Requirements – 10-12 page Double-spaced paper consisting of the following areas, some of the pages will be the questionnaire and tables, so don’t freak out about the length per se.
Choose your brand or topic in groups of 2-3 people. Done
University Food Service
Prepare a detailed research plan (using the book as a guide as well as our future discussions/lectures) as if you were an OUTSIDE consultant group hired by this company or topic to explore University as a market. So we’re talking Problem/opportunity, exploratory research, research design, etc. Done
Methodology
Problem Statement…define problem or opportunity
University– Food Service Opportunity – How to drive more traffic, what options are most appealing to increase use…??
Establish Objectives …some possible options….
To identify which food options are most interesting to students
To identify if they are offered, will students go there to eat
To identify incentives/promos that would attract college students
To identify how the above varies according to characteristics like gender, class standing, domestic vs. international student, others?
Define Constructs…something like…
What is our marketing objective…what food option is most preferred is likely not enough, we need to demonstrate how the information will result in a favorable result for client…perhaps, if we offer new food options, will more students visit the University Pavilion?
3 – Research Design –The Survey/Questionnaire Done
Primary exploratory, questionnaire, Qualtrics/Survey Monkey/Other
Qualitative, Quantitate or Mixed
Population, sample, response rates
Validation?? (10% are to re-contacted to confirm they completed the study) …perhaps we don’t do but reference as a step we would do.
4 – Tabulate/Analyze – Done
5/6 – Communicate the Insights and make recommendations need to do
7) Limitations of Research Also write how you might re-write the questionnaire/administer the focus group based on what you learned from this time around (most realize they missed a key question; I just want you to identify it, etc). This is part of the LIMITATIONS I’ve referenced already and will continue to do so.
8) Just remember, the KEY areas I’m looking for are as follows: METHODOLOGY, QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN, ANALYSIS, LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH (again be critical of the project) and RECOMMENDATIONS TO PRODUCT MANAGEMENT.
Food Choices in The University Pavilion
Food Choices at the University Pavilion Survey Report
Executive Summary
This report presents findings from marketing research conducted by our team to support the University Pavilion (UPAV) restaurant use by its students. The report mainly focuses on food offerings as a driver, however, also explores other potential barriers to student utilization.
The University is a campus with a current student body headcount of 8,000. According to the University’s office of Institutional Analysis, approximately 78% of the student body are undergraduate students and 60% of those undergraduate students are attending full-time.
The University Pavilion is etc. home to the Undergraduate Admissions, Financial Aid, Registrar, Student Success Center, Veteran’s Resource Center, and the campus bookstore. It also has a range of restaurants on the first floor to serve students including:
Restaurant 1 – specializes in fresh fruit smoothies, panini grilled sandwiches, Mexican, breakfast and much more.
Restaurant 2– offers Mediterranean fare, chicken and beef shawarma.
Restaurant 3 – specializes in all things BBQ
Restaurant 4 – offers breakfast foods, grilled items, sandwiches and wraps.
Restaurant 5 – national chain, offering wide variety of subs, salads and sides.
The University desires to develop a better understanding of the UPAV student foot traffic driven by eateries. It will seek to gauge the attitude regarding current options and explore interest for different restaurant options. The goal is to provide the university with information to determine if changes could be made to current offering to increase foot traffic to the UPAV.
Objective
The research project seeks to meet the following objectives:
To determine current frequency of use of UPAV dining
To identify which current and alternate food options are most important to students
To identify if alternates are offered, will students go there to eat
To identify if there are other obstacles preventing use
To identify how the above varies according to characteristics like residency status and class standing
Methodology
Our research methodology design utilizes exploratory research though a student questionnaire. The self-administered survey issued via google forms was sent to students through email and social media platform Facebook. The research population is the University student body, a sample of 100 students’ responses were collected. This quantitative approach included a mix of measures to support the research constructs defined. Validation of 10% of respondents will be conducted through random selection. The responses will be analyzed to present insights and recommendations to the University.
Tabulation and Analysis
Our survey got exactly 100 responses. The first question on our survey was asking about where our respondents lived. All people who participated answered this question, as it was required to answer all questions on the survey to submit it. The majority of people, 42% of respondents, said that they lived off campus and commented to the college, this option choice was intended for people who lived thirty minutes or further and drove to campus. The next largest section was commuters who lived off campus but were local to the university, with 33% of responses. The third largest with 16% of responses was people wo were remote, they never come to campus, and lastly, the smallest number of responses was 9% and those people were residents and lived on campus.
The next question was what year of school these people answering were in. The choices were Senior, with the largest section at 71%, then Junior with 20%, then sophomore with 7%, and freshman was the last choice and was only 2% of people who answered. From all our responses.
The third question regarding dietary restrictions resulted in a large majority of people saying they had none, which was 73% of people. Food allergies was the top dietary restriction, 17% of people saying this was a factor in choosing food, the next highest with 8% of respondents saying that they were vegan or vegetarian, and then lastly, the smallest amount of people said that they had cultural or religious factors that went in to choosing their food choices. This was 6% of respondents.
The next question asked respondents to rank the current food choices in the pavilion.
For this question, we asked if they would rate the options from their favorite to their least favorite, with 1 being their most favorite. The break down for each business was;
Restaurant 1 having fourteen number one rankings, eleven number 2 rankings, eleven number 3 rankings, ten number 4 rankings, seven number 5 rankings, and thirteen respondents said they had never eaten there. Restaurant 2had eight number 1 rankings, seventeen number 2 rankings, seven number 3 rankings, fourteen number 4 rankings, nine number 5 rankings, and nine respondents said they had never eaten there. Restaurant 4 had seven number 1 rankings, six number 2 rankings, thirteen number 3 rankings, ten number 4 rankings, seven number 5 rankings, and eighteen respondents said they had never eaten there. Restaurant 3 had seven number 1 rankings, eleven number 2 rankings, sixteen number 3 rankings, twelve number 4 rankings, thirteen number 5 rankings, and five respondents said they had never eaten there. Lastly, the numbers for Restaurant 5 were twelve favorites, twelve second favorites, fifteen third favorites, twenty-one fourth favorites, seven least favorites, and one person said they had never eaten there. Restaurant 1 had the highest number of people say that they were their favorite, with Restaurant 5 being next. Restaurant 2 had the highest number of people say that they were their second favorite, Restaurant 3 had the highest number of people say that they were their third favorite, and Restaurant 5 had the highest number of people say that out of the options, they were people’s fourth favorite. The business with the highest number of least favorites was also Restaurant 3. Restaurant 4had the highest number of respondents say that they had never eaten there.
The next question was how often respondents ate at the Pavilion. Over 50% of people said that they ate there less than once a week, 36% of respondents said that they ate there 1 or 2 times a week, 71% said that they ate there three or four times a week, followed by the smallest percentage, 1%, being four to five times a week. No respondents said that they ate there six to seven.
The next question asked what type of eatery people preferred. The majority of respondents said that they preferred a restaurant sit down style. The next largest preferred a cafeteria style, which is what is currently being offered. An equal number of people said that they preferred a fast food or buffet style eatery.
The next question asked what kind of food people would like to see added to the Pavilion. Mexican and Asian were nearly tied as the top two choice with over fifty responses each, Italian was next preferred, and a Vegetarian or vegan option was least preferred. For this question, it was possible to choose more than one option. A respondent could have selected all the choices, that they would like to see one of each get a spot in the pavilion or choose only one.
The following question regarded what influenced if people would eat the university pavilion. The question was open for people to choose multiple factors and to type in their own. The highest number of respondents aid that their class schedule had the largest influence. The next largest factor was location of the pavilion on campus, followed by parking and social dining. There was also a variety of type in answers, a total of eleven. Some of them included that they did not go to campus, that they do not have time to eat, the cost, the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, and that they had been “previously bothered” in the building.
The last two questions delt with the reputation of the Pavilion and how likely people would be to eat there if their favorite option was made available. Most people, over sixty percent, said that they had a favorable view of the Pavilion as a place to eat, and the remaining said no. Finally, 31% of people said that they would be very likely to eat there if their favorite food option was added. The largest chunk, 36%, said that they would be more likely to eat at the Pavilion if their choice was made available. 21% of people said that they were neutral. Unlikely and very unlikely were the smallest two numbers, with the remaining percentage split evenly at 6%.
The analysis for this our survey is broken down by questions. The first question, the conclusion that can be drawn from this is that most students do not live on campus. Most of students are commuters, and likely pass many places to eat on their way to school. It’s possible that these are the types of people who answered that they were unlikely or very unlikely to eat at the pavilion if their favorite choice was offered because there are so many other options that are more convenient, such a drive-thrus, on the way to campus. Likewise, for the 9% of on campus residents, they are likely the ones answering that they eat there more than four times a week. The survey found that most of those who answered are seniors, followed by juniors, then sophomores and then freshmen.
The majority of people who answered said that they had no dietary restrictions that effected their choice when choosing food. Only eight people out of one hundred said that they were vegan or vegetarian, but interestingly thirty people said that they would like a meatless option to be added to the pavilion. The other two options given were religious or cultural restrictions and food allergies. Both restrictions might prevent people from ordering food at the pavilion because of how food there is prepared, or at least influence what choices already there they can pick from.
The question regarding existing places to eat in the pavilion had an error, and it was realized too late. The way that Google docs is structured, the food choices should have gone on the X axis and the numbers on the Y axis, because the question would only allow people to pick one “never eaten” choice and forced participants to rank the others at least one through four. Our question had it flipped. It is possible however that students have never eaten at any of the restaurants, and they were unable to select that. It is unknown if the results if this question are reliable. This should be considered a non-sampling error, and a data gathering error. Of any of the questions, this one should most likely be thrown out, or had this been a large company, not included in packaged results sold to other companies.
The next question covered how many times people ate at the Pavilion. The majority said that they never ate there, at 56%. These people might also be some of the same that said that they were unlikely or very unlikely to eat at the pavilion regardless if their favorite choice as added, or might be some of the 37% of people who had an unfavorable opinion of the pavilion. The following 36% said that they ate there only once or twice a week, and beyond that the numbers that ate there more often than that were very small, and could be attributed to those living on campus.
The next question asks what kind of eatery style people preferred. The pavilion currently is a cafeteria style and only 22% of people said they favored that. The largest majority said that they instead preferred a restaurant style where people sat down and had their orders taken for them. Both at 18%, the remaining options listed buffet and fast food. It could be speculated some of the reason people are not eating at the Pavilion is because the cafeteria style format they have is not favorable.
The next question directly relates to the previous about times people ate at the pavilion question and asks people what influences their decision to eat at the pavilion. This question had an option to type in answers, and some of the ones listed were that they did not go to campus, that they did not have time to eat there, safety, that it was easier to go home, and hours open. Money and cost were listed also, thought it was not elaborated on. This could be interpreted however that they felt the food was too expensive to eat there.
Some of the other responses for that question were more favorable of it and listed it as one of the only food choices available. The very top choice on that question was that class schedules influenced if they ate there. It could be that classes were close together and they were not able to stop for food at all, or that it was an easy choice because they were already on campus and had to stay there.
Most of the respondents said that the pavilion had a favorable reputation, however. This would indicate that over half of the respondents had no problem eating there. The last question asked people how likely they were to eat there if their favorite choice, perhaps the ones listed earlier in the survey, were added. 67% of people said that they were very likely or likely to eat there more if there was something that they liked. Not having a choice preferable to students could be what effected how frequently students ate there or their opinion on the pavilion. The top choices people would like added were Mexican and Asian cuisine, at 57% and 59% respectively. These questions together indicate that adding either of them could have a positive effect on people dinning there. 21% said they were neutral, so for those it might not make a difference, and it would not make a deference for the 12% of remaining people.
Limitations
There were several limitations that we encountered for this survey. There was sample size, time constraints, personnel, and sample and reputation biases.
Sample size was limited to 100 surveys and only undergraduate student at the University. Should have been larger amount for better accuracy. Include graduate, faculty, and people passing by. This played into a sample bias also since we only questioned students when there are also faculty, graduate students, and random visitors to the pavilion.
Time constraints- only 4 weeks to conduct the survey. A longer time period would have increased more diversity and possible more in person interviews. The survey was conducted online only so they were no face-to-face interactions.
Covid-19- a limitation since we would not be able to interact and propose a survey at the university pavilion. The survey could have included sample trays from each restaurant in the pavilion. The loss of interaction effected the impact of the questionnaire.
Personnel- There were only 3 people in the research team so reaching out for possible interviews was limited. More personnel would have assisted in distributing and reaching out to the University students.
Biases- There was a bias of the pavilion as having a bad reputation for food. We inserted a question on the survey to identify this existing bias but it turned out to be false. There were 63% of the interviews prove that false. However, other factors that lead people to not eat there were food quality, personal safety, covid and no food choices. Another bias was Age, as the focus group was limited to students who are younger than the general population. A wider age group would have given the report more credibility since it does not represent each person visiting the pavilion.
Other limitations were the survey questions themselves. We had several test runs between our group prior to releasing and adjusted what was needed. We had to re-edit the survey answers in the early stages since some were confusing to students. We also encountered that some questions could have had more answers or fill in type answers. We had one question in particular that ranked each restaurant and it also included a “never eaten” choice. This button was on a column and a row so it initially skewed the numbers since it could be marked twice. This was corrected after several comments about the question. Another issue was the survey focus group was initially limited to students, After not receiving responses through the Thanksgiving holiday, I redistributed it and sent it faculty and graduates of the university. This was a mistake n my part since I was attempted to send to bigger audience of undergraduate students. Since the survey was anonymous, there was no way to determine if faculty or graduates answered it. Furthermore, weaking the validity of the research report.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Conclusion – the survey indicates that students would more options by choosing Mexican food by 57%, Asian food by 59%, Italian food b 45%, and vegetarian food by 30%. This is a majority of students that at the minimum want a change.
Recommendation- The recommendation of our group to the University food services is to expand on food variety to increase foot traffic. This is was the biggest factor for students for not eating at the pavilion. A resounding 88% of the students would reconsider eating at the pavilion if more food choices were available. Also, student safety, expanded hours after class, location on campus, and parking also influence the foot traffic into the pavilion. These are factors that must be adjusted or corrected as well.
The post Requirements – 10-12 page Double-spaced paper consisting of the following areas, some appeared first on PapersSpot.
