitude towards
a brand. Suppose a brand has firmly maintained a
critical property in a unique product class. It makes
it hard for competitors to attack their allies.
Brand loyalty BM4 It is an estimate of the customer’s commitment
to a brand. It shows the customers’ stand to
switching to a different brand.
Brand’s social BM5 Corporate social responsibility (CSR) assist firms
contribution in building trust and spreading awareness. The
more the firm is socially responsible, the more it
mingles with the community and local problems.
As a result, it receives firm customer support and
publicity (WOM).
Source: The authors.

Table 4. Pairwise Comparison for Main Category Critical Factors

Best to Other for Seven Respondents

Experts Best Criterion FQ [1] FDSS [5] CA [2] FP [3] BI [4]
Expert 1 FQ 1 9 4 5 6
Expert 2 CA 2 7 1 9 4
Expert 3 FQ 1 8 3 4 9
Expert 4 FP 2 9 4 1 5
Expert 5 CA 2 7 1 3 9
Expert 6 FQ 1 9 3 2 4
Expert 7 CA 2 7 1 4 9
Others to Worst for Seven Respondents
Experts Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6 Expert 7
Worst Criterion FDSS FP BM FDSS BM FDSS BI
FQ 9 6 9 7 6 9 6
FDSS 1 3 2 1 3 1 2
CA 5 9 6 6 9 7 9
FP 6 1 5 9 5 8 5
BM 3 3 1 4 1 6 1
Source: The authors.

The pairwise rating for all the subcategory critical
factors is presented in Appendix A (Table A1 to A5). Next,
using Equation (2) and pairwise rating achieved for all the
main and subcategory critical factors, the weights of each
main and subcategory of critical factors are calculated. The
exact weight, as well as the ranking for subcategories, are
presented in Table 5. The global weight for subcategory in
Table 5 is calculated by multiplying the local weight of that
subcategory by the weight of its main/parent critical factor.
Once the subcategory critical factors weight are obtained,
raking is done based on the weights.
Results and Discussion
This study identified and finalized the critical success
factors affecting consumer perception from a restaurant
Sharma et al. 11

Table 5. Criteria Weight and Ranking of the Main Critical Factors and Sub-criteria

Subcategories Subcategories Sub criteria Global

Main Criteria Main Criteria Weight Criteria Criteria Local Weight Weight Ranks
Food quality (FQ) 0.367 FQ1 0.080 0.0294 10
FQ2 0.382 0.1402 1
FQ3 0.069 0.0253 14
FQ4 0.265 0.0973 3
FQ5 0.205 0.0752 5
Delivery support 0.062 DSS1 0.341 0.0211 15
system [FDSS] DSS2 0.073 0.0045 25
DSS3 0.164 0.0102 21
DSS4 0.086 0.0053 24
DSS5 0.335 0.0208 16
Cleanliness and 0.294 CA1 0.094 0.0277 11
ambient [CA] CA2 0.068 0.0200 17
CA3 0.383 0.1126 2
CA4 0.307 0.0903 4
CA5 0.147 0.0432 8
Food price (FP) 0.194 FP1 0.199 0.0386 9
FP2 0.272 0.0528 7
FP3 0.371 0.0720 6
FP4 0.083 0.0161 18
FP5 0.075 0.0146 19
Brand image (BI) 0.083 BM1 0.333 0.0276 12
BM2 0.184 0.0153 20
BM3 0.317 0.0263 13
BM4 0.084 0.0070 23
BM5 0.081 0.0067 22
Source: The authors.

owner point of view in the restaurant industry. Initially, we
identified 5 main critical factors and 30 relevant sub-critical
items based on a comprehensive literature review. Then,
using the modified Delphi approach, several rounds of
discussion with experts were held. The panel led to the
rejection of 5 items. The remaining/approved 25 items by
the experts is given in Table 3. The main critical factors and
subcategories (items) were then analysed in two separate
phases using the same set of experts from the region under
consideration. In the first phase of analysis for main criteria
(see Table 4 for the results), ‘Food Quality’ (FQ), with the
weight of 0.367, was found to be the prime critical factor
confirmed by regional restaurants experts for influencing
consumer attitude. Food quality is the cynosure of the
restaurant industry. Consumers are often captivated by the
food characteristics like tastes, colour, ingredients, textures
and flavours. Delectable recipes carry a positive point over
just palatable food (Aung & Chang, 2014).
With a weight of 0.294, the next critical factor was the
‘Cleanliness and Ambient’ (C&A), which indicate that the
consumers want a decent place to eat. It shows that
consumers feel and mood is associated with a particular
situation, place, person, or thing. The results indicate that
restaurants’ ambience, including lighting, sound and
colour, has a tremendous impact on consumer behaviour.
This result supports the findings that improving an ambient
restaurant condition (scents, lighting and temperature,
music, etc.) enhances customer satisfaction in the restaurant
experience (Raab et al., 2013). With a weight of 0.194, the
third position is identified critical factor was taken by
‘Food Price’ (FP). With increased ingredients or input, raw
material food prices increase consumers’ eyes for value for
money. Being a middle-income group, the prices of
foods need to be affordable yet profitable. One of the
most significant factors against profit/loss is to know
restaurant food costs in consumers’ perception. Knowing
this, the owners can make the right moves to promote his/
her business. These results align with Newson et al. (2015),
where authors found that about 57.1% of consumers
believe that healthy food items tend to be expensive. Also,
this finding strengthens the argument that in developing
country food industries is facing a strategic problem.
To deal with increased demand, restaurants owners have
to install new processing technology; conversely, consumers
are reluctant to pay accordingly. Moreover, GST
implementation in restaurant industry has proved beneficial,
as it attracts more customers due to reduction in total bill
after eating out. This is due to the reasons that current GST
rates in most of the restaurants are a total of 5% (including
all other taxes), unlike previous VAT system in which
service tax, service charge, VAT, cess, and so on, were
12
charged extra. This proved benefits to consumers as well as
restaurateurs. For more information see Table A6.
The fourth critical factor was found the ‘Brand Image’
(BI) (0.083). Small restaurant proprietors usually lack the
support to create a comprehensive branding plan. Creating
its brand in the restaurant industry is vital and a positive
trend competition. When someone talks about a brand image,
he/she wish to talk about the level of expectation. As per
Barcello et al. (2012), several restaurant proprietors have
no idea how to imagine and create a brand or locate and
hire reliable experts to mark their company. Albeit tiny
enterprises’ owners are specialists in their profession, they
have never achieved or considered marketing. Therefore,
they have not understood the urgency to create a brand.
The last rank among all identified critical factors was
occupied by the ‘Food Delivery Support System’ (FDSS).
Though it had acquired a place among critical factors for
consumers’ perception, study results found that consumers
do not give it much importance. This response clearly
shows the difference between customers are fast-food and
fine dining (restaurants). In restaurants, consumers get
enough time for conversation; in the meantime, food gets
prepared.
Among subcategory critical factors with rank 1, ‘Use of
fresh Ingredient’ (FQ2) emerged as the most vital consumer
perception factor. Experts concluded that fresh raw food
(ingredient) is critically important in the restaurant industry
for the long-term customer base. It can be elucidated as the
study was utterly concerted on local restaurants where
consumers eventually get familiar with the restaurant’s
supply chain, quality, quantity, and source from where it
comes. It makes a massive impact on the decision of
whether to revisit the place again or not. On the other hand,
it is also true that if consumers find spoiled ingredient on
their plate, they hardly return to the site. These results align
with Savelli et al. (2019), where authors find nutrition
value a crucial consideration in consumers’ eyes while
selecting foods to eat. The study implies that rich fibre
products are suitable for nutritional value and a good
source of minerals.
Further, the same results have been noted by Bajaj
(2019) the freshness of food is the essential factor that
patrons keep in mind while buying prepared foods.
Following FQ2, the next critical factor was ‘Regular
cleaning and sanitization’ (CA3), which implies that
consumers notice the restaurant cleanliness of its dining
area and take measures to protect it from harmful insects.
Results are aligning with Kim et al. (2021). The third rank
is secured by the ‘Use of Natural and Seasonal Ingredients’
(FQ3). It implies the consumer attitude towards healthy
food. The results support the findings of Bibi et al. (2017);
Carranza et al. (2018) that consumers prefer to visit multiple
times to eat a place if they serve natural and seasonal food.
The fourth rank is secured by the factor that ‘Emphasizes
first impression’ (CA4), whereas, in the fifth place, experts
FIIB Business Review
stress ‘Food taste and quantity’ (FQ5). This result
strengthens the finding that quality food options are often
linked with lower tastes and high prices (Newson et al.,
2015). The first visit may vary widely and cover everything
from the quality of service to the restrooms. Independent of
where consumers heard about the eatery and described it,
the most critical aspect is how consumers are served on
their first visit (Chandrasekhar et al., 2019). ‘Competitive
Menu Pricing Strategy’ secured the 6th rank out of a total
of 25 subcategories. It represents though consumers want
fresh and seasonal food but at a reasonable price. The
regional study showed that special family packages create
a considerable difference in consumers’ perception—as
can be seen from the fact that FP2 secured seventh place in
the list. Impact of GST in restaurant industry secured
eighteenth rank from consumer prospective, which shows
that implementation of GST affects a bit and consumers do
not concentrate more on GST in bills as compared to other
factors. In addition to that, the consumers who are aware
about GST rates and previous taxes rates, they seem to be
more satisfied with the new taxation system. The eight
ranks also came under the cleaning and sanitization domain,
that is, safe food handling practices and procedures
(SFHPP). The ninth rank was found quite tactical,
emphasizing consumers’ freedom to order half or a full
plate of a particular meal. It was found that consumers
want to taste various food, and those who favour them
provide them with this facility. They have the facility to
request half or complete in quantity and provide them with
more freedom. The 10th rank in the subcategories was
secured in the FQ domain, that is, promoting local farm
production. The results show that people in the studied
region know their economic importance because they stress
consuming local farms. It is a kind of social awareness that
has been considered productive for a good society (Barreda
et al., 2015). The rank 12th and 13th came under BM,
which is ‘Words of Mouth’ (WOM) and ‘Importance of
brand association’. The importance of brand image and
information printed (flavours, nutrients per serving, etc.)
on the packaging has been pointed out in Barreda et al.
(2015); Demakova et al. (2020). This means that customers
in the studied region are well aware and make eating
decisions after thinking about the facts at hand, in this case,
the message printed on the menu. This extra reinforces the
notion that consumers compare different restaurant
according to the level of awareness and then arrive at a
conclusion or make an informed decision.
These finds give a clear-cut insight on two main important
points. The first one, WOM, is the most appropriate
publicity strategy for small and local restaurants. Second,
the restaurants’ association matters for its success. As the
study is conducted at the local level, the results indicate
that WOM spread quickly and firmly. Also, with whom
units work, receive supply and ingredients matters to the
consumers. The rank 15th and 16th were secure under the
Sharma et al.
‘Delivery Support System’ DSS1 and DSS5. Quick delivery
is a time-saving factor that is one of the undeniable issues
in processed foods. Generally, individuals or groups who
do not possess ample time go for processed food to have a
quick service. Even if your restaurant’s food is good, a
first-time customer might not return if the service is poor.
On the other hand, managers need to focus on the quality of
prepared food because it expires within a certain period
and must be consumed unless it will go waste (Aung &
Chang, 2014; Grunert et al., 2004). Further, the findings
show that consumers think about how they will pay before
deciding where to eat. Offering all options such as net
banking, online money transfer, and many others makes
consumers free from all payment dilemmas.
Further, the study has observed the impact of online food
delivery options. The results are in favour of units that are
available both online as well as offline. For further ranking
from 17th to 25th, see the details presented in Table 5.
Implication of the Study
The study findings carry significant implications for the
restaurant sector, managers, owners and researchers in the
field. The restaurant sector offers a substantial portion of
employment and business opportunities to the state, and it
has always been a matter of concern about the factors that
govern its success. Therefore, bridging this gap in literature
this study offers 25 critical success factors to restaurant
industry. Recently, field experts have seen tremendous
changes consumers’ eating habits and the sector has a huge
opportunity to change their business style according to
changing markets. Giving their size, resources, and
knowledge faces numerous challenges to reap those
opportunities. Small restaurants do not have enough
resources; therefore, they must utilize these limited
resources wisely to keep up their position in the current
highly competitive market. Working on identified critical
success factors will help restaurateurs to put their efforts
and limited resources in right directions that will take them
to next level of competitive ladder. The present study
provides a framework for restaurants to work on improving
their performance. By keeping a checklist of identified
critical success factors, restaurants can improve their
consumer satisfaction.
The study also revealed that 66% of a restaurant’s
success depends on only the first two factors, that is, food
quality and cleanliness and ambient. In contrast, the last
two factors (deliver system and brand image) carry only
14% weightage. The ranking of subcategories revealed that
‘Use of fresh Ingredients’ and regular ‘Cleaning and
Sanitization’ should be the top priority for the restaurant
managers. Consumers are more willing to purchase
products made of local fresh ingredients. The results imply
that the competition level has reached to the local market.
New taxation system (GST) has brought positive waves on
13
consumers perception towards pricing policies in restaurant
industry. Restaurants managers seem more confident in
explaining and satisfying their consumers query regarding
food pricing policy. Study found that consumers in the
local market are well aware of brands and they read what is
written on packings and expect what is promised in the
menu. The last two ranks (24th and 25th) were obtained by
‘Simple and Transparent System’ and a ‘24*7 availability’.
These results show the mundane attitude of consumers
towards these two areas. Therefore, restaurants can remove
them from their priority list and focus on what matters to
the consumers.
The policymakers and state regulatory authority can
also benefit from this research to test the current framework
to understand the factors further and offer required support
to the sector. The study can act as the basis of strategy
formulation for local restaurants and a model for other
researchers working in this area. The study offers an
in-depth discussion on each factor that affects consumer
perception in the restaurant industry. Owners can compare
their level of performance concerning the efforts they are
making to delight consumers.
Conclusion and Further Research
Conclusion
Consumers’ perception is essential for the restaurant
industry. Knowing precisely what consumers want and
then working on it can bring a considerable change
in operating style in restaurant business. However,
understanding consumers’ perception and addressing their
concern required a deep understanding. And that can be
deciphered through conducting in-depth studies on critical
success factors that govern it. Study results found that
increasing food quality, choices, lighter caloric foods at
comparable prices to other menus’ offerings could make
restaurants more desirable to the health-conscious diner.
The current scenario demands identifying, evaluating, and
then ranking these critical factors to be dealt with on a
priority basis.
Therefore, this study identified a list of critical success
factors influencing consumers’ perception from a viewpoint
of restaurant owner in the restaurant industry. It further
classified them into primary and subcategories and finally
ranked them all separately. Though all identified main and
subcategories factors are essential, we suggest managers
work tactically on their ranking. The present study also
shows that GST implementation in restaurant industry
brought positive changes for both consumers and restaurant
business owners.
Limitation and Further Scope
As no study is there without limitation, so does this. This
study has twenty-five factors categorized into five main
14 FIIB Business Review

factors based on the modified-Delphi approach. Further Acknowledgement

studies can further explore these factors using a broad
interview with owners and consumers. This study has
ranked critical elements based on MCDM techniques.
Future research can be conducted to develop strategies to
tackle these factors. The MCDM technique has been used;
further analysis can be performed by applying structural
equational modelling (SEM) to determine the relationship
between various critical factors and consumer satisfaction.
This study has identified certain essential aspects of
consumer perception by considering all the restaurants
equally. Still, many factors vary concerning location,
customer base and income. Therefore, results are limited to
a few case units or restaurants working under the same
circumstances. In other words, the generalization of
products is not possible. However, this is an initial study in
this area. It can open many doors to conduct further studies
and understand the objective clearer.
The happiness that followed the successful completion of this
research would be incomplete without acknowledging the people
involved in this study. We thank the restaurant managers (experts)
for offering their insights and constant guidance, continuous
support, and this research work.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Manjeet Kharub https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0534-8551

Appendix A
Table A1. Pairwise Comparison for Food Quality

Best to Other for 7 Respondents

Expert Best Criterion FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FQ5
Expert 1 FQ2 6 1 9 3 5
Expert 2 FQ4 9 3 7 1 4
Expert 3 FQ2 9 1 6 4 3
Expert 4 FQ2 6 1 9 3 5
Expert 5 FQ4 3 4 9 1 2
Expert 6 FQ5 9 2 7 4 1
Expert 7 FQ2 9 1 7 3 5
Others to Worst for 7 Respondents
Experts Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6 Expert 7
Worst Criterion FQ3 FQ1 FQ1 FQ3 FQ3 FQ1 FQ1
FQ1 4 1 1 3 6 1 1
FQ2 9 6 9 9 5 7 9
FQ3 1 3 2 1 1 3 3
FQ4 6 9 5 5 9 6 6
FQ5 3 5 6 7 7 9 4
Source: The authors.

Table A2. Pairwise Comparison for Delivery Support System

Best to Other for 7 Respondents

Expert Best Criterion DSS1 DSS2 DSS3 DSS4 DSS5
Expert 1 DSS5 3 7 5 9 1
Expert 2 DSS1 1 6 4 8 3
Expert 3 DSS1 1 9 6 7 4
Expert 4 DSS5 4 8 5 6 1
Expert 5 DSS3 3 9 1 6 2
Expert 6 DSS5 2 5 7 6 1
Expert 7 DSS1 1 8 4 5 3
(Table A2 Continued)
Sharma et al. 15

(Table A2 Continued)

Others to Worst for 7 Respondents

Experts Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6 Expert 7
Worst Criterion DSS4 DSS4 DSS2 DSS2 DSS2 DSS3 DSS2
DSS1 6 9 8 5 6 6 8
DSS2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1
DSS3 4 6 3 4 8 1 5
DSS4 1 1 2 3 4 5 4
DSS5 8 7 5 8 7 8 6
Source: The authors.

Table A3. Pairwise Comparison for Cleanliness

Best to Other for 7 Respondents

Expert Best Criterion CL1 CL2 CL3 CL4 CL5
Expert 1 CL3 4 9 1 2 6
Expert 2 CL3 6 7 1 9 4
Expert 3 CL4 9 6 2 1 3
Expert 4 CL4 7 9 3 1 4
Expert 5 CL3 6 9 1 4 5
Expert 6 CL3 5 9 1 3 4
Expert 7 CL4 9 6 4 1 3
Others to Worst for 7 Respondents
Experts Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6 Expert 7
Worst Criterion CL2 CL4 CL1 CL2 CL2 CL2 CL1
CL1 6 3 1 4 3 4 1
CL2 1 2 3 1 1 1 3
CL3 8 9 6 6 9 8 5
CL4 7 1 8 8 5 6 9
CL5 3 6 5 5 4 5 6
Source: The authors.

Table A4. Pairwise Comparison for Food Price

Best to Other for 7 Respondents

Expert Best Criterion FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5
Expert 1 FP2 4 1 2 5 7
Expert 2 FP3 5 3 1 6 9
Expert 3 FP3 3 4 1 8 6
Expert 4 FP2 6 1 3 7 5
Expert 5 FP3 4 2 1 9 5
Expert 6 FP1 1 3 4 6 8
Expert 7 FP3 3 4 1 5 8
Others to Worst for 7 Respondents
Experts Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6 Expert 7
Worst Criterion FP5 FP5 FP4 FP4 FP4 FP5 FP5
FP1 6 4 6 3 5 8 6
FP2 8 6 5 8 6 5 5
FP3 7 8 9 7 8 6 8
FP4 4 3 1 1 1 3 3
FP5 1 1 3 4 4 1 1
Source: The authors.
16 FIIB Business Review

Table A5. Pairwise Comparison for Brand Image

Best to Other for 7 Respondents

Expert Best Criterion BM1 BM2 BM3 BM4 BM5
Expert 1 BM1 1 6 4 8 7
Expert 2 BM1 1 5 3 9 6
Expert 3 BM3 4 3 1 6 9
Expert 4 BM1 1 4 5 6 9
Expert 5 BM3 3 8 1 5 6
Expert 6 BM2 4 1 3 8 5
Expert 7 BM3 3 4 1 6 8
Others to Worst for 7 Respondents
Experts Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Expert 6 Expert 7
Worst Criterion BM4 BM4 BM5 BM5 BM2 BM4 BM5
BM1 8 8 5 9 5 5 6
BM2 3 2 6 5 1 9 5
BM3 5 6 8 4 8 6 9
BM4 1 1 3 3 4 1 3
BM5 2 3 1 1 3 4 1
Source: The authors.

Table A6. Impact of GST on Restaurant Business Owner

Particulars Bill Under VAT Regime Bill Under GST Regime

Total bill 5,000 5,000
Output tax
–VAT @14.5% 725
–Service tax@6% 300
GST@5% 250
Total output tax liability 1,025 250
Input tax credit (ITC)
–VAT ITC (no ITC on service tax) 75
GST ITC –
Total Bill 5,000 + 950 = 5,950 5,000 + 250 = 5,250
Source: www.cleartax.in.

Bajaj, S., & Dudeja, P. (2019). Food poisoning outbreak in a

References
Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2018). Consumer perception and
preference for suboptimal food under the emerging practice
of expiration date based pricing in supermarkets. Food
Quality and Preference, 63, 119–128.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Gimenez, A., & Ares, G. (2018).
Convenience or price orientation? Consumer characteristics
influencing food waste behaviour in the context of an
emerging country and the impact on future sustainability of
the global food sector. Global Environmental Change, 49,
85–94.
Aung, M. M., & Chang, Y. S. (2014). Traceability in a food
supply chain: Safety and quality perspectives. Food Control,
39, 172–184.
Avila, B. P., da Rosa, P. P., Fernandes, T. A., Chesini, R. G.,
Sedrez, P. A., de Oliveira, A. P. T., Mota, G. N., Gularte,
M. A., & Roll, V. F. B. (2020). Analysis of the perception
and behaviour of consumers regarding probiotic dairy
products. International Dairy Journal, 106, 104703.
Bajaj, C. (2019). Consumer perception on branding: A study on
processed food. Adalya Journal, 8(12), 446–467.
religious mass gathering. medical journal armed forces india,
75(3), 339–343.
Barreda, A. A., Bilgihan, A., Nusair, K., & Okumus, F. (2015).
Generating brand awareness in online social networks.
Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 600–609.
Baskar, R., Dai, J., Wenlong, N., Yeo, R., & Yeoh, K. W. (2014).
Biological response of cancer cells to radiation treatment.
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, 1, 24.
Bertan, S. (2020). Restaurant rankings factors in gastronomy
tourism. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal,
68(1), 34–42.
Bhatia, M., & Jain, A. (2013). Green marketing: A study of
consumer perception and preferences in India. Electronic
Green Journal, 1(36), 1–19.
Bibi, F., Guillaume, C., Gontard, N., & Sorli, B. (2017). A review:
RFID technology having sensing aptitudes for food industry
and their contribution to tracking and monitoring of food
products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 62, 91–103.
Brunner, T. A., Van der Horst, K., & Siegrist, M. (2010).
Convenience food products. Drivers for consumption.
Appetite, 55(3), 498–506.
Sharma et al.
Bruschi, V., Shershneva, K., Dolgopolova, I., Canavari, M., &
Teuber, R. (2015). Consumer perception of organic food in
emerging markets: Evidence from Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Agribusiness, 31(3), 414–432.
Bschaden, A., Dörsam, A. F., Cvetko, K., Kalamala, T., &
Stroebele-Benschop, N. (2020). The impact of lighting
and table linen as ambient factors on meal intake and taste
perception. Food Quality and Preference, 79, 103797.
Carranza, R., Díaz, E., & Martín-Consuegra, D. (2018). The
influence of quality on satisfaction and customer loyalty
with an importance-performance map analysis. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 9(3), 380–396.
Chandrasekhar, N., Gupta, S., & Nanda, N. (2019). Food delivery
services and customer preference: A comparative analysis.
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 22(4), 375–386.
Chemat, F., Vian, M. A., Fabiano-Tixier, A. S., Nutrizio, M.,
Jambrak, A. R., Munekata, P. E., & Cravotto, G. (2020). A
review of sustainable and intensified techniques for extraction
of food and natural products. Green Chemistry, 22(8),
2325–2353.
Chen, F., Zhang, M., & Yang, C. H. (2020). Application of
ultrasound technology in processing of ready-to-eat fresh
food: A review. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 63, 104953.
Chen, K. J., Yeh, T. M., Pai, F. Y., & Chen, D. F. (2018). Integrating
refined Kano model and QFD for service quality improvement
in healthy fast-food chain restaurants. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1310.
Data monitor. (2013). India’s food service industry: Growth
recipe. KPMG.com/in. (accessed February 3, 2021).
Demakova, E., Butova, T., Razumovskaya, V., Morgun, V., &
Danchenok, L. (2020). Study of consumer perception of food
quality as a basis for territorial branding. IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 421(2), 022054.
DiPietro, R. B., Crews, T. B., Gustafson, C., & Strick, S. (2012).
The use of social networking sites in the restaurant industry:
Best practices. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,
15(3), 265–284.
Drescher, L. S., de Jonge, J., Goddard, E., & Herzfeld, T. (2012).
Consumer’s stated trust in the food industry and meat
purchases. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(4), 507–517.
Filimonau, V., & Sulyok, J. (2021). ‘Bin it and forget it!’: The
challenges of food waste management in restaurants of a mid-
sized Hungarian city. Tourism Management Perspectives, 37,
100759.
Galstyan, V., Bhandari, M. P., Sberveglieri, V., Sberveglieri, G.,
& Comini, E. (2018). Metal oxide nanostructures in food
applications: Quality control and packaging. Chemosensors,
6(2), 16.
Goyal, A., & Singh, N. P. (2018). Consumer perception about fast
food in India: An exploratory study. British Food Journal,
109, 185–195.
Grossmann, L., Kinchla, A. J., Nolden, A., & McClements,
D. J. (2021). Standardized methods for testing the quality
attributes of plant-based foods: Milk and cream alternatives.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety,
20(2), 2206–2233.
Grunert, K. G. (2011). Sustainability in the food sector: A
consumer behaviour perspective. International Journal on
Food System Dynamics, 2(3), 207–218.
Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L., & Brunsø, K. (2004). Consumer
perception of meat quality and implications for product
17
development in the meat sector—A review. Meat Science,
66(2), 259–272.
Gupta, H., & Barua, M. K. (2016). Identifying enablers of
technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–
worst multi criteria decision making method. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 107, 69–79.
Gupta, S., McLaughlin, E., & Gomez, M. (2007). Guest
satisfaction and restaurant performance. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 284–298.
Ha, J., & Jang, S. S. (2010). Effects of service quality and food
quality: The moderating role of atmospherics in an ethnic
restaurant segment. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29(3), 520–529.
Hlee, S., Lee, J., Yang, S. B., & Koo, C. (2019). The moderating
effect of restaurant type on hedonic versus utilitarian review
evaluations. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
77, 195–206.
Hoffmann, V., & Moser, C. (2017). You get what you pay for:
The link between price and food safety in Kenya. Agricultural
Economics, 48(4), 449–458.
Hoffmann, V., Moser, C., & Saak, A. (2019). Food safety in
low and middle-income countries: The evidence through an
economic lens. World Development, 123, 104611.
IBEF. (2018). Annual report. https://www.ibef.org/uploads/IBEF-
Annual-Report-2018-19.pdf (accessed February 5, 2021).
IFIC. (2018). Annual report. https://www.ificbank.com.bd/
annual-report, (accessed February 2, 2021)
Jaeger, S. R., Roigard, C. M., Le Blond, M., Hedderley, D. I., &
Giacalone, D. (2019). Perceived situational appropriateness
for foods and beverages: Consumer segmentation and
relationship with stated liking. Food Quality and Preference,
78, 103701.
Kersten, W., & Koch, J. (2010). The effect of quality management
on the service quality and business success of logistics service
providers. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 27(2), 185–200.
Kharub, M., & Sharma, R. (2017). Comparative analyses of
competitive advantage using Porter diamond model (the case
of MSMEs in Himachal Pradesh). Competitiveness Review:
An International Business Journal, 27(2), 132–160.
Kim, H., & Bachman, J. R. (2019). Examining customer
perceptions of restaurant restroom cleanliness and their
impact on satisfaction and intent to return. Journal of
Foodservice Business Research, 22(2), 191–208.
Kim, H. J., Park, J., Kim, M. J., & Ryu, K. (2013). Does perceived
restaurant food healthiness matter? Its influence on value,
satisfaction and revisit intentions in restaurant operations
in South Korea. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 33, 397–405.
Kim, K., Bonn, M. A., & Cho, M. (2021). Clean safety message
framing as survival strategies for small independent
restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46, 423–431.
Kindstrom, D., Kowalkowski, C., & Sandberg, E. (2013). Enabling
service innovation: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal
of business research, 66(8), 1063–1073.
King, T., Cole, M., Farber, J. M., Eisenbrand, G., Zabaras, D.,
Fox, E. M., & Hill, J. P. (2017). Food safety for food security:
Relationship between global megatrends and developments
18
in food safety. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 68,
160–175.
Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing:
Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and
behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 332–351.
Kushwah, S., Dhir, A., & Sagar, M. (2019). Understanding
consumer resistance to the consumption of organic food.
A study of ethical consumption, purchasing, and choice
behaviour. Food Quality and Preference, 77, 1–14.
Lang, M., & Lemmerer, A. (2019). How and why restaurant
patrons value locally sourced foods and ingredients.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 76–88.
Lee, S., Chua, B. L., & Han, H. (2020). Variety-seeking
motivations and customer behaviors for new restaurants: An
empirical comparison among full-service, quick-casual, and
quick-service restaurants. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 43, 220–231.
Li, P., Yang, X., Yang, L. X., Xiong, Q., Wu, Y., & Tang, Y.
Y. (2018). The modeling and analysis of the word-of-
mouth marketing. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its
Applications, 493, 1–16.
Lillford, P., & Hermansson, A. M. (2021). Global missions and
the critical needs of food science and technology. Trends in
Food Science & Technology, 111, 800–811.
Lindberg, U., Salomonson, N., Sundström, M., & Wendin, K.
(2018). Consumer perception and behavior in the retail
foodscape—A study of chilled groceries. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 40, 1–7.
Lu, L., Wu, L., & He, Z. (2020). Is your restaurant worth the risk?
A motivational perspective on reviews’ rating distribution
and volume. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
44(8), 1291–1317.
Maimaiti, M., Zhao, X., Jia, M., Ru, Y., & Zhu, S. (2018). How
we eat determines what we become: Opportunities and
challenges brought by food delivery industry in a changing
world in China. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
72(9), 1282–1286.
Newson, R. S., Van der Maas, R., Beijersbergen, A., Carlson, L.,
& Rosenbloom, C. (2015). International consumer insights
into the desires and barriers of diners in choosing healthy
restaurant meals. Food Quality and Preference, 43, 63–70.
NRAI. (2019). NRAI, India Food Services Report, 2019.
Palacios, S., & Jun, M. (2020). An exploration of online shopping
convenience dimensions and their associations with customer
satisfaction. International Journal of Electronic Marketing
and Retailing, 11(1), 24–49.
Poltarykhin, A. L., Suray, N. M., Zemskov, Y. V., Abramov,
Y. V., & Glotko, A. V. (2018). Food safety in the Russian
Federation, its problems with the solutions. Academy of
Strategic Management Journal, 17(4), 1–6.
Pontual, I., Amaral, G. V., Esmerino, E. A., Pimentel, T. C.,
Freitas, M. Q., Fukuda, R. K., Sant’Ana, L., Silva, L. G., &
Cruz, A. G. (2017). Assessing consumer expectations about
pizza: A study on celiac and non-celiac individuals using the
FIIB Business Review
word association technique. Food Research International,
94, 1–5.
Raab, C., Zemke, D. M. V., Hertzman, J. L., & Singh, D.
(2013). Restaurant customers’ perceptions of noise and their
satisfaction and loyalty behaviors. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 14(4), 398–414.
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making
method. Omega, 53, 49–57.
Savelli, E., Murmura, F., Liberatore, L., Casolani, N., & Bravi,
L. (2019). Consumer attitude and behaviour towards food
quality among the young ones: Empirical evidences from a
survey. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
30(1–2), 169–183.
Shah, A. B., Shaikhh, M., & Khowaja, M. A. (2018). An
empirical analysis of customer satisfaction in the restaurants
of Hyderabad. Grassroots, 51(2).
Shao, W., Grace, D., & Ross, M. (2019). Consumer motivation
and luxury consumption: Testing moderating effects. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 46, 33–44.
Shimoda, A., Hayashi, H., Sussman, D., Nansai, K., Fukuba, I.,
Kawachi, I., & Kondo, N. (2020). Our health, our planet: A
cross-sectional analysis on the association between health
consciousness and pro-environmental behavior among health
professionals. International Journal of Environmental Health
Research, 30(1), 63–74.
Singh, R. K., Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., & Uniyal, S. (2019).
Applications of information and communication technology
for sustainable growth of SMEs in India food industry.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 147, 10–18.
Song, Y., Guo, S., & Zhang, M. (2019). Assessing customers’
perceived value of the anti-haze cosmetics under haze
pollution. Science of the Total Environment, 685, 753–762.
Tomlinson, J., & Rhiney, K. (2018). Assessing the role of
farmer field schools in promoting pro-adaptive behaviour
towards climate change among Jamaican farmers. Journal of
Environmental Studies and Sciences, 8(1), 86–98.
Torkayesh, A. E., Malmir, B., & Asadabadi, M. R. (2021).
Sustainable waste disposal technology selection: The stratified
best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Waste
Management, 122, 100–112.
Troy, D. J., & Kerry, J. P. (2010). Consumer perception and the role
of science in the meat industry. Meat Science, 86(1), 214–226.
Tuholske, C., Andam, K., Blekking, J., Evans, T., & Caylor, K.
(2020). Comparing measures of urban food security in Accra,
Ghana. Food Security, 12, 1–15.
Wolfson, J. A., Bleich, S. N., Smith, K. C., & Frattaroli, S. (2016).
What does cooking mean to you? Perceptions of cooking and
factors related to cooking behavior. Appetite, 97, 146–154.
Yi, S., Zhao, J., & Joung, H. W. (2018). Influence of price and
brand image on restaurant customers’ restaurant selection
attribute. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 21(2),
200–217.
Zhou, G., Hu, W., & Huang, W. (2016). Are consumers willing
to pay more for sustainable products? A study of eco-labeled
tuna steak. Sustainability, 8(5), 494.
Sharma et al. 19

About the Authors

Bharti Sharma pursued her BBA and MBA from M.D. University, Rohtak (Haryana), India in 2009 and
2011 respectively. Now she is pursuing PhD from the University School of Business, Chandigarh University,
Gharuan, Mohali (Punjab) since 2017. She has 6 years of teaching experience. She has published 7 articles
in international journals as well as in conferences. Bharti Sharma can be contacted at bhardwaj.bharti989@
gmail.com

Rakhi Arora pursued her PhD in Commerce from University of Rajasthan, Jaipur in 2017. She is now
Assistant Professor in the University School of Business, Chandigarh University, Gharuan, Mohali (Punjab),
India since 2018. She has published more than 10 research articles in international journals and conference as
well. She has 9 years of teaching experience. Rakhi Arora can be contacted at rakhi.e7433@cumail.in

Manjeet Kharub is working as an Assoc. Prof. in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR
College of Engineering, Hyderabad, India. He has seven years of research and teaching experience. He
received his PhD degree from NIT Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, India and ME degree from Thapar
University Patiala, Punjab India. His areas of interest are Industrial engineering, Quality Management, Lean
Manufacturing, Six Sigma and optimization. He has contributed about 15 papers in international journal of
repute such as TQM and Business Excellence, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
International Journal Quality and Reliability Management, Competitiveness Review, Measuring Business Excellence,
International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, International Journal of Business Excellence, International
Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, International Journal Technology, Policy and Management.
Manjeet Kharub can be contacted at manjeetkharub@gmail.com