Founders Data Analysis
Founders Data Analysis
Founders Data Analysis
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
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
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
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
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Which variables are used by clients when choosing a restaurant to dine at, and what is the
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
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
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
6
DATA ANALYSIS
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
Table 1 Averages
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
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
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
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.
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
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%
3: Founder's 49 25%
Total 200
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
12
DISSCUSSION
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
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
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
In this way, in order to make market awareness effective and future buyers accordingly,
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.
Through the use of culturally similar communities, the thesis limits the generalisation of
The homogeneity of the survey coupled with clustered findings needs many more
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
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