analysis of statistical trends between design and comfort at chili’s restaurant
DESCRIPTION
Analysis of Statistical Trends Between Design and Comfort at Chili’s Restaurant. Asif Hussain Kristyn Starr. Intro To Brinker. Brinker International has 5 divisions of restaurants ranging from casual dining to fine dining 3.7 billion dollar company - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Analysis of Statistical Trends Between Design and Comfort at
Chili’s Restaurant
Asif Hussain
Kristyn Starr
Intro To Brinker
• Brinker International has 5 divisions of restaurants ranging from casual dining to fine dining
• 3.7 billion dollar company
• Recognized by FORTUNE magazine as one of “America’s most admired companies”
Chili’s Grill & Bar
• Has an eclectic menu and casual friendly atmosphere
• 49 states and 23 countries
• Recently opened its 1000th restaurant
Task At Hand
• Does the architecture (prototype) of Chili’s influence a guest’s comfort?
• Find trends in data to answer question
• Give recommendations for changes to be made at Chili’s
Data Source
• Guest Satisfaction Survey (GSS)
• Guests receive survey information on receipt
• Chance to win $25,000
• About 2 million cases
GSS Question Dimensions Restaurant Environment
• Atmosphere
• Cleanliness
• Comfort
• Restrooms
GSS Question Dimensions Staff
• Welcomed upon arrival
• Acknowledged quickly upon being seated
• Attentiveness of server
• Beverage served timely
GSS Question Dimensions Staff
• Food served timely
• Enthusiasm
• Promptness of payment
• Servers knowledge
GSS Question DimensionsCompare to Similar Restaurant
• Overall
• Atmosphere
• Food
• Service
Software Used
• SPSS – Statistical analysis software
– User friendly graphical interface
– Compatible with Brinker software
Crosstabs
• Find correlation between comfort and other variables
• The best Pearson’s r value found is 0.620 for correlation of comfort and overall experience
• Second best Pearson’s r value is 0.605 for comfort and cleanliness
• Due to lots of data and significance=0 this r value shows a correlation
Comfort & Overall Experience
Symmetric Measures
.620 .001 1029.876 .000c
.642 .001 1092.103 .000c
1701257
Pearson's RInterval by Interval
Spearman CorrelationOrdinal by Ordinal
N of Valid Cases
ValueAsymp.
Std. Errora
Approx. Tb
Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis.a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.b.
Based on normal approximation.c.
Comfort & Cleanliness
Symmetric Measures
.605 .001 992.038 .000c
.628 .001 1053.530 .000c
1701257
Pearson's RInterval by Interval
Spearman CorrelationOrdinal by Ordinal
N of Valid Cases
ValueAsymp.
Std. Errora
Approx. Tb
Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis.a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.b.
Based on normal approximation.c.
One-Way ANOVA
• Compare means of variables using prototype as factor to find significance of differences
• Full analysis was done on 19 variables
Food served timely
Prototype
850
800
700
600
550
500
100
14
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
3
2
Me
an
of
qrS
erv
ed
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
7.X 8.X8.M6.X
5.A
5.AXSP
Comfort
Prototype
850
800
700
600
550
500
100
14
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
3
2
Me
an
of
Ove
rall
Co
mfo
rt
4.14
4.12
4.10
4.08
4.06
4.04
4.02
4.00
3.98
7.X 8.X
8.M6.X
5.A
5.AX
SP
Atmosphere
Prototype
850
800
700
600
550
500
100
14
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
3
2
Me
an
of
Ho
w w
ou
ld y
ou
ra
te t
he
Atm
osp
he
re?
4.2
4.1
4.0
7.X 8.X
8.M6.X
5.A
5.AX
SP
Compare to similar overall
Prototype
850
800
700
600
550
500
100
14
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
3
2
Me
an
of
qrC
om
pa
reR
est
Ove
rall
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.8
7.X 8.X
8.M6.X
5.A
5.AX
SP
Overall
Prototype
850
800
700
600
550
500
100
14
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
3
2
Me
an
of
qrO
vera
ll
4.10
4.08
4.06
4.04
4.02
4.00
3.98
3.96
3.94
3.92
7.X 8.X8.M6.X
5.A
5.AX
SP
Conclusion
• Prototype 14 consistently scored higher than the rest
– Changed exterior and interior
– Newer look : Stone and perforated metal exterior accents; cook-off/ event pictures, toys and cars spotlighted inside
– 7 stores and 4078 entries
Conclusion
• Prototype 11 and 7.X consistently scored low– 11 only has one restaurant
– 7.X is expanded 7; once again only a few
– 7.X may have scored low because of location and not prototype
Suggestion
• It appears that the prototype does not affect the comfort much
• Benchmarks may help to better separate the strong and weak prototypes
• Look at top 2 boxes of ratings instead of means
Suggestion
• With minor adjustments to staff, air, and table spacing comfort levels could improve
• More detailed questions on GSS or focus group may offer more insight