Quantitative Techniques – II

Project Data Analysis

 INTRODUCTION

With the advent of technology and the connectivity provided by the

Internet, food delivery apps are on the rise.
These apps have impacted the lives of a large number of people
especially the youth and hence we found it to be an area where
market research could be carried out. Our market research was
based on the preference of food delivery apps and finding out the
parameters for preference of one food delivery app over another.
For research purposes, the 3 Apps taken into account were Zomato,
Swiggy and Uber Eats. The reasons for using these 3 apps is because
these are the apps on which people rely on for food delivery
activities.
Based on the 3 apps a questionnaire was prepared where consumers
had to rate their preferences according to the various parameters.
The role of the questionnaire was to find out the key parameters that
play a role in selection of online delivery apps. Around 100 responses
were received and their results tabulated to find out the
demographics of the survey while at the same time the parameters
which are key to people selecting a food app were also found.
Using the statistical tools learnt in Quantitative Techniques Course,
hypothesis were formulated and tested and also regression analysis
was done to see the dependence of preference based on two of the
parameters.
 Questionnaire

Questionnaire for Online Food Delivery App

* Required

1. Do you order food online? *

Mark only one oval.

Yes No

2. Which of the following apps do you prefer to order food? *

Mark only one oval.

Zomato

Swiggy

Uber Eats

3. How many times do you order in a week? *

Mark only one oval.

Once

Twice

Thrice

>3

4. How much money do you spend on an average for each order? *

Mark only one oval.

<100

100 - 300

301-500

> 500

5. Which Cuisine do you generally prefer? *

Mark only one oval.
 North Indian

South Indian

Chinese

Continental

Fast Food

Other:

6. Rate the following criterion for your order Selection (1 being lowest and 5 being highest) *
Mark only one oval per row.

1 2 3 4 5

7. How satisfied are you with your preferred App's refund policy? (1 being lowest and 5 being highest) *
Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

8. How would you rate your app's interface? (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest) *
Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Does your preferred app have a minimum order limit? (Price) *

Mark only one oval.

Yes No

10. Does your app have provision for Premium membership? *

Mark only one oval.

Yes No

11. If yes, how satisfied are you with these premium services?
Mark only one oval.
 1 2 3 4 5

12. How likely are you to recommend your app to others? (1 being least likely and 5 being most likely) *
Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

13. Gender *
Mark only one oval.

Female Male

14. Age Group *

Mark only one oval.

18-24

25-34

35-45

> 45

15. Marital Status *

Mark only one oval.

Single

Married

16. Occupation *
Mark only one oval.

Employed

Student

Other:
Responses
 Research Methodology
This study is based on the usage of online food delivery apps on various parameters. We
intend to collect primary data from 100 students (respondents) from various strata of
society. A well-structured questionnaire is designed to collect this primary information to
study the perception of people towards food delivery apps. The questionnaire consists
several nominal scales to understand the age group, educational background etc. There is
semantic differential scale to measure preference of food delivery apps. Likert scale is also
used for obtaining responses.

Frequencies

Statistics
Gender Age Marital_Status Occupation Platforms Frequency Average_
d
Valid 99 99 99 99 99 99
N
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Frequency Table

Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Male 54 54.5 54.5 54.5
Valid Female 45 45.5 45.5 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0
 Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
18-24 73 73.7 73.7 73.7
25-34 22 22.2 22.2 96.0
35-45 1 1.0 1.0 97.0
Valid
>45 2 2.0 2.0 99.0
FALSE 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0

Marital Status
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Single 90 90.9 90.9 90.9
Valid Married 9 9.1 9.1 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0

Occupation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Employeed 68 68.7 68.7 68.7
Student 27 27.3 27.3 96.0
Valid
Others 4 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0

Platforms
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Swiggy 37 37.4 37.4 37.4
Zomato 36 36.4 36.4 73.7
Valid
Uber Eats 26 26.3 26.3 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0

Frequency
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Once 41 41.4 41.4 41.4
 Twice 19 19.2 19.2 60.6
Thrice 17 17.2 17.2 77.8
>3 22 22.2 22.2 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0

Average Spend
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
<100 5 5.1 5.1 5.1
100 - 300 76 76.8 76.8 81.8
Valid 301 - 500 12 12.1 12.1 93.9
>500 6 6.1 6.1 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0

Cuisine
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
North Indian 38 38.4 38.4 38.4
South Indian 1 1.0 1.0 39.4
Chinese 10 10.1 10.1 49.5
Valid Continental 6 6.1 6.1 55.6
Fast Food 41 41.4 41.4 97.0
6 3 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0
 Tests
We have conducted various tests with hypothesis to check the effect of

1) Gender on the frequency of order

2) Occupation on the frequency of order
3) Marital Status on the frequency of order
4) We have also found out the regression for measuring how the app’s interface and
the refund policy of the app (both are independent variables) effect the decision
of users to recommend the app to others (dependent variable)

To check the impact of gender on the frequency of

order

H0 – Gender does not significantly affect the frequency of ordering

Ha - Gender does significantly affect the frequency of ordering

Crosstabs 1

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Frequency * Gender 99 100.0% 0 0.0% 99 100.0%

Frequency * Gender Crosstabulation

Count
Gender Total
Male Female
Once 16 25 41
Twice 13 6 19
Frequency
Thrice 9 8 17
>3 16 6 22
Total 54 45 99

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.410a 3 .038
Likelihood Ratio 8.589 3 .035
N of Valid Cases 99
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 7.73.

Conclusion:
a) We have an assumed alpha of 5%
b) The significance level is 0.038 (around 3.8%)
c) Since significance level is less than alpha, we reject the null hypothesis
Hence,
Gender does impact the frequency of food ordered.

To find out the impact of occupation on the frequency of

order
H0 – Occupation does not impact the frequency of food ordered

Ha – Occupation does impact the frequency of food ordered.

Crosstabs 2

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Frequency *
99 100.0% 0 0.0% 99 100.0%
Occupation
 Frequency * Occupation Crosstabulation
Count
Occupation Total
Employed Student Others
Once 24 14 3 41
Twice 13 6 0 19
Frequency
Thrice 15 2 0 17
>3 16 5 1 22
Total 68 27 4 99

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.676a 6 .352
Likelihood Ratio 8.231 6 .222
N of Valid Cases 99
a. 5 cells (41.7%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is .69.

Conclusion:
a) We have an assumed alpha of 5%
b) The significance level is 0.325 (around 32.5%)
c) Since significance level is far more than alpha, we fail to reject the null
hypothesis
Hence,
Occupation does not have a deep impact the frequency of food ordered.

To find out the impact of Marital Status on the frequency of

order
H0 – Marital Status does not affect the frequency of food ordered

Ha – Marital Status does affect the frequency of food ordered

Crosstabs 3
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Frequency *
99 100.0% 0 0.0% 99 100.0%
Marital_Status

Frequency * Marital_Status Crosstabulation

Count
Marital_Status Total
Single Married
Once 35 6 41
Twice 18 1 19
Frequency
Thrice 16 1 17
>3 21 1 22
Total 90 9 99

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.623a 3 .453
Likelihood Ratio 2.603 3 .457
N of Valid Cases 99
a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 1.55.

Conclusion:
a) We have an assumed alpha of 5%
b) The significance level is 0.453 (around 45.3%)
c) Since significance level is far more than alpha, we fail to reject the null
hypothesis
Hence,
Marital Status does not affect the frequency of food ordered online

REGRESSION
Y= Bo+B1A+B2B

Y is how likely are people to recommend their favoured app to others

A is the user experience with app interface

B is the refund policy of the app

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model Variables Variables Method
Entered Removed

Interface,
1 . Enter
Refund_policyb

a. Dependent Variable: Recommend

b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of
Square the Estimate
1 .599a .359 .345 .606
a. Predictors: (Constant), Interface, Refund_policy

ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 19.699 2 9.849 26.854 .000b
1 Residual 35.210 96 .367
Total 54.909 98
a. Dependent Variable: Recommend
b. Predictors: (Constant), Interface, Refund_policy

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.630 .336 4.855 .000
1 Refund_policy .051 .075 .066 .675 .502
Interface .555 .097 .560 5.735 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Recommend
Correlation
Y = 1.630 + .051A + .555B

 Value of R Square Adjusted is 0.345 i.e. the degree of recommendation is 34.5%

explained by the factors that we have considered (i.e. App interface and refund
policy)
 The value of R square is significant as indicated by the p value (0.000) of F statistic in
the given ANOVA table
 The relative importance of independent variables is obtained from absolute value of
the standardized regression co-efficient. In the given scenario.

App’s Interface > Refund Policy

Independent Sample T test

T-Test – 1

Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Male 54 2.19 .675 .092
Average_Spend
Female 45 2.20 .548 .082

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality t-test for Equ
of Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean
tailed) Differen

Equal variances
.083 .774 -.118 97 .906 -.0
Average_Spe assumed
nd Equal variances not
-.121 96.942 .904 -.0
assumed
Independent Sample T test – 2

T-Test - 2

Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Male 54 2.46 1.209 .164
Frequency
Female 45 1.89 1.133 .169

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality t-test for Eq
of Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean
tailed) Differen

Equal variances
.962 .329 2.421 97 .017
Frequenc assumed
y Equal variances not
2.435 95.635 .017
assumed