Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

Introduction
This report is data analysis for the company Food for Fork. In this context, the analysis
of market survey has been done with the help of proper analysis methods via Ms Excel and
hypothesis, which help the owner of the Food and Fork to start a restaurant business in a metro
city in a proper way. This report will suggest Mr. Jenkins, whether he should open his restaurant
or not in to this city and what will be outcome of problems.
Background of the Study
Food For Fork is a name of a restaurant which is going to be opened by Michael
Jenkins (restaurant supply sales representative). He has quite good knowledge of restaurant
industry, since he served his work in this industry as a supply sales representative. Therefore, Mr.
Jenkins is liked to open his own restaurant. For this, he has saved a lot of capital and for
additional capital, he talked with a banker and both Mr. Jenkins and the banker are ready to
invest in this project to open a new restaurant.
This restaurant is going to be opened in a large metropolitan area; the population of this
metro area is nearly 500,000. Mr. Jenkins is willing to open a fine, upscale restaurant, which
provides many fine services like the entrees, drinks and dessert with an elegant atmosphere.
To open a restaurant in a metro city, he needs a lot of information about current market
scenario of restaurant industry. Since, Mr. Jenkins is going to open an upscale restaurant, so he
also willing to know about behavior of consumers, like desirable amount pay for an upscale
entre, location for the restaurant, design and ambience of the restaurant and so on.

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

Description of Each Hypothesis

Does the average income of the people surveyed differ from $68,500?
T test can be defined as a statistical examination, which is conducted for two population
means. T test of two-sample determines that whether two samples are different from each other
or not and this testy is generally used when the variances of two normal distributions are not
known and when the experiment is using small amount of sample size (Graham, 2003).
Annual
Income
Mean
Standard
Error
Median
Mode
Standard
Deviation
Sample
Variance
Kurtosis
Skewness
Minimum
Maximum
Sum
Count
Degree of
freedom

72087.5
1444.84
64
72000
60000
28896.9
28
835032
425
0.13849
97
0.06673
52
-4000
156000
288350
00
400
399

t-caluclated

3587.5

t- critical

1.9659
272

P- criticcal

0.0000
0

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

Here we have used one sample t test as one sample t test is used to compare single mean
of a population to a specified fixed number. It is used to compare results of the sample with a
given value. Specifically in this one sample t test, single sample is gathered and the mean of the
sample is compared with the value of interest which is also known as gold standard and that is
not based on the sample what has been taken for comparison. Here in this case, the questioned
has asked to measure whether the average income of the people who are surveyed is different
from $68500, which is taken as a standard amount of salary per year of people who will be able
to spend in the restaurant. We have taken two hypotheses, the null hypothesis or H0 defines that
the income will be equal to $68500 and the alternative hypothesis H1 states that the income is not
equal to $68500. We need to conduct the t test to determine the acceptance and rejection of
hypothesis. Here the mean of the sample annual income is 72087.5, which is higher than $68500.
The value of t calculated is 3587.5 and the value of t critical is 1.9659272. Thus as the value of t
calculated is higher than the value of t critical, the null hypothesis or H0 is rejected. The
alternative hypothesis or H1 is accepted and it indicates that the income of the surveyed people is
not equal to $68500. Apart from this, as the value of p is less than the significance level of 5%
thus null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted.

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

Is there a difference in preference for simple dcor and elegant dcor?

Normal Probability Plot

income

200000
100000
0
-100000

Sample Percentile

SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression
Statistics
0.0579
Multiple R
19
0.0033
R Square
55
Adjusted
0.0016
R Square
7
Standard
28920.
Error
99
Observati
ons
400
ANOVA
df

Residual

397

Total

399

SS
1.12E+
09
3.32E+
11
3.33E+
11

Coeffici
ents
63800.
37

Standa
rd
Error
7536.5
99

Regressio
n

Intercept

MS
5.59E
+08
8.36E
+08

t Stat
8.465
406

F
0.668
136

Signific
ance F
0.51323
9

Pvalue
4.99E16

Lower
95%
48983.7
4

Upper
95%

Lower
95.0%
48983
78617
.74

Upper
95.0%
78617

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

Simple_D
ecor
Elegant_D
ecor

3622.7
8
824.36
1

3222.1
41
2037.5
91

1.124
339
0.404
58

26%

2711.81

9957.
373

69%

4830.18

3181.
456

2711.
81
4830.
18

9957.
373
3181.
456

Here we have used multiple regression to determine the relationship between various
independent variables and one dependent variable. In the graph it can be seen that the dependent
variable is plotted in the Y axis and independent variables are plotted in the X axis. Here we have
taken the income of the people as the dependent variable. Simple dcor and elegant dcor have
been taken as the independent variable. In this case the p value for t statistics of both simple
dcor and elegant dcor Since p-value for t-statistic for simple decor is greater than 5% thus we
can conclude that simple dcor and elegant dcor both cannot be considered as the significant
factor in explaining the annual income of population. The value of R square is 0.34%. Thus it
can be concluded that both the simple dcor and elegant dcor are not validate for the
explanation of the annual income of population in this study.

Is there a difference in the mean amount spent in restaurants each month across people
with different marital status?
To analyze this problem, we have chosen single factor Anova Test to conclude the result.
A general preamble to ANOVA and an examination of the general points in the analysis of
variance systems, including rehashed measures plans, ANCOVA, MANOVA, uneven and
inadequate outlines, difference impacts, post-hoc correlations, presumptions, and so forth. For
related data, see likewise Variance Components (subjects identified with estimation of variance

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

segments in blended model plans), Experimental Design/DOE (points identified with specific
applications of ANOVA in mechanical settings), and Repeatability and Reproducibility Analysis
(themes identified with particular outlines for assessing the unwavering quality and accuracy of
estimation frameworks) (Graham, 2003).
All in all, the motivation behind analysis of variance (ANOVA) is to test for noteworthy
contrasts between means. Primary Concepts gives a short prologue to the rudiments of statistical
centrality testing. If we are thinking about two means, ANOVA will deliver the same comes
about as the t test for free samples (on the off chance that we are analyzings two separate
gatherings of cases or observations) or the t test for ward samples (in the event that we are
looking at two variables in one set of cases or observations) (Graham, 2003).

SUMMARY
Groups
Total
Spent_Single
Total
Spent_Married
Total
Spent_Other

ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups

Count
147
174
79

Within Groups

SS
13909.26
694
384111.4
141

Total

398020.6
811

Sum
33416.
1
40773.
42
17266.
59

df
2
397

399

Avera
ge
227.32
04
234.33
218.56
44

MS
6954.6
33
967.53
5

Varian
ce
1810.7
01
1.05E24
1535.2
44

F
7.1879
91

Pvalue
0.0008
58

F crit
3.0184
52

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

The hypotheses of this problem are:

Ho: Mean Total Spent by Single = Mean Total Spent by Married = Mean Total Spent by
Others
H1: At least one of Mean Total Spent by Marital Status is different.
Decision: Since F-calculated >F-critical, H0 is rejected. Hence H1 is accepted. Also,
since p-value is less than significance level (5%) H0 is rejected. Hence H1 is accepted.
Interpretation: The above the result is stating that, there is a difference in the mean
amount spent in restaurants each month across people with different marital status. It also can be
seen that, the populations with single marital status are liked to spend $ 227.3204 in average;
where as the number of single marital status is 147 out of 400. The marital status with married,
the number of respondents is 147 out of 400 and they like to spend $ 234.33 in average. Other
marital status of the population is divorce and separated and the respondent number of this
category is 79 out of 400 and they like to spend amount of $ 218.5644 in average. So it can be
seen that the all categories have different thinking to spend the amount of money in this
restaurant and the single marital status population are mostly like to pay high amount of money
in to the restaurant.

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

Is there a difference in average price people are willing to pay for an evening meal across
postcodes?
To solve this problem, we have used single factor Anova Test to get the result of this
question, so we can interpret it in a better way to present the output.
SUMMARY
Groups
Evening_Meal_Pri
ce_A
Evening_Meal_Pri
ce_B
Evening_Meal_Pri
ce_C
Evening_Meal_Pri
ce_D

ANOVA
Source of
Variation

Count
93
109
94
104

Sum
2303.
75
2537.
5
2205
2568.
75

Within Groups

SS
189.88
77
35436.
42

396

Total

35626.
31

399

Between Groups

df
3

Average
24.77150
538
23.27981
651
23.45744
681
24.69951
923

MS
63.29588
374
89.48592
134

Varian
ce
86.988
66
97.650
14
83.986
07
88.121
82

F
0.7073
28

Pvalue
0.5480
81

F crit
2.6274
41

The hypotheses of this problem are:

Ho: Mean Evening Meal Price for Postcode A = Mean Evening Meal Price for Postcode
B = Mean Evening Meal Price for Postcode C = Mean Evening Meal Price for Postcode D
H1: At least one of Mean Evening Meal Price for Postcodes is different.

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

10

Decision: Since F-calculated < F-critical, H0 is accepted. Hence H1 is rejected. Also,

since p-value is more than significance level (5%) H0 is accepted. Hence H1 is rejected.
Interpretation: From above data, it can be seen that there is no difference in average price people
are willing to pay for an evening meal across postcodes. Since, the average meal price of four
postcodes are nearly same, so it can be conclude that people are like to pay same amount of
money for evening meal for different location. Therefore, location factor for this restaurant is not
affecting.
Can the average amount people spend on food each month be explained by the average
price people are willing to pay for entrees, age, gender, family size, and income:

Normal Probability Plot

Total_Spent

400
200
0

Sample Percentile

SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression
Statistics
0.2159
Multiple R
17
0.0466
R Square
2
Adjusted
0.0345
R Square
22
Standard
42.180
Error
34

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork
Observati
ons

11

400

ANOVA
df
Regressio
n
Residual
Total

Intercept
variety
unusal
famsize
gender
income

SS
34278.
5
83
700997
394
.2
399 735276

Coeffici
ents
251.14
03
4.0808
51
6.0776
7
5.6176
8
9.2817
3
0.0002
15

Standa
rd
Error
18.898
4
4.3362
41
3.5480
64
2.2404
67
6.7299
52
7.33E05

MS
6855.
766
1779.
181

t Stat
13.28
897
0.941
104
1.712
95
2.507
37
1.379
17
2.936
8

F
3.853
327

Signific
ance F
0.00202
2

Pvalue
1.49E33

Lower
95%
213.986

Upper
95%
288.2
946

0.347
228

4.44421

12.60
591

0.087
508

13.0532

0.012
565

10.0224

0.897
834
1.212
92

0.168
626
0.003
511

22.5128
7.12E05

3.949
378
0.000
359

Lower
95.0
%
213.9
86
4.444
21
13.05
32
10.02
24
22.51
28
7.12E
-05

Upper
95.0%
288.2
946
12.60
591
0.897
834
1.212
92
3.949
378
0.000
359

Regression can be defined as the statistical measure, which is used to determine the
relationship strength between one variable that is dependent and generally denoted by Y and
another series of changing variables, which is independent and denoted by X (Graham, 2003).
There are mainly two types of regression such as multiple regression and linear regression.
Linear regression is the one, which uses one independent variable to explicate or determine the
outcome value of Y. On the other side, multiple regression is the one, which uses two or more
than two independent variables to determine the outcome.

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

12

Here we have used multiple regression as the main purpose of the multiple regression is
to determine the relationship between various predictor or independent variables and a criterion
or dependent variable. Here we need to determine that whether the average amount that people
spend on food per month is depend on the price they have agreed to pay for age, gender, entrees,
income and family size. From the calculation, it can be seen that the value of multiple R is
21.59% and the value of R square, which is proportion of variation in total, spent of the
restaurant that is explained by the variety, unusual, family size and income of the people is
4.66%. Now we need to see that whether the model is significant or not. Here the p value for t
statistics of the factors variety and unusual is more than 5%, we can conclude that the variety of
the restaurant is not significant factor in explaining the total spent of the restaurant. Other factors
like family size, income of the people and gender of the participants have got p-value for tstatistic for less than 5% thus we can conclude that the variety of the restaurant is a significant
factor in explaining the total spent of the restaurant. Further, since the coefficient of variety is
negative, we can conclude that the variety of the restaurant negatively influences the restaurant
price. Thus it can be said that the factors variety and unusual is not significant with the study and
the factors family size of the participants, gender, and income of the people are significant with
the factor of the total amount spent in the restaurant.

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

13

Summary and Recommendation

Summary
Average of the population has $ 72087.5 annual income, which is more than expected
amount i.e. $ 68,500 annual income. So it can be conclude that the most population of this metro
city are describe for this restaurant and they will to visit this upscale restaurant. The simple dcor
and elegant dcor has no difference. However, the different marital status person like to pay
different amount of money, but the people like to spend same amount of money for evening meal
for different postcodes.
Recommendation
Food For Fork is a best option and good idea for Mr. Jenkins. This restaurant will be
definitely liked by the population of this metro city and it will give high return of investment.
The idea to open an upscale restaurant in this city is very good and workup. All data and figures
of this report is favoring towards to open an upscale restaurant. So I would like to suggest Mr.
Jenkins, that he can open his restaurant in location of this metro city and it will be liked by the
people and they enjoy it.

Data Analysis Report on

Food For Fork

Reference
Graham, A. (2003). Statistics (1st ed.). [Blacklick, Ohio: McGraw-Hill.

14