data analysis and interpretation - …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/4835/14/14_chapter...

124

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation. Primary data collection

was done through scientifically prepared questionnaire to measure the tangible and

intangible attributes of hotel industry. Totally 300 questionnaires were distributed to

the customers who had visited the target group of hotel branches at least five times,

based on the recommendation from the Supervisor and Waiters of Sree Annapoorna

Sree Gowrishankar Group of Hotels. Among the 300 distributed questionnaires only

280 (i.e. 166 from North Zone & 114 from south Zone) were found to be fit for

further analysis (where 14 from North Zone and 6 from South Zone were not fit

for further analysis) the collected data were coded, edited, consolidated and then

entered into the master table. Then, sub-tables were prepared from the master table.

The statistical package SPSS (11 version) was used for analysis and interpretation

tasks. The outputs are:

1. Percentage Analysis,

2. Z -Test,

3. Chi-Square Test,

4. ANOVA,

5. Cross Tables,

6. Correspondence Analysis,

7. Multiple Regression Analysis,

8. ‘Garrets Ranks’ were shown in this chapter.

253

From the table it is understood that neatness and Cleanliness was given the

first rank, amenities was given the second rank and quality offered was given the

third rank.

Among the various attributes listed above the respondents have their own

preferences towards certain attributes, which they feel as a must. The hotels should

provide a Neat & Clean environment, because people are aware that only a hygienic

food and place will safeguard them from infections and germs, and essentially the

hotel has to provide lot of other amenities like parking space, toilets, waiting hall, to

attract and to retain the customers and finally when it comes to the quality the hotel

cannot compromise with a low quality, customers expect high quality products at a

cheaper price.

SASG has proved in the long run that Neatness and Cleanliness, Amenities

and Quality have been the success factor for all these years.

252

3

9

6

7

8

5

1

2

10

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

12500

13000

13500

14000

14500

15000

Quality Offered

Quantity Provided

Varieties Available

Interior Decoration

Parking Facility

Drive Inn Facility

Neatness & Cleanliness

Amenities Price Taste

Rank

Scor

e

Total Score Rank

GARRET RANK CHART

251

GARRET RANK TABLE: 1

Rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Rank Score (X) 82 70 63 57 52 47 42 37 30 18

Quality Offered (F1) 37 24 19 30 35 30 24 28 25 28 14149 3 XF1 3034 1680 1197 1710 1820 1410 1008 1036 750 504 Quantity Provided (F2) 20 31 18 21 35 34 34 33 32 22 13564 9 XF2 1640 2170 1134 1197 1820 1598 1428 1221 960 396 Varieties Available (F3) 21 24 38 30 19 38 30 30 26 24 13862 6 XF3 1722 1680 2394 1710 988 1786 1260 1110 780 432 Interior Decoration (F4) 22 21 30 36 20 24 44 29 28 26 13613 7 XF4 1804 1470 1890 2052 1040 1128 1848 1073 840 468

Parking Facility (F5) 22 31 25 21 37 28 18 37 33 28 13605 8 XF5 1804 2170 1575 1197 1924 1316 756 1369 990 504 Drive Inn Facility (F6) 29 28 27 31 26 30 21 25 31 32 13881 5 XF6 2378 1960 1701 1767 1352 1410 882 925 930 576

Neatness & Cleanliness (F7) 36 42 28 32 28 24 30 14 15 31 14850 1 XF7 2952 2940 1764 1824 1456 1128 1260 518 450 558 Amenities (F8) 34 29 32 23 29 24 29 33 26 21 14378 2 XF8 2788 2030 2016 1311 1508 1128 1218 1221 780 378

Price (F9) 14 34 31 29 25 24 25 30 37 31 13390 10 XF9 1148 2380 1953 1653 1300 1128 1050 1110 1110 558 Taste (F10) 45 16 32 27 26 24 25 21 27 37 14148 4

XF10 3690 1120 2016 1539 1352 1128 1050 777 810 666

250

5.8 GARRETT RANK ANALYSIS

Introduction:

The respondents were asked to rank the various attributes, which they feel it is

required for the success of the hotel, and the attributes were Quality, Variety,

Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Taste, Price, Interior Decoration and Waiters

service, Parking Facility, Drive-in Facility.

To find out which attribute attract more the respondents were asked to rate

(rank) the attributes. These rates were converted into percentile positioning using

100(R 0.5)PN−

=

Where, P = Percentile Position

R = Rank

N = No of items

Then for these percentile positions the percentile scores were taken from

Garrett’s Table. Taking scores as value of the variable and no of respondents as

frequencies the total score for each attribute was found on the basis of total scores the

ranks were given.

249

5.7 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Introduction:

Customer’s opinion towards Quality, Taste, Price, Quantity, Waiter Service,

Neatness and Cleanliness and other attributes were collected in comparison with other

hotels. The researcher had used regression tool to find out among all the other

attributes, which attribute have gained more or higher opinion in favour of SASG

compared to other hotels.

Multiple Regressions is applied to study the extent to which one dependent

variable is influenced by several other independent variables.

The researcher is interested in finding how the high opinion given on SASG

(40.3) (Maximum score for opinion can be 55Where the average is 40.3 hence it is

high opinion), influenced by Waiter Service, Price and Neatness and Cleanliness,

comparing with other hotels. By applying multiple regressions technique

The following Regression Equation is obtained

Opinion:19.04 + 0.205 Waiter Service + 0.265 Neatness and Cleanliness

+ 0.110 Price

The corresponding R is 0.575 (R2 =0.331) and

Anova on regression says the regression is significant

MULTIPLE REGRESSION TABLE: 1

Anova:

Model Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

f Sig

Regression 7029.780 3 2343.260 45.470 .000 Residual 14223.591 276 51.535

Total 21253.371 279

Neatness and Cleanliness is the vital attribute for SASG to get better opinion than other hotels.

231

5.6 CORRESPONDENCE TABLE ANALYSIS: 1

Introduction:

Correspondence analysis is an interdependent technique, applied for

dimensional reduction and perceptual mapping. It is a compositional technique based

on the association between the objects and a set of descriptive characteristics.

Correspondence Analysis portrays the correspondence of categories. This

correspondence is the basis for developing Perceptual mapping.

Respondents have their own opinion towards the quality on various branches.

BRANCHES / OPINION ON QUALITY

Branches / Opinion on Quality

Score in dimensions 1 2

Raja Street -.665 -.484 Gandhipuram Bus-stand -.197 .308 Arts College .912 -.143 Saibaba Colony -.793 -.925 Lakshmi Complex -.558 -.113 TownHall -.686 -.556 Cross Cut Road .004 .936 Mettupalayam 1.322 -.128 Peoples park -.135 .046 RamaKrishna Hospital 2.848 -1.360 Low 1.906 -.553 Medium -.089 .236 High -.859 -1.064

232

Dimension 13210-1

Dim

ensi

on

2

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

High

Medium

Low

Ramakrishna Hospital

People's ParkMettupalayam

Cross-Cut Road

Town Hall

Lakshsmi Complex

Saibaba Colony

Arts College

Gandhipuram BS

Raja Street

Opinion about the Quality Provided

Branch

The following are the outcomes of the respondent’s opinion in terms of quality

The branches, which have got high opinion on Quality, are Town hall and Saibaba

Colony.

The branches, which have got Low opinion on Quality, are Mettupalayam and Arts

College.

The branches, which are moderate in Quality, are Gandhipuram, Peoples park,

Lakshmi Complex and Raja street.

CORRESPONDENCE TABLE: 2

CORRESPONDENCE CHART: 1

233

Introduction:

The following correspondence analysis is tabulated to find out the closeness /

correspondence between the branches and the respondent’s opinion on varieties.

BRANCHES / OPINION ON VARIETIES

Branches / Opinion on Varieties


Raja Street -.617 -.467 Gandhipuram Bus-stand -.360 .331 Arts College 1.039 -.101 Saibaba Colony -.622 -.501 Lakshmi Complex -.640 -.628 TownHall -.108 .215 Cross Cut Road .365 .643 Mettupalayam .662 -2.097 Peoples park -.531 .132 RamaKrishna Hospital 2.396 -.528 Low 1.817 -.259 Medium -.190 .210 High -.676 -1.172

234

Dimension 13210-1

Dim

ensi

on 2

1

0

-1

-2

High

Medium

Low


People's Park

Mettupalayam

Cross-Cut Road

Town Hall

Lakshsmi Complex

Saibaba Colony

Arts College

Gandhipuram BS

Raja Street

Opinion about the Varieties Available

Branch

The following are the outcomes of the respondent’s opinion in terms of variety:

The branches, which have got high opinion on Variety, are Raja street, Saibaba

Colony, Lakshmi Complex.

The branches, which have got Low opinion on Variety, are Arts College,

Ramakrishna Hospital.

The branches, which are moderate in Variety, are Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram,

Town Hall and Peoples Park.


235


Introduction:


correspondence between the branches and the respondent’s opinion on Neatness &

Cleanliness

BRANCHES / OPINION ON NEATNESS & CLEANLINESS

Branches / Opinion on Neatness & Cleanliness


Raja Street -.159 -.452 Gandhipuram Bus-stand -.084 .232 Arts College .577 -.023 Saibaba Colony -.437 -.721 Lakshmi Complex -.823 -.427 TownHall .968 -.328 Cross Cut Road -.001 .455 Mettupalayam .586 -2.001 Peoples park -.609 .599 RamaKrishna Hospital -.221 1.376 Low 1.100 -.550 Medium -.048 .258 High -.675 -.835

236

Dimension 11.51.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

Dim

ensi

on 2

1

0

-1

-2

High

Medium

Low


People's Park

Mettupalayam

Cross-Cut Road

Town HallLakshsmi Complex

Saibaba Colony

Arts College

Gandhipuram BS

Raja Street

Opinion on Neatness & Cleanliness

Branch

The following are the outcomes of the respondent’s opinion in terms of Neatness

& Cleanliness:

The branch, which has got high opinion on neatness and cleanliness, is Raja Street,

Saibaba Colony

The branch, which has got low opinion on neatness and cleanliness, is Town hall

The branches, which are moderate in neatness & cleanliness, are Peoples Park, Cross

Cut Road, Mettupalayam and Arts College


237


Introduction:

The following correspondence analysis is tabulated to find out the closeness / correspondence between the branches and the respondent’s opinion on Quantity.

BRANCHES / OPINION ON QUANTITY

Branches / Opinion on Quantity


Raja Street -.070 .753 Gandhipuram Bus-stand -.306 -.164 Arts College -.723 -.322 Saibaba Colony .666 .441 Lakshmi Complex .655 .266 TownHall -1.271 1.040 Cross Cut Road .430 -.142 Mettupalayam -2.260 .039 Peoples park .620 -.258 RamaKrishna Hospital -2.260 .039 Low -1.570 .104 Medium .236 -.191 High .459 .959

238

Dimension 110-1-2-3

Dim

ensi

on 2 1.0

0.5

0.0

High

Medium

Low

Ramakrishna HospitalPeople's Park

MettupalayamCross-Cut Road

Town Hall

Lakshsmi Complex

Saibaba Colony

Arts College Gandhipuram BS

Raja Street

Opinion about the Quantity Provided

Branch

The following are the outcomes of the respondent’s opinion in terms of Quantity:

The branches, which have got high opinion on Quantity, are Raja Street, Saibaba

Colony and Lakshmi Complex

The branches, which have got Low opinion on Quantity, are Mettupalayam, Cross Cut

Road, Ramakrishna Hospital and Arts College

The branches, which are moderate in Quantity, are Gandhipuarm and Peoples Park


239


Introduction:


correspondence between the branches and the respondent’s opinion on Taste

BRANCHES / OPINION ON TASTE

Branches / Opinion on Taste


Raja Street -.279 .190 Gandhipuram Bus-stand .375 .018 Arts College -.785 -.232 Saibaba Colony .581 .322 Lakshmi Complex .582 .178 TownHall -.769 .344 Cross Cut Road .362 -.481 Mettupalayam -1.097 3.546 Peoples park .585 -.253 RamaKrishna Hospital -2.712 -.425 Low -1.714 -.015 Medium .233 -.210 High .211 1.007

240

Dimension 110-1-2-3

Dim

ensi

on 2

4

3

2

1

0

-1

High

Medium

Low

Ramakrishna HospitalPeople's Park

Mettupalayam

Cross-Cut Road

Town Hall Lakshsmi ComplexSaibaba Colony

Arts College

Gandhipuram BSRaja Street

Opinion about the TasteBranch

The following are the outcomes of the respondent’s opinion in terms of Taste:

The branches, which have got high opinion on Taste, are Lakshmi Complex and

Saibaba Colony

The branches, which have got Low opinion on Taste, are Townhall, Raja Street

andGandhipuram

The branches, which are moderate in Taste, are People Park and Cross Cut Road


241


Introduction:


correspondence between the branches and the respondent’s opinion on Price

BRANCHES / OPINION ON PRICE

Branches / Opinion on Price


Raja Street -.485 .175 Gandhipuram Bus-stand -.126 -.345 Arts College .747 -.044 Saibaba Colony -.925 -.311 Lakshmi Complex -.847 .223 TownHall -.035 .496 Cross Cut Road .057 1.120 Mettupalayam 1.930 -.147 Peoples park -.007 .158 RamaKrishna Hospital 1.930 -.147 Low 1.137 -.167 Medium -.228 .261 High -.584 -.863

242

Dimension 12.01.51.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

Dim

ensi

on 2

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

High

Medium

Low


People's Park Mettupalayam

Cross-Cut Road

Town Hall

Lakshsmi Complex

Saibaba ColonyArts College

Gandhipuram BS

Raja Street

Opinion about the PriceBranch

The following are the outcomes of the respondent’s opinion in terms of Price:

The branches, which have got high opinion on Price, are Saibaba Colony and

Gandhipuram

The branches, which have got Low opinion on Price, are Peoples Park, Arts College,

Raja Street, Lakshmi Complex and Townhall

The branches, which are moderate in Price, are Mettupalayam and Ramakrishna

Hospital



243

Introduction:


correspondence between the branches and the respondent’s opinion on Interior

Decoration

BRANCHES / OPINION ON INTERIOR DECORATION

Branches / Opinion on

Interior Decoration


Raja Street -.273 .168 Gandhipuram Bus-stand .000 .389 Arts College .758 -.265 Saibaba Colony -.787 .640 Lakshmi Complex -.664 -.164 Town Hall -.616 -.478 Cross Cut Road -.328 -.855 Mettupalayam .824 1.179 Peoples park -.576 -.740 RamaKrishna Hospital 2.664 .217 Low 1.451 .221 Medium -.160 -.306 High -.443 .826

244

Dimension 13210-1

Dim

ensi

on 2

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

High

Medium

Low


People's Park

Mettupalayam

Cross-Cut Road

Town Hall

Lakshsmi Complex

Saibaba Colony

Arts College


Opinion about the Interior Decoration

Branch

The following are the outcomes of the respondent’s opinion in terms of Interior

Decoration:

The branches, which have got high opinion on Interior decoration, are Saibaba Colony

and Gandhipuram

The branches, which have got Low opinion on Interior decoration, are Ramakrishna

Hospital

The branches, which are moderate in Interior decoration, are Town hall, Peoples Park

and Arts College



245

Introduction:

The following correspondence analysis is tabulated to find out the closeness / correspondence between the branches and the respondent’s opinion on Waiters

BRANCHES / OPINION ON WAITERS

Branches / Opinion on Waiters


Raja Street -.145 .577 Gandhipuram Bus-stand .155 -.094 Arts College -.831 .149 Saibaba Colony .613 .193 Lakshmi Complex 1.085 .579 TownHall -.222 -.104 Cross Cut Road .191 -.976 Mettupalayam -1.051 -.036 Peoples park .338 -.326 RamaKrishna Hospital .250 -1.460 Low -1.179 .483 Medium .081 -.251 High .923 .843

246

Dimension 11.51.00.50.0-0.5-1.0-1.5

Dim

ensi

on 2

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

High

Medium

Low


People's Park

Mettupalayam

Cross-Cut Road

Town Hall

Lakshsmi Complex

Saibaba ColonyArts College

Gandhipuram BS

Raja Street

Opinion about the WaitersBranch

The following are the outcomes of the respondent’s opinion in terms of Waiters:

The branch, which has got high opinion on Waiters, is Lakshmi Complex

The branches, which have got Low opinion on Waiters, are Arts College and

Mettuplalayam

The branches, which are moderate in Waiters, are Town hall, Gandhipuram and

Peoples Park



247

Introduction:


correspondence between the branches and the respondent’s opinion on Services of

SASG with other hotels

BRANCHES / OPINION ON SERVICES OF SASG WITH OTHER HOTELS

Branches / Opinion on services of

SASG With other hotels


Raja Street -1.416 .483 Gandhipuram Bus-stand .165 .303 Arts College .474 -.435 Saibaba Colony .599 .334 Lakshmi Complex .666 -.518 Town Hall .532 1.181 Cross Cut Road .661 -.452 Mettupalayam .704 -.997 Peoples park .332 -.171 RamaKrishna Hospital -2.389 -.724 Low -1.600 -.126 Medium .286 -.214 High .094 1.070

248

Dimension 110-1-2-3

Dim

ensi

on 2

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

High Satisfacation

Medium SatisfacationLow Satisfacation


People's Park

MettupalayamCross-Cut Road

Town Hall

Lakshsmi Complex

Saibaba Colony

Arts College


Opinion of SASG compared to other hotels

Branch

The following are the outcomes of the respondent’s opinion in terms of services

of SASG compared with other hotels:

The branches, which have got high opinion on Services of SASG, are Town hall and

Raja Street

The branches, which have got Low opinion on Services of SASG, are Arts College

and Ramakrishna Hospital

The branches, which are moderate in Services of SASG, are Peoples Park, Lakshmi

Complex and Saibaba Colony


226

5.5 CROSS TABLE ANALYSIS: 1

Introduction:

The two factors, frequency of visit and the quality of the food has been taken

for analysis. The researcher tried to find out whether the number of visits are

influenced by the quality of the food is analyzed through the following Cross Table.

N. Hypothesis:

Frequency of visit and opinion on quality are independent

A. Hypothesis:

Frequency of visit and opinion on quality are not independent

FREQUENCY OF VISIT / QUALITY CATEGORY

Frequency of Visit

Quality Category Low Medium High

Once 11

7.5 3.9

64 63.4 22.9

6 10.1 2.1

Twice 7 9

2.5

77 75.9 27.5

13 12.1 4.6

More than Twice 8 9.5 2.9

78 79.8 27.9

16 12.8 5.7

Sig (p) > 0.05, the level of significance the N.hypothesis is Accepted

The frequency of visits and the quality are independent to each other. The

quality of the food is not based on the number of visits.

Sig 4.92 0.296

227

CROSS TABLE: 2

Introduction:

The two factors, Favourite Branches and the parking facility have been taken

for analysis. The researcher tried to find out the level of satisfaction of the

respondents towards the parking facility of their favourite branches through the

following Cross Table.

FAVOURITE BRANCHES / PARKING FACILITY

Interpretation:

Favourite branches vs. their parking facility were taken for analysis. The

respondents are satisfied with the Gandipuram branch with respect to the parking

facility and at the same time the respondents were dissatisfied with parking facility of

Arts College.

Favourite Branches

Parking Facility Satisfied Moderate Dissatisfied

Raja Street 13 3 7 Gandhipuram Bus-stand 50 36 9 Arts College 33 13 19 Saibaba Colony 6 7 5 Lakshmi Complex 9 8 8 TownHall 8 0 3 Cross Cut Road 3 14 5 Mettupalayam 1 1 1 Peoples park 6 6 3 RamaKrishna Hospital 1 2 0

228

CROSS TABLE: 3

Introduction:

The two factors, Favourite Branches and the drive inn facility have been taken

for analysis. The researcher tried to find out the level of satisfaction of the

respondents towards the drive inn facility of their favourite branches through the

following Cross Table.

FAVOURITE BRANCHES / DRIVE INN FACILITY

Interpretation:

Favourite branches versus their drive inn facility were taken for analysis. The

respondents were satisfied with the Arts College with respect to the parking facility

and at the same time the respondents were dissatisfied with drive inn facility of

Gandipuram branch.

Favourite Branches

Drive – Inn Facility Satisfied Moderate Dissatisfied


229

CROSS TABLE: 4

Introduction:

The two factors, Favourite Branches and the amenities of the hotel have been

taken for analysis. The researcher tried to find out the level of satisfaction of the

respondents towards the amenities of their favourite branches through the following

Cross Table.

FAVOURITE BRANCHES / AMENITIES

Interpretation:

Favourite branches versus Amenities were taken for analysis. The respondents

were satisfied with the Arts College branch with respect to the amenities and at the

same time the respondents were dissatisfied with the Gandipuram branch.

Favourite Branches

Amenities Satisfied Moderate Dissatisfied


230

CROSS TABLE: 5

Introduction:

The two factors, Favourite Branches and the bill payment have been taken for

analysis. The researcher tried to find out the respondents mode of bill payment in their

favourite t branches through the following Cross Table.

FAVOURITE BRANCHES / BILL PAYMENT

Interpretation:

The favourite branches / bill payment made were taken for analysis. The

respondents who preferred Gandhipuram branch had made their bill payment at the

table and the respondents of the same branch had paid at the cash counter too when

compared to other branches.

Favourite Branches Bill Payment At the Counter At the Table

Raja Street 20 3 Gandhipuram Bus-stand 85 10 Arts College 62 3 Saibaba Colony 13 5 Lakshmi Complex 22 3 TownHall 9 2 Cross Cut Road 22 0 Mettupalayam 3 0 Peoples park 14 1 RamaKrishna Hospital 3 0

205

5.2 Z - TEST ANALYSIS -1

Introduction:

The ten branches of SASG were divided into two zones viz. North and South.

Where the North Zone includes Gandhipuram, Saibaba Colony, Lakshmi Complex,

Cross Cut Road, Mettupalyam and Ramakrishna Hospital Branches and the south

Zone Includes Raja Street, Arts College, Town hall and Peoples Park Branches.

The respondents who had given their opinion on the various attributes were

tabulated; their Mean Value and Zo as well as significance level were measured.

Through the Z test the researcher was trying to find out the opinion given by

the North Zone as well as the south Zone towards the various attributes like quality,

Variety, Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Taste, Price, Interior Decoration and

Waiter service.

N. Hypothesis :

Customers belonging to North and South Zone of Coimbatore gave on an

average the same opinion on the following attributes.

A.Hypothesis:

Customers belonging to North and South Zone of Coimbatore did not give on

an average the same opinion on the following attributes.

206

Z - TEST TABLE :1

Since Sig (p) <0.05, the level of significance, the N. hypothesis is rejected,

except for Neatness and Cleanliness.

The respondents belonging to North Zone gave on an average higher opinion

on Quality, Variety, Quantity, Taste, Price, Interior Decoration and Waiter service

than the south zone.

North Zone Branches had given more satisfaction to their customers than

South Zone branches. North Zone branches retain their customers more than South

Zone branches.

Z - TEST ANALYSIS -2

Attribute Personal Info Mean Zo Sig Remarks

Quality South Zone North Zone

40.32 42.67 2.107 0.036 Rejected

Variety South Zone North Zone

35.24 38.91 3.592 0.000 Rejected

Neatnessand Cleanliness

South Zone North Zone

36.76 39.02 1.897 0.059 Accepted

Quantity South Zone North Zone

36.67 41.90 3.748 0.000 Rejected

Taste South Zone North Zone

35.18 40.19 4.228 0.000 Rejected

Price South Zone North Zone

31.96 36.01 2.850 0.005 Rejected

Interior Decoration

South Zone North Zone

34.27 37.37 2.482 0.014 Rejected

Waiter service South Zone North Zone

34.40 37.64 2.581 0.017 Rejected

207

N. Hypothesis :

Male and Female Customers of Coimbatore gave on an average the

same opinion on the following attributes

A. Hypothesis:

Male and female customers of Coimbatore did not give on an average

same opinion on the following attributes

Z - TEST TABLE :2

Since Sig (p) <0.05, the level of significance, the N. hypothesis is accepted

except for Variety.

Both male and female respondents gave the same level of opinion on the

attributes under study. The average scores indicated that the respondents were

satisfied with the attributes under study.

The Mean Score of all the attributes fall between 33 to 44 and this

interval indicates that the respondents were satisfied.

5.3 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS -1

Introduction:

Attribute Personal Info Mean Zo Sig Remarks

Quality Male Female

41.16 42.72 1.351 0.178 Accepted

Variety Male Female

36.35 39.35 2.831 0.005 Rejected

Neatness and Cleanliness

Male Female

38.25 37.83 0.342 0.733 Accepted

Quantity Male Female

39.65 39.99 0.234 0.815 Accepted

Taste Male Female

37.80 38.79 0.788 0.432 Accepted

Price Male Female

33.77 35.43 1.122 0.263 Accepted

Interior Decoration

Male Female

36.02 36.27 0.193 0.847 Accepted

Waiter service Male Female

36.22 36.52 0.225 0.822 Accepted

208

Customer’s visits may not be similar; the customers may visit once in a week,

twice in a week, once in two weeks, once in a month or sometimes rarely. The

researcher had tried to find out, the majority’s opinion towards the number of visits

the hotels in general (not specifically SASG even it may be the other hotels).

N. Hypothesis:

The number of visits to the hotels was taken equally irrespective of time

duration.

A. Hypothesis:

The number of visits to the hotels was not taken equally irrespective of time

duration.

CHI - SQUARE TABLE :1

Reasons Observed Expected

Once in a week 57 56 Twice in a week 76 56 Once in two weeks 40 56 Once in a Month 57 56 Rarely 50 56

Since Sig (p) <0.05, the level of significance, the N.hypothesis is rejected.

From the table it is understood that majority of the respondents used to visit

the hotels preferably twice in a week (not specifically SASG even it may be the other

hotels).

This is due to the paucity of the time to have food at home, dual income and the need

of the day.

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS -2

Introduction:

Sig 12.393 0.015

209

There are various reasons to visit a hotel. Many of them visit a hotel to have a

change from their regular food. The various reasons to dine in a hotel are listed as:

tasty food, being a bachelor, being a student and to have a party were the major

criteria’s mentioned by the researcher .The reasons for visiting were analyzed by the

Chi- Square Test.

N. Hypothesis:

All the reasons considered for preferring food outside, were equally taken

A. Hypothesis:

All the reasons considered for preferring food outside, were not equally taken



Tasty Food 154 70 Bachelor 50 70 Student 27 70 Party 49 7

Sig (p) < 0.05 ,the level of significance the N.h ypothesis is rejected

From the table it was concluded that tasty food was the major reason for

preferring food outside. So from the above Chi- Square table it is evident that

respondents visit the hotels because of the availability of tasty food.

CHI- SQUARE ANALYSIS -3

Introduction:

Sig 139.229 0.000

210

There are various ways to get awareness about a product or service. Here the

analysis was made to find out the mode, which gave more awareness towards SASG

from the following reasons, which are: Radio, Television, Newspaper, Publicity,

Word of Mouth, friends and Relatives.

N. Hypothesis:

The various media of publicity were taken equally

A. Hypothesis:

The various media of publicity were not taken equally



Radio 20 40 Television 26 40 News Paper 17 40 Publicity 96 40 Word of Mouth 60 40 Friends 42 40 Relatives 19 40

Sig (p)< 0.05, the level of significance the N. hypothesis is rejected

From the table it was concluded that publicity had played a major role in

attracting the customers. Publicity had created good awareness among the public

about the hotel.


Introduction:

Sig 127.650 0.000

211

The customers are influenced by various persons / groups like spouse, family,

friends and colleagues etc. The researcher had tried to find out which particular group

has influenced mostly, to visit SASG.

N. Hypothesis:

Spouse, Family, Friends and colleagues all were equally considered as to

influence the respondents for visiting the hotel.

A. Hypothesis:

Spouse, Family, Friends and colleagues all were not equally considered to influence the respondents for visiting the hotel.



Spouse 29 70 Family 106 70 Friends 115 70 Colleagues 30 70

Sig (p)< 0.05 , the level of significance the N. hypothesis is rejected

From the table it was concluded that friends were the most influencing group

for visiting the hotel.


Introduction:

Sig 94.314 0.000

212

The customers used to visit the hotel with various persons / groups like spouse, family, friends and colleagues etc. Here the analysis was made to find out which person / group had accompanied the respondents mostly during their visit to SASG.

N. Hypothesis:

Spouse, Family, Friends and colleagues all were equally considered to accompany the respondents during their visits to the hotel.

A. Hypothesis:

Spouse, Family, Friends and colleagues all were not equally considered to accompany the respondents during their visits to the hotel.



Spouse 35 70 Family 154 70 Friends 83 70 Colleagues 8 70

Sig (p) < 0.05, the level of significance the N. hypothesis is rejected

From the table it was concluded that majority of the respondents had visited

the hotel with their family members. Even though friends had influenced them

mostly, but their regular visit to the hotel was with their family members.


Introduction:

Sig 175.629 0.000

213

Customers visit to SASG in a month may not be similar. Few of them visit

only once in a month, twice in a month and the rest may visit more than twice in a

month. The following Chi – Square analysis was made to get the exact result towards

the number of visits made by the respondents in a month

N. Hypothesis:

The number of visit to the hotel in a month was taken equally.

A. Hypothesis:

The number of visit to the hotel in a month was not taken equally.



Once 81 93.3 Twice 97 93.3 More than Twice 102 93.3

Sig (p) < 0.05, the level of significance the N. hypothesis is accepted.

From the table it was concluded that the number of visits has equal chances in

visiting the hotels. There is no significant difference in the reasons, respondents had

equal chances in visiting the hotel, either it may be once, twice or more than twice in

a month.


Introduction:

Sig 2.579 0.275

214

Customer’s time of visit to SASG may not be similar. The customers on their

choice may visit the hotel either in the morning, afternoon, evening, night or even

without fixing any time .It depends purely on the basis of their convenience. Here the

analysis is made to find out which is the most preferred time to visit the hotel.

N. Hypothesis:

The time of visit to the hotel were taken equally.

A. Hypothesis:

The time of visit to the hotel were not taken equally.



Morning 45 56 Afternoon 65 56 Evening 68 56 Night 33 56 No Fixed Time 69 56


From the table it was concluded that the respondents have not fixed any time

to visit the hotel, they used to visit the hotel as and when they like.


Introduction:

Sig 18.643 0.001

215

Customers have their own choices on taste and preference towards breakfast

items. Here the researcher had tried to find out the most preferred breakfast item from

the following list like idli sambar, dosa, roast, puri and pongal.

N. Hypothesis:

All the breakfast items were taken equally.

A. Hypothesis:

All the breakfast items were not taken equally.



Idli sambar 124 56 Dosa 54 56 Roast 55 56 Puri 15 56 Pongal 32 56


From the table it was concluded that majority of the respondents preferred to

have idli sambar compared to the other breakfast items


Introduction:

Sig 122.964 0.000

216

Customers have their own choices and favorite midday food items. The researcher tried to find out the most preferred midday item from the following list like meals, vegetable biriyani, curd rice, roti and parotta.

N. Hypothesis:

All the Mid Day Food items are preferred equally.

A. Hypothesis:

All the Mid Day Food items are not preferred equally.



Meals 116 56 Vegetable Biriyani 77 56 Curd Rice 24 56 Roti 23 56 Parotta 40 56


From the table it was concluded that majority of the respondents preferred to

have Meals in the afternoon compared to the other mid day food items.

It is the general tendency of the South Indians to have meals in the afternoon.


Introduction:

Sig 114.464 0.000

217

The customers have their own preferences towards the different type of foods

.The researcher had taken four different type like South Indian, North Indian, Chinese

and Andhra style and using the chi- square analysis the researcher tried to find out the

most preferred food type.

N. Hypothesis:

The Different varieties of Food items are preferred equally.

A. Hypothesis:

The Different varieties of Food items are not preferred equally.



South Indian 212 70 North Indian 34 70 Chinese 19 70 Andhra style 15 70


From the table it was concluded that the respondents preferred to have mostly

South Indian food compared to the other type of food.

5.4 ANOVA ANALYSIS - 1:

Sig 386.943 0.000

218

In the case of Age, Educational Qualification, Occupation and Annual Income

there are more than 2 group’s. Therefore by applying the ANOVA technique the

opinion given on the attributes understudy was analyzed

N. Hypothesis :

Respondents belonging to different age had given on an average same opinion

on the attributes Quality, Variety, Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Taste, Price,

Interior Decoration and Waiter service under study

A. Hypothesis:

Respondents belonging to different age had not given on an average same

opinion on the attributes Quality, Variety, Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Taste,

Price, Interior Decoration and Waiter service under study

ANOVA TABLE :1

219

Inference:

Attribute Age Mean Fo

Sig

Remarks

Quality

Up to 20 years 21 – 30 years 31 – 40 Years 41 – 50 Years

Above 50 Years

44.39 42.04 41.34 37.46 40.28

2.975 0.020 Rejected

Variety


Above 50 Years

39.73 37.50 37.92 31.93 36.83




Above 50 Years

40.54 37.77 36.92 35.36 39.83 38.10

1.918 0.108 Accepted

Quantity


Above 50 Years

41.41 39.46 40.39 37.14 38.86


Taste


Above 50 Years

41.05 37.81 38.09 34.00 37.90


Price


Above 50 Years

35.95 34.31 34.88 32.39 32.24


Interior Decoration


Above 50 Years

39.23 35.83 37.44 29.71 34.31


Waiter service


Above 50 Years

38.11 35.57 36.42 34.89 36.72 36.33


220

The different age group of respondents of SASG had given on an average same opinion on the following attributes Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Price and Waiter service.

But the same group of respondents of SASG had not given on an average same opinion on the attributes like quality, Variety, taste and Interior Decoration.

This proves that the different age groups have their own liking and disliking towards SASG in terms of Quality, Variety, Taste and Interior Decoration.

Post Hoc Test

To find out which group had given different opinion than the other group

Post-Hoc test is applied.

POST – HOC TEST TABLE :1 From the above analysis the following inferences are made:

1. Respondents < 20 years of age have given higher opinion on Quality than 41

– 50 years age group

2. Respondents < 20 years of age have given higher opinion on Variety than 41 – 50 years age group

3. Respondents < 20 years of age have given higher opinion on Taste than 41 – 50 years age group

4. Respondents < 20 years of age have given higher opinion on Interior Decoration than 41 – 50 years age group

The difference between the other groups are not that much significant to discuss

ANOVA ANALYSIS - 2

Attributes Age

Mean Difference

Sig From To

Quality Up to 20 Years

41 – 50 Years 6.929

0.010

Variety Up to 20 Years

41 – 50 Years 7.804

0.001

Taste Up to 20 Years

41 – 50 Years 7.054

0.020

Interior Decoration

Up to 20 Years

41 – 50 Years 9.518 0.001

221

In the case of Age, Educational Qualification, Occupation and annual income there are more than two groups. Therefore by applying ANOVA technique the opinion given on the attributes understudy was analyzed

N. Hypothesis:

Respondents belonging to different Educational Qualification had given on an average same opinion on the attributes Quality, Variety, Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Taste, Price, Interior Decoration and Waiter service under study

A. Hypothesis :

Respondents belonging to different Educational Qualification had not given on an average same opinion on the attributes Quality, Variety, Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Taste, Price, Interior Decoration and Waiter service under study.

ANOVA TABLE :2 Inference:

The respondents with different educational Background had given on an average same opinion on the attributes like Quality, Variety, Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Taste, Price, Interior Decoration and Waiter service.

ANOVA ANALYSIS - 3

Attribute Educational Qualification Mean

Fo Sig

Remarks

Quality School level Graduation

Post Graduation

41.79 41.02 42.97


Variety School level Graduation

Post Graduation

37.55 36.74 38.55



School level Graduation

Post Graduation

36.89 38.24 39.66


Quantity School level Graduation

Post Graduation

40.01 39.46 40.00


Taste School level Graduation

Post Graduation

38.19 37.85 38.69


Price School level Graduation

Post Graduation

35.65 33.07 34.94


Interior Decoration

School level Graduation

Post Graduation

37.46 35.01 36.23


Waiter service School level Graduation

Post Graduation

37.11 35.71 36.35


222

In the case of Age, Educational Qualification, Occupation and Annual Income there are more than 2 groups. Therefore by applying ANOVA technique the opinion given on the attributes understudy was analyzed

N. Hypothesis:

Respondents belonging to different Occupation had given on an average same opinion on the attributes Quality, Variety, Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Taste, Price, Interior Decoration and Waiter service under study

A. Hypothesis:

Respondents belonging to different Occupation had not given on an average same opinion on the attributes Quality, Variety, Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Taste, Price, Interior Decoration and Waiter service under study

ANOVA TABLE :3 Inference:

Attribute Occupation Mean Fo

Sig

Remarks

Quality

Salaried Self – Employed

Professional Student

41.98 41.95 38.69 43.55


Variety



37.38 37.74 34.57 39.55





37.26 37.86 38.57 40.07


Quantity



39.55 40.67 37.71 40.10


Taste



36.69 38.75 35.29 42.79


Price



35.83 32.03 33.69 37.50


Interior Decoration



36.32 35.84 33.10 39.31


Waiter service



35.69 35.48 36.31 39.81


223

The respondents with different occupational status had given on an average same opinion on the attributes Quality, Variety, Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Interior Decoration and Waiter service under study.

But the same group of respondents of SASG had not given on an average same opinion on the attributes like taste and price.

Post Hoc Test

To find out which group had given higher opinion than the other group Post-Hoc Test is applied.

POST – HOC TEST TABLE :2

Attributes Occupation Mean Difference Sig

From To

Taste Student Professional 7.500 0.003

From the above analysis the following inferences are made:

1. The respondents under the student category Have given higher opinion on taste than the professional respondents

So from this we can conclude that the students give more importance to taste when compared to the professional respondents, as we are aware that the professionals give more importance to healthy and hygiene food and they are least bothered about the price.

For the Post-Hoc Test, The attribute price the significance is 0.036(Rejected) but the difference in the group is insignificant and hence the Post Hoc Test cannot be applied on price

ANOVA ANALYSIS - 4

224

In the case of Age, Educational Qualification, Occupation and Annual Income there are more than two groups. Therefore by applying ANOVA technique the opinion given on the attributes understudy was analyzed

N. Hypothesis :

Respondents belonging to different level of Annual Incomes had given on an average same opinion on the attributes Quality, Variety, Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Taste, Price, Interior Decoration and Waiter service under study

A. Hypothesis :

Respondents belonging to different level of Annual Incomes had not given on an average same opinion on the attributes Quality, Variety, Neatness and Cleanliness, Quantity, Taste, Price, Interior Decoration and Waiter service under study

ANOVA TABLE :4

Attribute

Annual Income

Mean

Fo

Sig

Remarks

Quality

Below 1 lakh 1 – 2 Lakhs 2 – 3 Lakhs

Above 3 Lakhs

41.39 42.15 41.48 41.85


Variety


Above 3 Lakhs

37.50 37.96 36.52 39.52




Above 3 Lakhs

36.96 37.92 39.23 42.24


Quantity


Above 3 Lakhs

39.98 39.50 40.96 41.18


Taste


Above 3 Lakhs

38.39 37.65 37.11 40.58


Price


Above 3 Lakhs

33.69 36.65 35.29 34.18


Interior Decoration


Above 3 Lakhs

36.15 39.27 36.38 32.88


Waiter service


Above 3 Lakhs

35.24 38.15 38.52 36.06


Inference:

225

The respondents with different Annual income had given on an average same opinion on the following attributes Quality, Variety, Quantity, Taste, Price, Interior Decoration and Waiter service under study.

But the same group of respondents had not given on an average same opinion on the attribute Neatness and Cleanliness.

Post Hoc Test

To find out which income group had given a higher opinion towards neatness and Cleanliness than the other group Post-Hoc Test is applied.

POST – HOC TEST TABLE :3 Attribute Annual Income Mean Difference Sig

From To


Above 3 Lakhs

Below 1 Lakh

5.281 0.030

From the above analysis the following inferences are made:

1. The respondents under the above 3 lakhs had given higher opinion towards Neatness and Cleanliness than the respondents who have below 1 lakh income category

From the above analysis, it is inferred as that the higher income group is more concerned towards Neatness and Cleanliness than the lower income group.

172

TABLE :39

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS PARKING FACILITY

Parking Facility No. of Respondents Percentage

Highly Dissatisfied 46 16.4

Dissatisfied 84 30.0

Moderate 90 32.1

Satisfied 29 10.4

Higly Satisfied 31 11.1

Total 280 100.0

Source: Primary Data

Interpretation:-

The above table indicates the respondent’s opinion on parking facility.

32.1% of the respondents felt that the parking facility provided by SASG is moderate,

30% were dissatisfied, 16.4% were highly dissatisfied, 11.1% were highly satisfied

and the remaining 10.4% were satisfied.

CHART :39 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS

PARKING FACILITY

173

TABLE :40

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS DRIVE-IN FACILITY

Drive-in Facility No. of Respondents Percentage



Moderate 80 28.6

Satisfied 82 29.3


Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table exhibits the respondent’s opinion on drive-in facility. 29.3%

of the respondents were satisfied, 28.6% have opined that the drive-in facility

provided by SASG was Moderate, 18.2% were highly satisfied, 13.2% were

dissatisfied and 10.7% were highly dissatisfied.

CHART :40 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION ON

DRIVE-IN FACILITY

174

TABLE :41

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS AMENITIES OF THE HOTEL

Opinion Towards

Amenities

No. of Respondents Percentage


Dissatisfied 23 8.2

Moderate 62 22.1

Satisfied 120 42.9


Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table analyses the respondent’s opinion on the amenities of the

hotel. 42.9% of the respondents were satisfied, 22.1% felt it as moderate, 19.3% were

highly satisfied, 8.2% were dissatisfied and finally 7.5% were highly dissatisfied with

the amenities of the hotel.


AMENITIES OF THE HOTEL

175

TABLE :42

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS THE USAGE OF AC DINING HALLS

Usage of AC Dining

Halls


Yes 151 53.9

No 129 46.1

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table displays the respondent’s opinion on the usage of AC dining

Halls.53.9% of the respondents had used AC Dining Halls and 46.1% had not

preferred the AC Dining Halls.

There is Price difference between the AC hall and Non-AC. Upper and

middle class people were the frequent users of AC dining hall.

CHART :42

CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS THE USAGE OF AC DINING HALLS

176

TABLE :43

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ TIME OF SWEET PURCHASE

Time of Sweet Purchase No. of Respondents Percentage

Festival’s 111 39.6

Party’s 56 20.0

Visiting Friend’s 56 20.0

Relatives Arrival 57 20.4

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table indicates the respondent’s time of sweet purchase. 39.6% of

the respondents normally buy the sweets during Festivals, followed by 20.4% on

relative’s arrival, 20% for party and another 20% during visits to Friends and relatives

house.

CHART :43 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ TIME OF SWEET PURCHASE

177

TABLE :44

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION ON PURCHASE OF SWEETS AND SAVORIES

Purchase of Sweets and

Savories


Yes 190 67.9

No 90 32.1

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table exhibits the respondent’s opinion towards the

purchase of sweets and savories. 67.9% of the respondents normally buy both sweets

and savories during their purchase and 32.1% of the respondents buy either sweets or

savories and they don’t buy both at the same time.


PURCHASE OF SWEETS AND SAVORIES

178

TABLE :45

TABLE SHOWING WAITING TIME OF THE RESPONDENTS

Waiting Time No. of Respondents Percentage

Less than 3 Minutes 83 29.6

3 – 5 Minutes 98 35.0

5 – 7 Members 27 9.6

7 - 10 Minutes 25 8.9

More Than 10 Minutes 47 16.8

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table exhibits the respondent’s waiting time. The analysis shows

that 35% of the respondents had waited 3 – 5 minutes to get a place to sit, 29.6% of

the respondents waiting time was less than 3 Minutes, 16.8% of them had waited

more than 10 minutes 9.6% waiting time was 5 – 7 minutes and 8.9% of the

respondents had waited 7 – 10 minutes.

CHART :45 CHART SHOWING WAITING TIME OF THE RESPONDENTS

179

TABLE :46

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ TIME OF WAIT TO PLACE THE ORDER

Waiting Time to place

order



3 – 5 Minutes 110 39.3

5 – 7 Minutes 48 17.1

7 – 10 Minutes 23 8.2

More than 10 Minutes 29 10.4

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table analyses the waiting time to place the order. 39.3% of the

respondents had waited 3 – 5 minutes to place their order, 25% of the respondents

waiting time was less than 3 Minutes, 17.1% had waited 5 – 7 minutes, 10.4% had to

wait more than 10 minutes and 8.2% of the respondents had waited 7 – 10 minutes to

place their order.

CHART :46 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ TIME OF WAIT

TO PLACE THE ORDER

180

TABLE :47

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ TIME OF WAIT TO GET THE ORDERED ITEMS

Time of Wait No. of Respondents Percentage


3 – 5 Minutes 96 34.3

5 – 7 Minutes 51 18.2

7 – 10 Minutes 28 10.0

More than 10 Minutes 40 14.3

Total 280 100


Interpretation:-

The above table describes the respondents waiting time to get

the ordered items. 34.3% of the respondents had waited 3 – 5 minutes to get their

ordered items, 23.2% of the respondents waiting time was less than 3 Minutes, 18.2%

had waited 5 – 7 minutes, 14.3% had to wait more than 10 minutes and 10% of the

respondents waiting time ranges between 7 – 10 minutes to get their ordered items.

CHART :47 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ TIME OF WAIT

TO GET THE ORDERED ITEMS

181

TABLE :48

TABLE SHOWING THE AMOUNT SPENT BY THE RESPONDENTS DURING THEIR VISIT

Amount Spent / Per visit No. of Respondents Percentage

Less than Rs100 76 27.1

Rs 100 - 200 88 31.4

Rs 200 – 300 64 22.9

Rs 300 – 500 32 11.4

More than Rs 500 20 7.1

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table exhibits the amount spent by the respondents

during their visit. 31.4% of the respondents had spent Rs.100-200, 27.1% of them had

spent less than Rs.100, 22.9% of them have spent Rs.200-300, 11.4% had spent

Rs.300-500 and 7.1% of respondents had spent more than Rs.500.

CHART :48 CHART SHOWING THE AMOUNT SPENT BY THE

RESPONDENTS DURING THEIR VISIT

182

TABLE :49

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS PAYING TIPS TO WAITERS

Tips to Waiters No. of Respondents Percentage

Yes 246 87.9

No 34 12.1

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table shows the respondent’s opinion towards paying

tips to waiters .87.9% of the respondents had opined that they pay tips and 12.1%

were not paying any tips to the waiters.

CHART :49

CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS PAYING TIPS TO WAITERS

183

TABLE :50

TABLE SHOWING THE TIPS PAID BY THE RESPONDENTS

Tips Amount Paid No. of Respondents Percentage

Less than Rs 2 58 20.7

Rs 2 - 5 105 37.5

Rs 5 – 10 49 17.5

Rs 10 – 20 24 8.6

More than Rs 20 10 3.6

Not Responded 34 12.1

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table displays the amount paid by the respondents as

tips. 37.5% of the respondents had paid Rs.2 – 5 as tips, 20.7% had paid less than

Rs.2, 17.5% had paid Rs.5 – 10, 8.6% had paid Rs.10 – 20, 3.6% of the respondents

had paid more than 20 Rupees as tips and 12.1% of the respondents had not responded

for the same.

CHART :50 CHART SHOWING THE TIPS PAID BY THE RESPONDENTS

184

TABLE :51

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS ORDERING PARCEL DURING DINING

Parcel during dining No. of Respondents Percentage

Yes 157 56.1

No 123 43.9

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation: -

The above table analyses the respondent’s opinion towards ordering parcel

during dining. 56.1% of the respondents placed order during dining and 43.9% had

not placed any parcel order during dining.

CHART :51

CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS ORDERING PARCEL DURING DINING

185

TABLE :52

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ PLACE OF BILL PAYMENT

Bill Payment No. of Respondents Percentage

Dining Table 253 90.4

Cash Counter 27 9.6

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation: -

The above table shows the respondent’s place of bill payment. 90.4% of the

respondents had a practice of paying the bill at the dining table and the remaining

9.6% of the respondents had paid through the cash counters.

TABLE :52

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ PLACE OF BILL PAYMENT

186

TABLE :53

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ AWARENESS TOWARDS THE WAITING HALL FACILITY

Waiting Hall Facility No. of Respondents Percentage

Yes 83 29.6

No 197 70.4

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table analyses the respondent’s awareness towards the Waiting Hall

Facility. 70.4% of the respondents were not aware of the waiting hall facility and only

29.6% of the respondents were aware of the facility.

CHART :53 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ AWARENESS

TOWARDS THE WAITING HALL FACILITY

187

TABLE :54

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ AWARENESS TOWARDS THE DISCOUNTS

Awareness on Discounts No. of Respondents Percentage

Yes 109 38.9

No 171 61.1

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table points out the respondent’s awareness towards the Discounts.

61.1% of the respondents were not aware of the discounts provided by the hotel and

only 38.9% of the respondents were aware of these discounts.

CHART :54

CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ AWARENESS TOWARDS THE DISCOUNTS

188

TABLE :55

TABLE SHOWING THE TABLE RESERVATION BY RESPONDENTS

Table Reservation No. of Respondents Percentage

Yes 128 45.7

No 152 54.3

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation: -

The above table represents the ‘table reservations’ done by the respondents.

54.3% of the respondents did not reserve table in advance. They visit the hotel as and

when the need arises, 45.7% of the respondents had a practice of booking the table in

advance to minimize the waiting time and to maximize the comfort.

TABLE :55 TABLE SHOWING THE TABLE RESERVATION BY RESPONDENTS

189

TABLE :56

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION ON USAGE OF FAMILY ROOMS

Usage of

Family Room


Yes 163 58.2

No 117 41.8

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table classifies the respondent’s usage of family rooms. 58.2% of

the respondents had opined that they had used family rooms whenever they visit with

their family, relatives and friends in good number and 41.8% of the respondents had

not used family rooms till now.


USAGE OF FAMILY ROOMS

190

TABLE :57

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ BILL RELATED ISSUES

Issues related with Bill No. of Respondents Percentage

Yes 61 21.8

No 219 78.2

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation: -

The above table exhibits the respondent’s opinion on bill related issues. 78.2%

of the respondents had no issues with respect to bill and only 21.8% of the

respondents had some issues related with the bill.

CHART :57 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ BILL RELATED ISSUES

191

TABLE :58

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS QUALITY COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

Quality With

other Hotels



Dissatisfied 23 8.2

Moderate 53 18.9

Satisfied 105 37.5

Highly Satisfied 81 28.9

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table displays the respondent’s opinion on Quality of SASG with

other hotels. 37.5% of the respondents were satisfied with the quality, 28.9% were

highly satisfied, 18.9% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; they opined as moderate,

8.2% were dissatisfied and the least 6.4% were highly dissatisfied.


QUALITY COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

192

TABLE :59

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS VARIETY COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

Variety With

other Hotels



Dissatisfied 21 7.5

Moderate 51 18.2

Satisfied 122 43.6


Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table interprets the respondent’s opinion on Variety of SASG

compared with other hotels. 43.6 % of the respondents were satisfied with the Variety,

25.7% were highly satisfied, 18.2% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied they have opined

as moderate, 7.5% were dissatisfied and the least 5% were highly dissatisfied.


VARIETY COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

193

TABLE :60

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS QUANTITY COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

Quantity With

Other Hotels




Moderate 42 15.0

Satisfied 137 48.9


Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table analyses the respondent’s opinion on Quantity of SASG

compared with other hotels. 48.9% of the respondents were satisfied with the

quantity, 21.1% were highly satisfied, 15% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied they have

opined as moderate, 10% were dissatisfied and the least 5% were highly dissatisfied.


QUANTITY COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

194

TABLE :61

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS NEATNESS & CLEANLINESS COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

Neatness & Cleanliness

With other Hotels



Dissatisfied 27 9.6

Moderate 59 21.1

Satisfied 116 41.4


Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table displays the respondent’s opinion on Neatness and

Cleanliness of SASG with other hotels. 41.4% of the respondents were satisfied with

the Neatness & Cleanliness, 25.4% were highly satisfied, 21.1% neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied they have opined as moderate, 9.6% were dissatisfied and the least 2.5%

were highly dissatisfied.


NEATNESS & CLEANLINESS COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

195

TABLE :62

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS TASTE COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

Taste With

other Hotels



Dissatisfied 19 6.8

Moderate 39 13.9

Satisfied 123 43.9


Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table exhibits the respondent’s opinion on Taste of SASG with

other hotels. 43.9% of the respondents were satisfied with the Taste, 30.7% were

highly satisfied, 13.9% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied they have opined as moderate,

6.8% were dissatisfied and the least 4.6% were highly dissatisfied.


TASTE WITH OTHER HOTELS

196

TABLE :63

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS PRICE WITH OTHER HOTELS

Price With

other Hotels




Moderate 53 18.9

Satisfied 90 32.1


Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table interprets the respondent’s opinion on Price of SASG

compared with other hotels. 32.1% of the respondents were satisfied with the Price,


as moderate, 18.6% were dissatisfied and the least 9.3% were highly dissatisfied.


PRICE COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

197

TABLE :64

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS INTERIOR DECORATION COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

Interior Decoration With

other Hotels




Moderate 73 26.1

Satisfied 100 35.7


Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table classifies the respondent’s opinion on Interior Decoration of

SASG compared with other hotels. 35.7% of the respondents were satisfied with the

Interior Decoration, 20.4% were highly satisfied, 26.1% neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied they have opined as moderate, 13.2% were dissatisfied and the least 4.6%

were highly dissatisfied.


INTERIOR DECORATION COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

198

TABLE :65 TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS

PARKING FACILITY COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

Parking Facility

With other Hotels



Dissatisfied 27 9.6

Moderate 72 25.7

Satisfied 112 40.0


Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table exhibits the respondent’s opinion on parking facility of SASG

compared with other hotels. 40% of the respondents were satisfied with the parking

facility, 25.7% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied they have opined as moderate, 15%

were highly satisfied, 9.6% were dissatisfied and another 9.6% were highly

dissatisfied.


PARKING FACILITY COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

199

TABLE :66

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS SERVICES COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

Services With

other Hotels



Dissatisfied 17 6.1

Moderate 55 19.6

Satisfied 128 45.7


Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table analyses the respondent’s opinion on services of SASG

compared with other hotels. 45.7% of the respondents were satisfied with the services,


as moderate, 6.1% were dissatisfied and another 4.6% were highly dissatisfied.


SERVICES COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

200

TABLE :67

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS DRIVE-IN FACILITY COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

Drive-in Facility With

other Hotels




Moderate 64 22.9

Satisfied 108 38.6


Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table summarizes the respondent’s opinion on drive-in facility of

SASG compared with other hotels. 38.6% of the respondents were satisfied with the

drive inn facility, 20.4% were highly satisfied, 22.9% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

they have opined as moderate, 12.1% were dissatisfied and another 6.1% were highly

dissatisfied.


DRIVE – IN FACILITY WITH OTHER HOTELS

201

TABLE :68

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS LOCATION COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

Location With

other Hotels



Dissatisfied 14 5.0

Moderate 57 20.4

Satisfied 134 47.9


Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table interprets the respondent’s opinion on location of SASG

compared with other hotels. 47.9% of the respondents were satisfied with the

locations, 23.2% were highly satisfied, 20.4% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied they

have opined as moderate, 3.6% were highly dissatisfied and another 5% were

dissatisfied.


LOCATION COMPARED WITH OTHER HOTELS

202

TABLE :69

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS HEALTH RELATED ISSUES AFTER CONSUMING FOOD IN SASG

Health related Issues No. of Respondents Percentage

Yes 67 23.9

No 213 76.1

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table exhibits the respondent’s opinion towards health related

issues after consuming food in SASG. Majority of the respondents i.e. 76.1% did not

have any health related issues after consuming food in SASG and 23.9% of them had

told that they had certain issues.

CHART :69 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS HEALTH

RELATED ISSUES AFTER CONSUMING FOOD IN SASG

203

TABLE :70

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS FUTURE VISIT TO THE HOTEL

Future visit to the hotel No. of Respondents Percentage

Yes 234 83.6

No 46 16.4

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table analyses the respondent’s opinion towards

future visit to the hotel. Majority of the respondents i.e. 83.6% of the respondents

were sure to visit SASG in the future and 16. 4% of the respondents told that they

would not visit again.

CHART :70 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS FUTURE

VISIT TO THE HOTEL

204

TABLE :71

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ RECOMMENDATION FOR THE HOTEL

Recommendation

for the hotel


Yes 222 79.3

No 58 20.7

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table displays the respondent’s opinion towards

recommending SASG for others. Majority of the respondents i.e. 79.3% of the

respondents were willing to recommend 20.7% of the respondents told that they will

not recommend SASG for others.

CHART :71 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ RECOMMENDATION

FOR THE HOTEL

156

TABLE NO: 31 TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS THE QUALITY

S.No

Attributes of Quality

Highly Satisfied Satisfied Moderate Dis Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Total No. of Resp

Percentage

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

1 Coffee/Tea 138 49.3 119 42.5 15 5.4 1 0.4 7 2.5 280 100

2 Breakfast Items 78 27.9 177 63.2 13 4.6 3 1.1 9 3.2 280 100

3 Midday Items 69 24.6 142 50.7 44 15.7 4 1.4 21 7.5 280 100

4 Dinner Items 83 29.6 151 53.9 21 7.5 7 2.5 18 6.4 280 100

5 Chat Items 62 22.1 113 40.4 60 21.4 17 6.1 28 10.0 280 100

6 Salads/Juices 62 22.1 135 48.2 45 16.1 16 5.7 22 7.9 280 100

7 Ice creams 63 22.5 138 49.3 48 17.1 8 2.9 23 8.2 280 100

8 Chinese Items 55 19.6 99 35.4 60 21.4 34 12.1 32 11.4 280 100

9 North Indian Dishes 59 21.1 120 42.9 53 18.9 18 6.4 30 10.7 280 100

10 Sweets 78 27.9 125 44.6 44 15.7 12 4.3 21 7.5 280 100

11 Savories 58 20.7 133 47.5 44 15.7 9 3.2 36 12.9 280 100

Interpretation:

Most of the respondents are satisfied with the quality of the various items like Breakfast (63.2%), Midday Items (50.7%), Dinner Items (53.9%), Chat Items (40.4%), Salads (48.2%), Ice Creams (49.3%), Chinese Items (35.4%), North Indian (42.9%), Sweets (44.6%) and Savories (47.5%).

The customers are highly satisfied with the quality of Coffee & Tea with 49.3%.

157

CHART NO: 31 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS THE QUALITY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Coffee/Tea Breakfast Items

Midday Items Dinner Items Chat Items Salads/Juices Ice creams Chinese Items North Indian Dishes

Sweets Savories

HS S M DS HDS

158

TABLE NO: 32 TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS THE AVAILABILITY OF VARIETIES

S.No

Attributes of Varieties Available


Percentage

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

1 Break Fast Items 132 47.1 123 43.9 10 3.6 4 1.4 11 3.9 280 100

2 Mid day Varieties 73 26.1 154 55.0 31 11.1 3 1.1 19 6.8 280 100

3 Dinner Items 66 23.6 158 56.4 30 10.7 4 1.4 22 7.9 280 100

4 Chat Items 66 16.4 125 44.6 63 22.5 15 5.4 31 11.1 280 100

5 Cool Drinks & Juice 68 24.3 128 45.7 53 18.9 8 2.9 23 8.2 280 100

6 Ice Creams 63 22.5 132 47.1 55 19.6 4 1.4 26 9.3 280 100

7 Chinese Items 55 19.6 90 32.1 87 31.1 17 6.1 31 11.1 280 100


9 Sweets 72 25.7 124 44.3 45 16.1 15 5.4 24 8.6 280 100

10 Savories 63 22.5 119 42.5 52 18.6 15 5.4 31 11.6 280 100

Interpretation:

Most of the respondents are satisfied with the availability of the varieties of the various items like Midday Items (55.0%), Dinner Items (56.4%), Chat Items (44.6%), Cool Drinks & Juices (45.7%), Ice Creams (47.1%), Chinese Items (32.1%), North Indian (44.6%), Sweets (44.3%) and Savories (42.5%).

The customers are highly satisfied with the availability of the varieties of breakfast (47.1%).

159

CHART NO: 32 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS THE AVAILABILITY OF VARIETIES

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Break Fast Item Midday Varieties

Dinner Items Chat Items Cool Drinks & Juice

Ice Cream Chinese Items North Indian Dishes

Sweets Savories

HS S M DS HDS

160

TABLE NO: 33 TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS NEATNESS & CLEANLINESS

S.No

Attributes of Neatness & Cleanliness


Percentage

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent Age

1 Vessels 119 42.5 109 38.9 33 11.8 3 1.1 16 5.7 280 100

2 Table 101 36.1 117 41.8 37 13.2 9 3.2 16 5.7 280 100

3 Floor 91 32.5 109 38.9 48 17.1 12 4.3 20 7.1 280 100

4 Waiters 81 28.9 115 41.1 51 18.2 9 3.2 24 8.6 280 100

5 Toilets 61 21.8 133 47.5 51 18.2 7 2.5 28 10.0 280 100

6 Towels 71 25.4 107 38.2 52 18.6 19 6.8 31 11.1 280 100

7 Napkins 68 24.3 112 40.0 50 17.9 23 8.2 27 9.6 280 100

8 Wash Area 83 29.6 108 38.6 46 16.4 14 5.0 29 10.4 280 100

9 Drinking Water 101 36.1 116 41.4 33 11.8 12 4.3 18 6.4 280 100

10 Furniture 95 33.9 99 35.4 40 14.3 19 6.8 27 9.6 280 100

Interpretation:

Most of the respondents are satisfied with the Neatness & Cleanliness of the hotel on various attributes items like Table (41.8%), Floor (38.9%), Waiters (41.1%), Toilets (47.5%), Towels (38.2%), Napkins (40.0%), Wash Area (38.6%), Drinking Water (41.4%), and Furniture (35.4%).

The customers are highly satisfied with the Neatness & Cleanliness of the vessels with 42.5%.

161

CHART NO: 33 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS NEATNESS & CLEANLINESS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Vessels Table Floor Waiters Toilets Towels Napkins Wash Area Drinking Water FurnitureHS S M DS HDS

162

TABLE NO: 34 TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS QUANTITY OFFERED

S.No

Attributes of Quantity


Percentage

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

1 Break Fast Items 93 33.2 123 43.9 36 12.9 10 3.6 18 6.4 280 100

2 Mid day Items 63 22.5 123 43.9 47 16.8 12 4.3 35 12.5 280 100

3 Dinner 66 23.6 134 47.9 38 13.6 15 5.4 27 9.6 280 100

4 Chat Items 56 20.0 109 38.9 55 19.6 19 6.8 41 14.6 280 100

5 Juice 68 24.3 108 38.6 53 18.9 16 5.7 35 12.5 280 100

6 Ice creams 68 24.3 113 40.4 49 17.5 18 6.4 32 11.4 280 100

7 Coffee / Tea 72 25.7 132 47.1 39 13.9 9 3.2 28 10.0 280 100

8 Sweets 74 26.4 115 41.1 48 17.1 13 4.6 30 10.7 280 100

9 Savories 68 24.3 118 42.1 45 16.1 14 5.0 35 12.5 280 100

10 Chinese Items 67 23.9 87 31.1 62 22.1 25 8.9 39 13.9 280 100

11 North Indian Items 64 22.9 105 37.5 53 18.9 17 6.1 41 14.6 280 100

Interpretation:

Most of the respondents are satisfied with the quantity offered by the hotel for the items like Breakfast (43.9%), Midday Items (43.9%), Dinner Items (47.9%), Chat Items (38.9%), Juices (38.6%), Ice Creams (40.4%), Coffee & Tea (47.1%), Sweets (41.1%), Savories (42.1%), Chinese Items (31.1%) and North Indian (37.5%).

163

CHART NO: 34 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS QUANTITY OFFERED

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Break Fast Items

Midday Items Dinner Items Chat Items Juice Ice Creams Coffee / Tea Sweets Savories Chinese Items North Indian DishesHS S M DS HDS

164

TABLE NO: 35 TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS TASTE

S.No

Attributes of Taste Highly Satisfied Satisfied Moderate Dis Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Total No. of Resp

Percentage

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

1 Break Fast Items 132 47.1 117 41.8 12 4.3 5 1.8 14 5.0 280 100


3 Dinner Items 95 33.9 124 44.3 31 11.1 3 1.1 27 9.6 280 100

4 Chat Items 76 27.1 106 37.9 55 19.6 14 5.0 29 10.4 280 100

5 Cool Drinks 72 25.7 137 48.9 38 13.6 2 0.7 31 11.1 280 100

6 Juice 87 31.1 109 38.9 46 16.4 11 3.9 27 9.6 280 100

7 Chinese Items 68 24.3 110 39.3 47 16.8 21 7.5 34 12.1 280 100


9 Sweets 95 33.9 121 43.2 27 9.6 6 2.1 31 11.1 280 100

10 Savories 76 27.1 136 48.6 32 11.4 9 3.2 27 9.6 280 100

Interpretation:

Most of the respondents are satisfied with the Taste of the various items like Midday Items (43.2%), Dinner Items (44.3%), Chat Items (37.9%), Cool Drinks & Juices (48.9%), Juice (38.9%), Chinese Items (39.3%), North Indian (39.6%), Sweets (43.2%) and Savories (48.6%).

The customers are highly satisfied with the Taste of the breakfast items (47.1%).

165

CHART NO: 35 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS TASTE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Break fast Items

Midday Varieties

Dinner Items Chat Items Cool Drinks Juice Chinese Items North Indian Dishes

Sweets Savories

HS S M DS HDS

166

TABLE NO: 36 TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS PRICE

S.No

Attributes of Price Highly Satisfied Satisfied Moderate Dis Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Total No. of Resp

Percentage

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

1 Break Fast Items 27 9.6 20 7.1 41 14.6 89 31.8 103 36.8 280 100


3 Dinner Items 35 12.5 25 8.9 49 17.5 95 33.9 76 27.1 280 100

4 Chat Items 41 14.6 37 13.2 48 17.1 92 32.9 62 22.1 280 100

5 Cool Drinks 44 15.7 18 6.4 54 19.3 109 38.9 55 19.6 280 100

6 Ice Creams 40 14.3 19 6.8 54 19.3 103 36.8 64 22.9 280 100

7 Chinese Items 42 15.0 35 12.5 47 16.8 104 37.1 52 18.6 280 100


9 Sweets 42 15.0 24 8.6 45 16.1 111 39.6 58 20.7 280 100

10 Savories 45 16.1 23 8.2 42 15.0 110 39.3 60 21.4 280 100

Interpretation:

Most of the respondents are Dissatisfied with the price of the various items like Midday Items (32.1%), Dinner Items (33.9%), Chat Items (32.9%), Juices (38.9%), Ice Creams (36.8%), Chinese Items (37.1%), North Indian (31.1%), Sweets (39.6%) and Savories (39.3%).

The customers are highly Dissatisfied with the Price of the breakfast Items (36.8%).

167

TABLE NO: 36 TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS PRICE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Break Fast Items

Midday Varieties

Dinner Items Chat Items Cool Drinks Ice Creams Chinese Items North Indian Dishes

Sweets Savories

HS S M DS HDS

168

TABLE NO: 37 TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS INTERIOR DECORATION

S.No

Attributes of Interior Decoration


Percentage

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

1 Lighting 95 33.9 108 38.6 50 17.9 11 3.9 16 5.7 280 100

2 Sofa Sets 74 26.4 105 37.5 51 18.2 19 6.8 31 11.1 280 100

3 Seating Arrangemts 83 29.6 107 38.2 56 20.0 10 3.6 24 8.6 280 100

4 Wall Paintings 69 24.6 99 35.4 60 21.4 25 8.9 27 9.6 280 100

5 Screens 66 23.6 103 36.8 61 21.8 17 6.1 33 11.8 280 100

6 Floorings 60 21.4 115 41.1 61 21.8 15 5.4 29 10.4 280 100

7 Ceiling Works 64 22.9 112 40.0 62 22.1 15 5.4 27 9.6 280 100

8 Wood Works 64 22.9 99 35.4 70 25.0 22 7.9 25 8.9 280 100

9 Furniture and Tables 64 22.9 102 36.4 75 26.8 17 6.1 22 7.9 280 100

10 Wall Hangings 60 21.4 84 30.0 74 26.4 22 7.9 40 14.3 280 100

Interpretation:

Most of the respondents are satisfied with the interior Decoration of the hotel on the following attributes like Lighting (38.6%), Sofa Sets (37.5%), Seating Arrangements (38.2%), Wall Paintings (35.4%), Screens (36.8%), Floorings (41.1%), Ceiling Works (40.0%), Wood Works (35.4%),Furniture and Tables (36.4%) and Wall Hangings (30.0%).

169

CHART NO: 37 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS INTERIOR DECORATION

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Kighting Sofa Sets Seating Arrangements

Wall Paintings Screens Floorings Ceiling Works Wood Works Furniture and Tables

Wall hangings

HS S M DS HDS

170

TABLE NO: 38 TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS WAITERS

S.No

Opinion on Waiters


Percentage

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

No. of Resp

Percent age

1 Behavior 92 32.9 108 38.6 44 15.7 12 4.3 24 8.6 280 100

2 Hospitality 66 23.6 122 43.6 51 18.2 12 4.3 29 10.4 280 100

3 Neatness 73 26.1 108 38.6 61 21.8 12 4.3 26 9.3 280 100

4 Cleanliness 66 23.6 116 41.4 51 18.2 17 6.1 30 10.7 280 100

5 Approach 61 21.8 122 43.6 51 18.2 12 4.3 34 12.1 280 100

6 Serving 60 21.4 113 40.4 59 21.1 16 5.7 32 11.4 280 100

7 Respect 63 22.5 112 40.0 69 24.6 12 4.3 24 8.6 280 100

8 Dressing 53 18.9 113 40.4 75 26.8 16 5.7 23 8.2 280 100

9 Communication 61 21.8 113 40.4 62 22.1 16 5.7 28 10.0 280 100

10 Billing 57 20.4 127 45.4 61 21.8 8 2.9 27 9.6 280 100

Interpretation:

Most of the respondents are satisfied with the waiters of the hotel on the following attributes like Behavior (38.6%), Hospitality (43.6%), Neatness (38.6%), Cleanliness (41.4%), Approach (43.6%), Serving (40.4%), Respect (40.0%), Dressing (40.4%), Communication (40.4%) and Billing (45.4%).

171

CHART NO: 38 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS OPINION TOWARDS WAITERS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Behavior Hospitality Neatness Cleanliness Approach Serving Respect Dressing Communication Billing

HS S M DS HDS

152

TABLE :27

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ DECISION TO VISIT TO THE HOTEL

Visit to hotel No. of Respondents Percentage

Mostly Planned 144 51.4

Mostly Spontaneous 136 48.6

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table exhibits the type of decision to visit the hotel. 51.4% of the

respondents had visited the hotel with prior planning and the remaining 48.6% of the

respondents had not planned and mostly their visits were spontaneous.

CHART :27 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ DECISION

TO VISIT TO THE HOTEL

153

TABLE :28

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ PREFERRED FOOD

Preferred Food No. of Respondents Percentage

South Indian 212 75.7

North Indian 34 12.1

Chinese 19 6.8

Andhra Style 15 5.4

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table displays the food preferred by the respondents. Majority of

the respondents preferred South Indian food items i.e. 75.7%, followed by North

Indian Food with 12.1%, Chinese with 6.8% and Andhra Style as the least by 5.4%.

CHART :28 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ PREFERRED FOOD

154

TABLE :29

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ AWARENESS TOWARDS THE AVAILABILITY OF THE MENU CARD

Availability of Menu

Card


Yes 145 51.8

No 135 48.2

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

From the above table it is evident that 51.8% of the respondents had a habit

of asking the menu card and 48.2% of the respondents did not have the habit of asking

for the menu card.

CHART :29 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ AWARENESS TOWARDS

THE AVAILABILITY OF THE MENU CARD

155

TABLE :30

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS NOTICING THE TODAY’S SPECIAL

Display of Today’s

special


Yes 214 76.4

No 66 23.6

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

From the above table it is clear that 76.4% of the respondents used to notice

and read the ‘today’s special’, which is displayed at the entrance and the remaining

23.6% did not notice the ‘today’s special’ board.


NOTICING THE TODAY’S SPECIAL

151

TABLE :26 TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ FAVOURITE BRANCH

95

1825 22

3 3

23

65

11 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gandh(NZ) Saibaba(NZ) Lakshmi(NZ) Cross Cut(NZ) Mettup(NZ) Ramakrish(NZ) Raja Street(SZ) Arts College(SZ) Townhall(SZ) Peoples (SZ)

SOUTH ZONE BRANCHES

NORTH ZONE BRANCHES

125

5.1 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS

TABLE :1

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ AGE

Age No. of Respondents Percentage

Up to 20 Years 56 20.0

21 – 30 Years 103 36.8

31 – 40 Years 64 22.9

41 – 50 Years 28 10.0

Above 50 Years 29 10.4

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

From the above table it is clear that 36.8% of the employees fall under the age

group of 21 - 30 years, followed by 22.9% of employees under the age group of 31-

40 years, and the very next 20 % were under the age group of up to 20 years, 41–50

years age group were only 10%, and finally 10.4% of respondents were above 50

years of Age.

CHART :1 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ AGE

126

TABLE : 2

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ GENDER

Gender No. of Respondents Percentage

Male 181 64.6

Female 99 35.4

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

From the above analysis it is inferred that 64.6% of the respondents were

male and the remaining 35.4% were female.

CHART : 2 GRAPH SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ GENDER

181

99

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Male Female

127

TABLE : 3

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION

Educational

Qualification


School Level 95 33.9

Graduation 123 43.9

Post Graduation 62 22.1

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above analysis shows the respondent’s educational qualification; where

43.9 % of the respondents had completed their graduation, 33.9% had completed their

schooling and the remaining 22.1% have done their post graduation.

CHART : 3 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION

128

TABLE : 4

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OCCUPATION

Occupation No. of Respondents Percentage

Salaried 93 33.2

Self - Employed 103 36.8

Professional 42 15.0

Student 42 15.0

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table shows the respondents’ occupation. 36.8% of the

respondents were self-employed, 33.2% were salaried and the remaining 15% of

respondents were under the category professional and students.

CHART : 4 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OCCUPATION

129

TABLE : 5

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ MARITAL STATUS

Marital Status No. of Respondents Percentage

Single 111 39.6

Married 169 60.4

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table analyses the marital status of the respondents .60.4% of the

respondents were married and the remaining 39.6% were unmarried.

CHART : 5 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ MARITAL STATUS

130

TABLE : 6

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ FAMILY TYPE

Family Type No. of Respondents Percentage

Nuclear Family 172 61.4

Joint Family 108 38.6

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table shows the type of family to which the respondents belong.

61.4% of the respondents live as nuclear family and 38.6 of them were in the joint

family system.

CHART : 6 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ FAMILY TYPE

131

TABLE : 7

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ FAMILY SIZE

Size of the Family No. of Respondents Percentage

Up to 3 Members 108 38.6

3 – 6 Members 111 39.6

7 – 9 Members 38 13.6

Above 9 Members 23 8.2

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table interprets the respondent’s family size, where 39.6% of the

respondents have a family size of 3-6 members, 38.6% were in the category of up to 3

members, 13.6% of respondents’ family size lies between 7-9 members and the

remaining 8.2% of the respondents’ family size was above 9 members.

CHART : 7 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ FAMILY SIZE

132

TABLE : 8

TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF CHILDRENS IN THE FAMILY

No of Children’s

in the Family


One 78 27.9

Two 70 25.0

More than Two 26 9.3

None 106 37.9

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table represents the number of children’s in the respondent’s

family. 37.9% of the respondents have no children at the time of data collection,

27.9% of them have only one child, 25 % of them have two children, and 9.3% of

respondents have more than two children’s in their family.

CHART : 8 CHART SHOWING THE NUMBER OF CHILDRENS IN THE FAMILY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

One Two More than Two None

7870

26

106

133

TABLE : 9

TABLE SHOWING OTHER WORKING MEMBERS IN THE FAMILY

Other Working

Members


Spouse 90 32.1

Father 129 46.1

Mother 41 14.6

Children’s 20 7.1

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table shows the other working members in the family. In most of

the families i.e. 46.1% of the father were working, 32.1% of the respondents spouse

were working, 14.6% of the respondents mother and only 7.1 of the children’s were

working for the family. Most of the families have dual income.

CHART : 9 CHART SHOWING OTHER WORKING MEMBERS IN THE FAMILY

134

TABLE : 10

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ ANNUAL INCOME

Annual Income No. of Respondents Percentage

Below 1 Lakh 131 46.8

1 – 2 Lakhs 26 9.3

2 – 3 Lakhs 56 20.0

Above 3 Lakhs 33 11.8

Not Responded 34 12.1

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table illustrates the distribution of annual income of the

respondents. 46.8% of the respondents’ annual income was less than 1 lakh, 20 % of

the respondents’ annual income lies between 2-3 lakhs, 11.8 of the respondents’

annual income was more than 3 lakhs, 9.3 % of the respondents’ annual income was

between 1 to 2 lakhs, and the remaining12.1% of the respondents’ did not disclose

their the annual income.

CHART : 10 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ ANNUAL INCOME

135

TABLE : 11

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ STAY

Stay No. of Respondents Percentage

Own House 148 52.9

Rented House 132 47.1

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table shows the respondents’ stay. It is evident that 52.9% of the

respondents have their own house and 47.1% of them were staying in rented houses.

CHART : 11 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ STAY

136

TABLE : 12

TABLE SHOWING THE VEHICLES OWNED BY THE RESPONDENTS

Type of Vehicle Owned No. of Respondents Percentage

Two Wheeler 153 54.6

Four Wheeler 43 15.4

Both 41 14.6

None 43 15.4

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation: -

The above table displays the vehicles owned by the respondents. 54.6% of the

respondents own two-wheeler, 15.4% of them own four-wheeler, 14.6% have both

two and four-wheelers and 15.4% of the respondents did not own any vehicle.

CHART : 12

CHART SHOWING THE VEHICLES OWNED BY THE RESPONDENTS

137

TABLE : 13

TABLE SHOWING THE CREDIT CARD POSSESSION BY THE RESPONDENTS

Possession of Credit

Card


Yes 98 35.0

No 182 65.0

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table exhibits the possession of credit cards by the respondents.

65% of the respondents do not have any credit card and the remaining 35% of the

respondents have credit cards.

High interest rates, other charges and unnecessary service calls would have

been the various factors to avoid the credit cards.

TABLE : 13 TABLE SHOWING THE CREDIT CARD POSSESSION BY THE

RESPONDENTS

138

TABLE : 14

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ MODE OF RECREATION

Mode Of Recreation No. of Respondents Percentage

Movies 102 36.4

Reading 73 26.1

Playing 32 11.4

Dancing 14 5.0

Outing 47 16.8

Others 12 4.3

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table summarizes the respondents’ mode of recreation. 36.4% of

the respondents were interested in watching movies, 26.1% have interest in reading,

16.8% of the respondents like to visit places, and 11.4% were more towards sports

and finally 5% and 4.3% towards dancing and other recreational activities.

CHART : 14 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ MODE OF RECREATION

139

TABLE : 15

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ FREQUENCY OF FOOD INTAKE IN HOTEL

Frequency No. of Respondents Percentage

Once in a Week 57 20.4

Twice in a Week 76 27.1

Once in Two weeks 40 14.3

Once in a Month 57 20.4

Rarely 50 17.9

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table depicts the frequency of food intake in hotels. 27.1% of the

respondents take food in hotels twice a week, 20.4% of the respondents had once in a

week and another 20.4% had once in a month and 17.9% of the respondents used to

take rarely in the hotels and the least 14.3%of the respondents frequency was once in

two weeks.

CHART : 15 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ FREQUENCY

OF FOOD INTAKE IN HOTEL

140

TABLE : 16

TABLE SHOWING THE REASONS FOR OUTSIDE FOOD

Reasons For Outside

Food


Tasty Food 154 55.0

Bachelor 50 17.9

Student 27 9.6

Party 49 17.5

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table analyses the reason to have food in hotels .55% of the

respondents had food in the hotel because of its taste, 17.9% being bachelors, 17.5%

through parties and other functions and 9.6% of the students used to have food in the

hotel.

CHART : 16 CHART SHOWING THE REASONS FOR OUTSIDE FOOD

141

TABLE : 17

TABLE SHOWING THE MODE OF AWARENESS ABOUT SASG

Mode of Awareness No. of Respondents Percentage

Radio 20 7.1

Television 26 9.3

News Paper 17 6.1

Publicity 96 34.3

Word Of Mouth 60 21.4

Friends 42 15.0

Relatives 19 6.8

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table displays the mode of awareness about SASG. 34.3% of the

respondents were aware of SASG through publicity, 21.4% were aware through word

of mouth, and 15% through their friends, 9.3% were aware through television, 7.1%

were by listening to radio, 6.8% through their relatives and the remaining 6.1% of

them were by reading news papers.

CHART : 17 CHART SHOWING THE MODE OF AWARENESS ABOUT SASG

142

TABLE : 18

TABLE SHOWING THE MEMBERS INFLUENCING TO VISIT SASG

Members Influencing No. of Respondents Percentage

Spouse 29 10.4

Family 106 37.9

Friends 115 41.1

Colleagues 30 10.7

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table reflects that 41.1% of the respondents were influenced by

their friends to visit the hotel, followed by 37.9% through family members and more

or less equally influenced by colleagues and spouse with 10.7% and 10.4%

respectively.

CHART : 18 CHART SHOWING THE MEMBERS INFLUENCING TO VISIT SASG

143

TABLE : 19

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ VISIT TO THE HOTEL

Group Accompanying No. of Respondents Percentage

Spouse 35 12.5

Family 154 55.0

Friends 83 29.6

Colleagues 8 2.9

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table shows that the selected respondents were influenced to visit

the hotel by four groups, namely, spouse, family, friends, and colleagues. Among

these four groups, a maximum number of respondents had visited SASG with their

family members, the second group, which accompanies with friends was 29.6%,

12.5% had been with their spouse and finally, and 2.9% had visited with their

colleagues.

CHART : 19 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ VISIT TO THE HOTEL

144

TABLE : 20

TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF VISITS TO SASG

Visits Made

in a Month


Once 81 28.9

Twice 97 34.6

More Than Twice 102 36.4

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table shows the number of visits done by the respondents in a

month to SASG. It can be inferred that 36.4% of the respondents had visited SASG

more than twice in a month, followed by 34.6% twice in a month, and the remaining

28.9% of the respondents had visited only once in a month.

This shows that generally customers visit SASG more than twice in month.

CHART : 20 CHART SHOWING THE NUMBER OF VISITS TO SASG

145

TABLE : 21

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS THE AVAILABILITY OF THE MENU

Availability of the Menu No. of Respondents Percentage

Yes 194 69.3

No 86 30.7

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table displays the opinion on the availability of the menu items.

69.3% of the respondents had opined that the menu items were available and 30.7% of

the respondents had opined that the menu items were not available

CHART : 21

CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ OPINION TOWARDS THE AVAILABILITY OF THE MENU

146

TABLE : 22

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ AWARENESS TOWARDS SASG BRANCHES

Awareness towards

Branches


Yes 229 81.8

No 51 18.2

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table shows the distribution of the respondent’s awareness

towards the branches of SASG. 81.8% of the respondents were aware of the branches

and 18.2% of the respondents were not aware of the branches of SASG.

CHART : 22

CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ AWARENESS TOWARDS SASG BRANCHES

147

TABLE : 23

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ TIME OF VISIT TO THE HOTEL

Time of Visit No. of Respondents Percentage

Morning 45 16.1

Afternoon 65 23.2

Evening 68 24.3

Night 33 11.8

No Fixed Time 69 24.6

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table exhibits the time of visit by the respondents to SASG. The

table shows that 24.6% of the respondents do not have any fixed time to visit SASG,

24.3% of the respondents prefer to visit in the evening, 23.2% in the afternoon, and

16.1% and 11.89% during the morning and night times.

Thus customers visit the hotel as per their convenience and as and when the

need arises.

CHART : 23 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ TIME OF VISIT TO THE HOTEL

148

TABLE : 24

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ FAVOURITE BREAKFAST ITEMS

Favourite Break Fast

Items


Idli Sambar 124 44.3

Dosa 54 19.3

Roast 55 19.6

Puri 15 5.4

Pongal 32 11.4

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The above table displays the respondents’ favourite Breakfast item. 44.3%

of the respondent’s have opined that Idli Sambar as their favourite breakfast item,

more or less the same number of respondents i.e. 19.6% and 19.3% like Roast and

Dosa , followed by 11.4% prefer pongal and 5.4% of the respondents favourite was

Puri . South Indians’ most preferred and favourite breakfast item was Idli, Dosa,

and Vada.

CHART : 24 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ FAVOURITE BREAKFAST

149

TABLE : 25

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ FAVOURITE MID DAY FOOD ITEMS

Favourite Mid Day Item No. of Respondents Percentage

Meals 116 41.4

Vegetable Biriyani 77 27.5

Curd Rice 24 8.6

Roti 23 8.2

Parotta 40 14.3

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

From the above table it is evident that 41.4% of the respondent’s Favourite

mid-, 27.5% favourite was vegetable biriyani, 14.3% for parotta and closely followed

by 8.6% and 8.2%, prefer curd rice and roti.

CHART : 25 CHART SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ FAVOURITE MID DAY FOOD

150

TABLE : 26

TABLE SHOWING THE RESPONDENTS’ FAVOURITE BRANCH

Branches Region Wise No. of Respondents Percentage

Gandhipuram North Zone 95 33.9

Saibaba Colony North Zone 18 6.4

Lakshmi Complex North Zone 25 8.9

Cross Cut Road North Zone 22 7.9

Mettupalayam North Zone 3 1.1

Ramakrishna Hospital North Zone 3 1.1

Raja Street South Zone 23 8.2

Arts College South Zone 65 23.2

Townhall South Zone 11 3.9

Peoples Park South Zone 15 5.4

Total 280 100.0


Interpretation:-

The branches were divided into North zone and South zone. The branches

that come under the North zone were Gandhipuram, Saibaba Colony, Lakshmi

Complex, Cross Cut Road, Mettupalyam, Ramakrishan Hospital and similarly south

zone Have Raja Street, Arts College, Townhall, People Park.

Among the branches of the North Zone, the favourite branch was

Gandhipuram(33.9%) followed by Lakshmi complex(8.9) and in the South Zone the

Arts College(23.2) and followed by Raja Street(8.2) were the favourite branches for

the respondents.

data analysis and interpretation - …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/4835/14/14_chapter...

Documents