Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

تقييم تجربة سلاسل المطاعم المحلية مقارنه بالعالمية في مصر رسالة ماجستير خاصة بالدكتور هاني عاطف

رسالة الماجستير الخاصة بتقييم تجربة سلاسل المطاعم المحلية مقارنه بالعالمية في مصر تحت اشراف الاستاذ الدكتور احمد نور الدين الياس (استاذ الاساتذه) والدكتور والخبير الفندقي محمود المغربي نائب المدير المالي الاقليمي لفنادق سونستا العالمية بالشرق الاوسط والاستاذ الدكتور رانيا دنانه ادام الله لهم العزه والرفعه راجيا ان يستفيد كل من يقراء هذه الرساله وان يدعو لاساتذتي بالخير والبركة

  • Be the first to comment

تقييم تجربة سلاسل المطاعم المحلية مقارنه بالعالمية في مصر رسالة ماجستير خاصة بالدكتور هاني عاطف

  1. 1. 1 Faculty of Tourism &Hotel Management Hotel Management Department EVALUATING THE EXPERIMENT OF LOCAL RESTAURANT CHAINS COMPARED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CHAINS IN EGYPT Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Helwan University for Master of Science in Hotel Management By Hany Atef Kouzmal B. Sc., Hotel Management, 2000 Under the Supervision of Prof. Dr. Ahmed Nour El-Din Elias Prof; Hotel Management Department Faculty of Tourism & Hotel Management, Helwan University. Assistant prof. Rania Dinana Assistant Prof; Hotel Management Department Faculty of Tourism & Hotel Management, Helwan University. Dr. Mahmoud Roushdy El Maghraby Regional Vice President of Finance Middle East, Sonesta International 2009
  2. 2. 2 APPROVAL SHEET TITLE: EVALUATING THE EXPERIMENT OF LOCAL RESTAURANT CHAINS COMPARED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CHAINS IN EGYPT NAME: Hany Ateef Kouzmal Mikhaiel This Thesis for the M.Sc. in Hotel Management has been approved by: Prof. Dr. --------------------------------- Prof. Dr.---------------------------------- Prof. Dr.--------------------------------- Committee in Charge Degree Conferred in / / 2009
  3. 3. 3 DEDICATION TO MY DEAR WIFE
  4. 4. 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Primarily, I would like to express my deepest respect and appreciation to Prof Dr Ahmed Nour El-Dein Elias Head of Hotel Management and Ex Dean Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University, for his guidance, cooperation, and also his valuable advice which helped point me in the right direction. Therefore, because of his time, effort, and continual assistance brought about by his knowledge of this subject, I offer to him my sincerest gratitude, with great thanks. Also, I would like to thank Dr Rania Dinana, Assistant Prof; in Hotel Management, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management Department, Helwan University, for her supervision, guidance, encouragement, assistance, and her support throughout the preparation of this Thesis. Also, I would like to express my deepest respect and gratitude to Dr. Mahmoud Roushdy El Maghraby, Regional Vice President of Finance Middle East, Sonesta International, and Visitor lecturer, Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University, for his continuous support and encouragement, coupled with his invaluable advice. Finally I would like to express my deepest thanks to my dear family, and my friends, who supported me and encouraged me throughout the work on this Thesis.
  5. 5. 5 Table of Contents Page CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTINGS 1.1. Introduction 1 1.2. Organization of the Research 2 1.3. Abbreviations 3 1.4. Limitation of the Research 4 1.5. The Research Objectives 4 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1. Overview on Fast-Food Operations 2.1.1 Fast Food Concept 5 2.1.2 Customers Perception on Fast-Food 8 2.1.3 Local and International Restaurant Chains 9 2.2. Quality of Food and Service 2.2.1 Quality Concept 2.2.2 Product Quality 11 2.2.3 Food Quality 12 2.2.4 Food Service Quality 14 2.3. Elements of Competition 2.3.1 Location 15 2.3.2 Pricing 16 2.3.3 Demand 16 2.3.4 Training 16 2.3.5 Operational Systems 17 2.3.6 The Element of Risk/Failure 18 2.3.7 Product Branding 21 2.3.8 Product Value 22 2.3.9 Marketing 24 2.3.10 Promotional Element 26
  6. 6. 6 2.3.11 Services for Children 27 2.3.12 Atmosphere (Surroundings) 28 2.3.13 Customer Satisfaction 28 CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1. Materials 3.1.1 Population Survey 31 3.1.2 Samples 31 3.1.2.1 Samples from Independent Establishments 3.1.2.2 Samples from Local Establishments 3.1.2.3 Samples from International Establishments 3.2. Methods 3.2.1 Primary Data 3.2.1.1 Guest Questionnaire 34 3.2.1.2 In-depth Personal Interviews 35 3.2.1.3 Checklist 35 3.2.2. Secondary Sources 36 3.2.3. Pilot Study 36 3.2.4. Data Analysis 37 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1. Introduction 38 4.2. Questionnaire Response Rate 39 4.3. Questionnaire Analysis Results and Discussion 39 4.4. Interview Response Rate 67 4.5. Interview Analysis Results and Discussion 67 4.6. Checklist Analysis Results and Discussion 94
  7. 7. 7 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1. Summary 111 5.2. Conclusion 114 5.3. Recommendations 118 REFERENCES 119 APPENDICES APPENDIX (A1) Guest Questionnaire Form 127 APPENDIX (A2) In-depth Personal Interviews Form 137 APPENDIX (A3) Checklist Form 143 ARABIC SUMMARY
  8. 8. 8 List of Tables Table Title Page 1 Abbreviations list 3 2 The main features of modern fast food concepts 3 Samples from the establishments 32 4 Menu specialty of the selected Quick Service Restaurant QSR 33 5 Questionnaire response rate. 39 6 Customers' preferable meal 41 7 Statistics for customers' restaurants preferences 42 8 Statistics of important factors in QSR that attract customer 44 9 Statistics for restaurants factors' evaluation 47 10 Restaurant categories factors' ranking 48 11 Personal data analysis 66 12 Interview's response rate 67 13 Statistics of restaurants factors' evaluation 75 14 Restaurant categories factors' ranking according to their means 76 15 Checklist results 94 16 Exterior factors in independent restaurants 95 17 Interior factors in international chain restaurants 96 18 Interior factors in local chain restaurants 96 19 Interior factors in independent restaurants 97 20 Food quality factors in international chain restaurants 98 21 Food quality factors in local chain restaurants 99 22 Food quality factors in independent restaurants 100 23 Guest service factors in international chain restaurants 101 24 Guest service factors in local chain restaurants 102 25 Guest service factors in Independent restaurants 103
  9. 9. 9 26 Employee appearance in international chain restaurants 104 27 Employee appearance in local chain restaurants 104 28 Employee appearance in independent restaurants 105 29 Management behaviors/ functions in International chain restaurants 106 30 Management behaviors/ functions in local chain restaurants 107 31 Independent restaurants 108 32 Restaurant categories rating scale 107
  10. 10. 11 List of Figures Figure Title Page 1 Customer's preferences to eat fast food. 40 2 Customers' reasons for restaurants type preferences. 44 3 Important factors in Quick Service Restaurant QSR that attract customer (service quality, consistence standard and atmosphere). 45 4 Important factors in QSR that attract customer (brand name and menu variety). 46 5 Important factors in QSR that attract customer (location and promotional activities). 46 6 Brand name factor's evaluation in QSRs. 50 7 Location factor's evaluation in QSRs. 51 8 Price factor's evaluation in QSRs. 52 9 Food quality factor's evaluation in QSRs. 53 10 Managers' evaluation for local fast food operations. 54 11 Consistence standard factor's evaluation in QSRs. 55 12 Menu variety factor's evaluation in QSRs. 56 13 Atmosphere factor's evaluation in QSRs. 57 14 Promotional activities factor's evaluation in QSRs. 58 15 Customers' evaluation for the experiment of Egyptian QSRs. 59 16 Customers' problems with Egyptian QSRs. 62 17 Managers evaluation for QSRs in Egypt. 68 18 Egyptian market expectations about fast food concept. 69 19 Egyptian customers' needs and preferences. 70
  11. 11. 11 20 Managers' ways to deal with customers' needs and preferences. 71 21 International chain restaurants' attributes. 72 22 Managers' evaluation for local fast food operations. 73 23 Managers' opinions in using international concept by local fast food operations. 74 24 Managers' evaluation of brand name factor in QSRs. 77 25 Managers' evaluation of location factor in QSRs. 78 26 Managers' evaluation of price factor in QSRs. 79 27 Managers' evaluation of food quality factor in QSRs 80 28 Managers' evaluation service quality factor in QSRs. 81 29 Managers' evaluation consistence standard factor in QSRs. 82 30 Managers' evaluation of atmosphere factor in QSRs. 83 31 Managers' evaluation of promotional activities factor in QSRs. 84 32 Labor turn over rate in QSRs . 85 33 Means to decrease turn over rate in QSRs. 86 34 Managers' evaluation of training level in QSRs. 87 35 Managers' evaluation for marketing strategies in QSRs. 88 36 Managers' evaluation for quality level in QSRs. 89 37 The extent of product development to meet customers' needs in QSRs. 90 38 Customers satisfaction measuring methods in QSRs. 91
  12. 12. 12 CHAPTER ONE THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTINGS
  13. 13. 13 1.1 Introduction Food service away from home is essential to tourism. Food service industry becomes one of the fastest growing industries, because of many social and commercial changes around the world. Most modern industry requires that individual travel and work at a distance from home; thus, food service industry plays a required supporting role in providing food for these individuals. In addition to food and beverage away from home, food service industry provides convenience, communication settings and a wide variety of outputs contributing to life's quality. Among the latter, entertainment / diversions; and ambiances are contributing to variety in living experiences. Food service industry is a major generator of jobs. The group of firms providing food and restaurant supplies has been found a substantial source of economic base in itself. Food service industry also supports the community infrastructure through utility systems and local taxes. Recently, fast food restaurant chains have spread out, blossoming all around the world. Such chains are based on some factors for their success: such as cleanliness, food quality, value, atmosphere, location, and speed of service. In Egypt there are many of fast food restaurant chains; some of which are domestic in origin, like Wessaya, Mo`Men, Cook Door, Felfela, Makani, and Gado, other chains such as McDonald's, Burger King, Hardee's, and Kentucky fried chicken (KFC), are international franchised operations. These domestic chains are seeking to compete with the international chains in quality, level of services offered, universal reach and spreading around the Arab and foreign countries. This can be achieved by a good reputation that will give better profits. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a comparative study to evaluate the experiment of the local restaurant chains compared to the international restaurant chains running in Egypt.
  14. 14. 14 1.2. Organization of the Research With regard to the organization of the paper, this thesis has been developed over five chapters; Chapter One: "the Problem and its Settings". This chapter sets out the basic framework of the thesis. The components include an introduction, organization, a definition of terms and abbreviations, limitations, and objectives. Chapter Two: "Review of Literature". This chapter looks at the literature upon which the subject has been researched. Chapter Three: "Materials and Methods". This shows the way in which the data was collected. The information includes the population, research, the design, treatment of the data and the instruments used for the research. Chapter Four: "Results and Discussion". This sets out the analysis of the data in exactly the same way as chapter three concerning the points of research. Chapter Five: "Summary and Recommendations". This chapter provides a summary based upon the information’s received or suggested, the obtained results and recommendations of the study.
  15. 15. 15 1.3. Abbreviations Abbreviations used throughout the thesis are defined as follows: Table 1: Abbreviations list Professorprof Quick Service RestaurantQSR National Restaurant AssociationNRA Information TechnologyIT Quality ControlQC Quality AssuranceQA Total Quality ManagementTQM Continuous Quality ImprovementCQI NumberNO Define - Measure - Analyze - Improve- Control DMAIC Quality Function DevelopmentQFD Product Life CyclePLC Critical Control PointsCCPs New Product DevelopmentNPD Points of DistributionPODs Hazard Analysis Critical Control PointHACCP Designated Market AreaDMA Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats SWOT On the Job TrainingOJT Skills Based PaySBP Electronic Point-of-SalesEPOS Target RestaurantTR Public RelationsPR Product, Price, Place, and Promotion4Ps Unique Servicing ProportionUSP Point of SalesPOS Identification DataID Other People DataOPD Chamber of Tourism EstablishmentsCTE Statistical Package for Social ScienceSPSS Standardstd X2 SignificationX2 sig
  16. 16. 16 1.4. Limitations of Research Study limitations are represented in the following points:- 1.4.1. Place limitation: Unfortunately, it was difficult to assess many of the fast food chains in Egypt due to, costs, time involved, and the accessibility to these chains. For these reasons, the ones which were looked at were limited to four samples from the independent fast food restaurants in Sharm El Sheikh, four from the famous local fast food chains as well as four international chains in Sharm El-Sheikh. 1.4.2. Time limitation: The field study was implemented in the period from September 2006 to August 2007. 1.5. Research Objectives  This study is aimed at : 1. Evaluating the experiment of local restaurant chains as compared with the international ones. 2. Defining the factors needed to development the local restaurant chains to reach the international standard. 3. Evaluating international chains product developing.
  17. 17. 17 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE
  18. 18. 18 2.1. Overview on Fast-Food Operations 2.1.1 Fast Food Concept The National Restaurant Association (NRA) defines the food service industry as "encompassing all meals and snacks prepared outside the home". This definition therefore includes all take – out meals and beverages. Khan (1991) Ball (1992) agreed with Samle (1980) that the fast food restaurant, a place where a customer should be served within five minutes of entering the outlet even at peak periods. While Melaniphy (2005) classified fast food according to the product as it is prepared and cooked quickly, with a service delivery varying between 2 to 15 minutes, a low price, easily consumed with fingers or disposable cutlery. Brymer (1995) defined a quick service restaurant as a "firm with a mission to provide quicker service and core technology geared towards this mission. However, Walker (2006) considering that quick-service restaurants offer a quick service. Negl (2002) identified that as fast service restaurants in recognition of the fact that the service is fast, not the food. Lane and Duper (1997) explained that in preference to fast food restaurant tend to be located near highways, malls and down town areas which offer a standard menu with limited choices that attempt to satisfy a hungry audience. Moreover, Walker (2006) highlighted that quick- service restaurants have increased in popularity because of their location strategies. They are situated for convenience in every possible area. Their menus are limited, which makes it easy for customers to make quick decisions on what to purchase.  Classification of fast food operations according to according menu specialty Walker (2006) agreed with Brymer (1995) in that classifying the quick service restaurants segments is according to the menu specialty. That specialty could be hamburger, pizza, chicken, snacks, sandwich, Mexican, or seafood. They are the leaders for each segment according to the spread, the popularity, and the volume of sales
  19. 19. 19  Classification of fast food operations according to restaurant characterization Traditional fast-food restaurants Ball (1992) reported that the traditional fast food operations include fish and chip shops, ethnic, take away and sandwich bar operations, they are mostly owned by individuals. Scanlon (1998) stated that the traditional fast - food restaurants are concentrated on items from the menu such as hamburgers, pizza and chicken, Modern fast food restaurants These have been identified with fast food chains, which are designed around systems of catering which have been linked to manufacturing production lines with the design and layout of restaurants, the scheduling and planning of a work place, etc., being systematically planned to produce consistently standardized products. Simplified menus characterize these restaurants and chains which dominate a high standard of service, training and decor. Modern operations usually offer a combination of eat on the premises, take away drive. The main features of modern fast food concepts are shown in Table 2 as suggested by Ball (1992).
  20. 20. 21 Table 2: The main features of modern fast food concepts Features Description Food materials Consistent and controllable quality, precisely specified, equally portioned. Type of products Suitable for quick and retention for short periods without deterioration. Organization Highly organized routines with precise job specifications and procedures. Operation Usually planned for large throughput and high sales volume (including counter sales) Cost control Prices portion and cost control, permitting relatively small margins and competitive pricing. Quality control Standard preparation, cooking and serving routines laid down, including the discarding or sub-standard food (e.g. maximum time for keeping food before serving). Hygiene Exacting equipments emphasized as a part of product reliability, including measures to reduce litter (in store and neighborhood). Packing Products distinctively packaged (disposables), easy to handle (usually finger held, suitable for over-the- counter or table meals). Research Product research and consumer response testing essential. On-going research into changing food preference sand attitudes is necessary to develop concepts. Variety May be provided in product range offered or by variations in one basic product (dressings, fillings, supplements). Markets Usually targeted at wide, classless society, primarily young of family group. Promotion Emphasis is given to value for money, consistent quality and cleanliness. Particular products may be differentiated by originality, size, cost competitiveness, variety of choices or fillings, healthy eating, and friendly service. Source : Ball (1992)
  21. 21. 21 2.1.2 Customer Perceptions Johnson and Clark (2005) illustrated that while the expectation- perception approach to understanding service quality is extremely useful in focusing on the outcome of customer satisfaction and helps identity on mismatches between operational and customer views of quality, which does have some downsides.  Service could be perceived to be 'good' when it is 'bad'.  Service could be perceived to be 'bad' when it is 'good'  Service that was 'good' last time may only be 'OK' this time.  Satisfied customers may switch. King and Ronald (2006) differentiated between quality in fact and in perception and they stated that quality in fact relates to our internal standard, we get what we expect, so set high expectations. Quality in perception is how our customers perceive our service. Customer differences Foster (1993) highlighted that different people have different nations about what type of food tastes good, but a successful food and beverage operation is able to consistently satisfy the majority of its guests. Peppers and Rogers (1997) argued that customers are different in two primary ways: They need different things from the enterprise, and they have different value to the enterprise. A customer's value will depend largely on how long the customer remains loyal, and even small increases in the state of customer retention add significantly to customer's value. Knowing what different customers need involves much more than simply tallying what they've bought, because two customers might buy the same product for quite different reasons. Powers and Barrows (2006) illustrated that the guest is also apart of the service transaction. A guest who is not feeding well or who takes a dislike to member of the staff may have a bad experience in spite of all efforts to please.
  22. 22. 22 2.1.3 Local and International Restaurant Chains Independents restaurants King and Ronald (2006) declared that independent is one who is not bound by or definitively committed to another, and it a particular brand or company. While Walker (2006) highlighted that one or more owners, usually involved in the day-to-day operation of the business, typically own individual restaurants (also called Indies). Even if the owners have more than one store, each functions independently. These restaurants are not affiliated with any national brand or name. They offer the owner independence, creativity and flexibility, but with an element of risk. Wade (2006) mentioned that between the independent and chains lies at least two other possibilities, some dependent operations are so successful that they open additional units without, however, becoming as large as to lose the hands on approach of the owner operator. Independent group operators are not exactly chains, but more a longer single unit. The other possibility and one that is pursued by thousands of business people are franchise operations. Chains restaurants King and Ronald (2006) defined chain as a group of enterprises or institutions of the same kind of function usually under a single ownership, management or control. Walker (2006) stated that chain restaurant comprises a group of restaurants, each identical in market, concept, design, service, food and name. Part of the marketing strategy of a chain restaurant is to remove uncertainty from the dining experience. The same menu, food quality, level of service and atmosphere can be found in any one of the restaurants, regardless of its location. Family run teams or other entrepreneurs usually own them. Wade (2006) agreed with Powers and Barrows (1999) in that chain are playing a growing role in food service. Moreover, they are prominent among the companies that recruit graduates for hospitality programs.
  23. 23. 23 Chains have strengths of seven different areas: (1) Marketing and brand recognition (2) Site selection expertise (3) Access to capital (4) Purchasing economies (5) Centrally administered control and information systems (6) New product development (7) Human-resource development International versus local fast food chain According to Lan, and Khan (1995) fast food operations are divided into two categories; international chains and local chains where each have a different approach to the operating and management. The international fast food chains have a core product (hamburger, chicken or pizza). They focus on image building through progressive marketing which gains mass production and the central distribution international fast food chains are expanding through franchising. Meanwhile the local fast food chains are expanding through private ownership and building their image through products. Local fast food operations do not have mass production or central distribution; therefore, they became labor intensive.
  24. 24. 24 2.2. Quality of Food and Service Quality Concept Wyckoff (2001) highlighted that quality is the degree of excellence for what is intended add to this a controlled variation in order to achieve that excellence, where the end result is meeting customer requirements. While Schroeder (2004) stated that quality is meeting and exceed customer requirements now and in the future." This means that the product or service is fit for the customer's use. Fitness for use has related to benefits received by the customer and to customer satisfaction. Only the customer, not the producer, can determine it. Noel and Cullen (1996) mentioned that quality is a process, not a procedure and as such is never finished. The culture of quality promotes and sustains change. Stutts and Wortman (2006) added that quality could be defined as "The consistent delivery of product and services according to expected standards. King and Ronald (2006) stated that the other half of the definition of quality is "doing things right." Doing things right simply means meeting customers needs and expectations more rapidly and at a reduced cost. It is customer orientation, innovation, teamwork, and everyone's responsibility. Quality importance Field (1999) reported that quality is the major driver of overall satisfaction, while price and service tied for second place. Sideman and Johnson (2002) argued that providing consistent quality service has become a challenge for the quick service industry. Schroeder (2004) indicated that quality can both improve revenues and reduce costs. The cost of quality measures the lack of conformance to customer requirements. Quality costs can be convention or appraisal. Failure costs may be due to internal or external failures.
  25. 25. 25 2.2.2. Product Quality Product concept The actual good or service offered for sale. It could include all of the features of the good or service as well as the packaging and brand name of the good or service. Powers and Barrows (1999) illustrated that in a restaurant, this involves not only the food service the way the server and guest interact and the atmosphere of the place. Reid and Bojanic (2006) agreed with Etzel (2004) in that product refers to all of the goods and services that are bundled together and offered to consumers. Nearly, every product sold includes tangible and intangible elements. Product Quality and Customer Satisfaction Peppers and Rogers (1997) indicated that there is, of course, no substitute for quality. No customer will return for more of a bad product, so having product quality at least on a par with the competition is essential for 1:1 enterprise. Customer satisfaction is the opposite of customer dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction is one sure route to defection. Keep in mind, however, that customer satisfaction by itself is usually not sufficient to generate loyalty. Wade (2006) agreed with Negl (2002) in that customer feedback is vital to keep the menu fresh. Feedback from customers helps to improve product quality, which in turn increases sales and products higher profits. 2.2.3. Food Quality Reay (1983) pinpointed that any food product specification involves consideration of factors such as those set out below: 1. The quantity of goods – based on the standard recipe. 2. The quality and grade of ingredients. 3. The dimensions of the finished item, e.g. the thickness of the pastry and the weight and type of filling. 4. The nature of the glaze. 5. The degree browning.
  26. 26. 26 6. The type, size and shape of the garnish. 7. The type of packaging to be used 8. The layout and wording of labels 9. The product life 10.The storage requirements Wiley and Sons (2006) illustrated that the quality of food depends on two factors: the skill with which it's prepared, and the basic quality of the foodstuffs use to this might be added the perception of novelty factor Briggs (2000) stated that food, whether raw or cooked is a perishable commodity and has a limited life and so caterers have to ensure that they buy produce in the correct quality and quantity in relation to customer demand and that it is correctly stored and processed. The choice of food and drink revolves around the menu, which is limited or extensive, and whether it concerns a particular product, if there is a varied choice, and the quality of the product offered, and it is fresh or convenience. Other factors include portion sizes and the availability of children's menus along with consistency, range of tastes, textures, aromas, and colours and presentation of the food and drink. Dharmaraj (2002) believes that poor quality food can destroy the commercial credibility. Seidman and and Johnson (2002) argued that keeping consistency of food quality is a though task for all suick service restaurant QSR chains.
  27. 27. 27 2.2.4 Food Service Quality ConceptServiceFood The service is all action and reactions that customers perceive whichthey have purchased. In hospitality, service performed for the guest by people or by systems. The emphasis in definition is on the guest's total experience. Indeed, from the guest's point of view, service is the performance of the organization and its staff. Schroeder (2004) mentioned that most definitions of service stress the intangible and cannot be easily quantified or defined. A better definition is that service is produced and summed simultaneously, and consumption. Reid and Bojanic (2006) defined a service as an intangible product that sold or purchased in the marketplace. Meanwhile Kotler and Armstrong (1996) stated that service means "all features, acts, and information that augment the customer's ability to realize the potential value of a product or service. Powers and Barrows (2006) confirmed that the basis of service strategy is market segmentation, largely on consumer service expectation. Successful service companies develop a service culture cased on commitment by top management. Consistency between policy and practice and well developed channels of communication. Because service people are a part of the product, a good service team is essential, service teams based on careful selection, training, and on motivational programs that include rewards and involvement in service planning. Because most hospitality products are strikingly similar, service is the most significant sustainable competitive advantage Noel and Cullen (1996) stated that zero defects is the standard that service organizations must set this very high standard, however, is set in the context of customer expectations for a particular segment and operation type. At a McDonald's waiting lines can expect during the rush hour and will accept as long as they move with reasonable speed. However, a dirty or cluttered McDonald's, even in a rush period, scents a defect. Zero - defects committee should formed from members of the quality improvement team.
  28. 28. 28 2.3. Elements of Competition 2.3.1. Location Powers and Barrows (2006) stated that marketing place refers to the location, the place where the good or service is offered. Place refers not only to the property's location, but also to the channels of distribution. Reid and Bojanic (2006) agreed with Powers and Barrows (1999) in that the place component refers to the manner in which the products and services being delivered to consumers. Ridgeway and Ridgeway (1994) indicated that location is, of course, extremely important. All businesses are near potential customers but this may be less important for an outside catering company than for a restaurant. Moreover Briggs (2000) reported that the location of the food service facility might said to be the most important feature. Services, which are not appropriately located, may not successfully perform. Powers and Barrows (1999) stated that the success of most restaurants also enhanced by a location near the heart of major traffic patterns. The technique for analyzing location potential requires a special kind of knowledge, and chains can afford real estate departments that possess that expertise. Seidman and Johnson (2002) considered that location is an old topic but with new content. Chinese QSR chains are entering various non-traditional venues. These venues include shopping mall food courts, leading supermarket, retail chains, neighborhood centers, key intersections, university and college campuses, and airports, casinos, and sports arenas. Powers and Barrows (2006) stated that restaurant companies have developed downsized units for places where a traditional unit will not fit. These units often take the form of a mobile cart requiring minimal investment. The name given these new units is points of distribution (PODs). Wade (2006) argued that the presents of quick-service operations in every market of any size is a key characteristic of quick service and one
  29. 29. 29 of the main factors sporting its growth over the past 50 years. Because of their many locations, they make eating out convenient. 2.3.2 Pricing The price is the amount of money and/or other items with utility needed to acquire a product. Recall that utility an attribute with the potential to satisfy wants. The price has a tremendous impact on the success or failure of a product. Etzel (2004) mention that price is significant in economy, in the costumer's mind, and in an individual firm let's consider each situation some prospective customers are interested primarily in law prices, whereas another segment is more concerned with other factors, such as service, quality, value, and brand image. It is safe to say that few, if any customers are attentive to price alone or are entirely oblivious to price. Powers and Barrows (2006) confirmed that there is a risk in price reduction, namely, that the lower price will denote a cheapened product to the customer. As with virtually all marketing activities, the key is to keep prices in line with customer expectations and to offer products that perceived to be a good value to the customer. 2.3.3 Demand The market demand is the demand for a product or service. 2.3.4. Training Stutts and Wortman (2006) agreed with Noel and Cullen (1996) in that training is the process of integrating personal and organizational goals. Donnelly et al. (1998) indicated that inadequate training can be a major barrier to quality. Hill and Jones (1998) found that a company that employs individuals with high skills is likely to be more efficient than one employing less skilled personnel.
  30. 30. 31 2.3.5 Operational Systems Powers (1995) declared that a standard exterior appearance gives many chain operators a high recognition value. Hill and Jones (1998) indicated that standardization refers to the degree to which a company specifies how decisions are to been made so that employees' behaviour becomes predictable. Gouville and Soman (2001) explained that the hospitality industry commonly bundles goods and services. Firms routinely offer single units of different products or multiple units of the same product, for one price. Seidman and Johnson (2002) described that the quick service industry is characterized by regular interaction between customer and employee. Built around service encounters designed to be consistent and predictable, the nations of reutilization and standardization are central to the industry. Donnelly et al. (1998) argued that once the quality characteristics have defined, the next step is to determine the desired quality standards. These standards quantify the specific quality requirements for the organization's output. Quality standards serve as the reference point for comparing what is "ideal" to what actually "is". Reid and Bojanic (2006) considered that before you can evaluate the level of service provided by employees within your organization, you must establish the standards by which they will judge. Wade (2006) believes that the marketing plan must specify the restaurant's standards for food quality and consistency, beverage operations, cleanliness, and service. Clearly stating the standards in the document provides management with a written document to reference. From point of view of Wade (2006) the broke bone of the operating system is typicality a set of comprehensive operations manuals and a complete set of recipes that cover all products on the menu. The operation manual sets forth operating procedures from opening to closing and nearly everything in between. All major equipment operations and routine maintenance are been described in the operation manual or a separate equipment manual. Define how things been done based on experience, organization standards, and customer expectations. Organizational systems also explain who is involved and why.
  31. 31. 31 As the production is the process wherein the food is converted to the state in which it will be served. Pepper et al. (1984) illustrated that fast food operations handle huge amounts of food in a short time. They could never keep up with their customer's demands if they did not use mass production methods. Mass production means buying, preparing, and serving in large quantities. Powers and Barrows (2006) confirmed that some kinds of operations are ideally suited to the production-line approach to service. Quick service restaurants amusement parks and budget motels come to mind as having the need for the cost efficiency of the production approach. Powers (1995) mentioned that all of the quick service restaurants (QSR) operations try to simplify their production processes and use self-service. 2.3.6 The Element of Risk and Failure Risk concept Wiley and Sons (2006) described that many people will tell that the restaurant business is the highest-risk business in the retail spectrum. This simply is not true. The failure rate for eating places in the general is below the average business failure rate nationwide. Camera, furniture, and apparel stores regularly top the failure list. Powers and Barrows (1999) argued that franchising is not risk free. The franchisee is generally completely dependent on the franchise company for not only marketing but often or purchasing and other operations-oriented assistance. Wade (2006) explained that failure is much less common among franchised restaurants than among independent operation. Elements of restaurants success and failure Powers and Barrows (1999) believed that all advertising will be effective only if consumers get exactly what expect. Therefore, chains concentrate on ensuring consistency of quality and service in operations. Customers know what to expect in each of the units and, in an increasingly mobile society that is important.
  32. 32. 32 Parsa et al. (2005) pinpointed the elements of success and failure as follows: 1. Elements of success A. Have a distinctive concept that been well researched. B. Ensure that all decision make long-term economic sense. C. Adapt desirable technologies, especially for record keeping and tracking customers. D. Educate mangers through continuing education at trade shows and workshops an environment that fosters professional growth has better productivity E. Effectively and regularly communicate values and objectives to employees in one instance. F. Maintain a clear vision, mission, and operation strategies, but be willing to amend strategies as the situation changes. G. Create a cost conscious culture, which includes stringent record keeping. H. Focus on one concentrated theme and develop it well. I. Be willing to make a substantial time commitment both to the restaurant and to family. J. Create and build a positive organization culture through consistent management. K. Maintain management flexibility. L. Choose the location carefully, although having a good location. 2. Elements of failure: A. Lack of documented strategy; only informal or oral communication of mission and vision; lack of an organizational culture fostering success characteristics. B. Inability or unwillingness to establish and formalize operational standards; seat-of-the-pants management. C. Frequent critical incidents; managing operations by "putting out fires" appears to be a common practice. D. Focusing on one aspect of the business at the expense of the others. E. Poor choice of location. F. Lack of match between restaurant concept and location. G. Lack of business experience or knowledge of restaurant operations. H. Poor communication with consumers. Negative consumer perception of value price and product must match.
  33. 33. 33 I. Inability to maintain operational standards leading to too many service gaps. Poor sanitary standards are almost guaranteed to kill a restaurant. Wiley and Sons (2006) pointed out that the stark reasons for business failure are worthy of study these include in competence, lack of line experience, lack of managerial experience and quite important, unbalanced experience. Inadequate funds run out of money before the restaurant attracts enough customers to go into profit. Poor management is a catchall phrase, but should not be dismissed on those grounds. The way to success Hill and Jones (1998) considered that avoiding failure requires a constant focus on the basic building blocks of competitive advantage, continuous improvement, learning identification, adoption of the best industrial practice, and victory over inertia. Huber and Pilmanis (2001) mentioned that there are primarily five customer sale channels: delivery, dining, takeout, pickup window and catering. In the QSR industry, IT has been commonly used for order processing, accounting, purchasing, marketing, consumer behavior and the location of new restaurants. Parsa et al. (2005) explained that perhaps the key finding was that a successful restaurant requires focus on a clear concept that drives all activities. In this finding, concept is distinct from strategy. A remarkable outcome of the interviews is that we found few differences in having a well-defined strategy between successful and failed restaurants owners but considerable differences in clarity Negl (2002) believed that restaurants are been designed to serve a basic meal quickly and affordably. Menus are usually limited and kitchens are designed to produce high volume in short periods. The customer expects quick service, low price, and consistency. Fast food establishments are those that serve food for which there is little or no waiting. From Wade (2006) point of view, the key to the success of quick service, nevertheless, is its simplicity. A key simplification remains quick services limited menu. Each item on the menu has been engineered to simplify and standardize its purchasing, production and service.
  34. 34. 34 Pepper et al. (1984) considered that a fast food operation has two main aims: to please the customer and to make a profit. The giant fast food chains were built on the belief that four things operating together will bring them their success, these four things are:- Limited menu Fast service Low price High sales volume Brian De Silva (2006) pointed the top tips of WOW success as follows:  Research market and area.  Establish budget.  Brief designer: Make sure choose a good designer.  Agree concept: What will be famous for?  Recruit the right team.  Inspire team and guests.  Market restaurant: Public relation and collateral, guest and staff incentives.  Make changes when need to.  Listen to staff and guests.  Remember: you're only as good as your last drink. 2.3.7 Product Branding Brand concept According to King and Ronald (2006) image is a popular conception (as of a person, institution, or nation) project especially through mass media importance of brand. Martina (1958) defined image as "the way in which a store is defined in the shopper's mined, partly by its functional qualities and partly by an aural of psychological attributes. From this, two key elements in the construction of image can be identified. o Functional qualities such as the restaurant layout, menu range, price levels and décor. o Psychological attributes: The less tangible elements such as feeling of friendliness or a sense of excitement.
  35. 35. 35 Importance of brand Blackett (2003) told that branding is a binary process. First the name, logo, pack design, advertising and purchasing environment must create the promise; and then the product or service concerned has to deliver. If the brand lives up to expectations then trust been rewarded; if it does not then the buyer will look elsewhere. So good brand management is all about managing customer confidence so that he or she can buy without fear of risk can be a source of strong cash flows Brand marketing Walker (2006) believed that brands are defined as unique that identify a product and set it apart from those of other producers or service providers. Today, brands are becoming a more and more important part of a company's marketing strategy, mostly because having a well-known brand tends to create brand identity. The most important considerations when developing a brand are these:  It must be easy to remember.  Guests need to associate the brand with value.  It must have a positive connotation. Name selection and logo Wade (2006) agreed with Ridgeway and Ridgway (1994) in that the restaurant name and any subtitle it may use give people an immediate impression as to the type of restaurant it is. A name must be memorable and should be easy to pronounce, original, attractive, and easy to remember and say. A logo is the restaurant's identifying mark that the public will recognize. In restaurant industry, Mc Donald's has developed its brand and logo-the golden arches - to be automatically identifiable worldwide.
  36. 36. 36 2.3.8 Product Value Product value concept Mattila (2001) mentioned that committed customers place a high value on a restaurant's social benefits, such as friendship and familiarity, in addition to good food and a fun atmosphere. Etzel (2004) defined that value is the ratio of perceived benefits to price and any other incurred costs. When we say a product has sample value, we do not necessarily mean it is inexpensive nor has a very low price. Rather, good value indicates that a particular product has the kinds and amounts of potential benefits such as quality, image, and purchase convenience consumers expect at a particular price level. Foster (1993) believed that value is a customer's satisfaction with a product in relation to the price. The value of a restaurant meal is a matter of perception how the customer views the quality of the dining experience. Johnson and Clark (2005) indicated that value is the customer's assessment of the benefits of the service weighed against all the costs involved. It is important to emphasis that the ultimate judge of value is the customer. Price value perception Etzel (2004) reported that a product's price has been affected by whether it is a new item or an established one. Over the course of a life cycle, price changes are necessary to keep the product competitive. Wade (2006) agreed with Negl (2002) in that price / value perception means consumers believe that they are receiving value for the price that they are paying, whether the customers are eating in a fast food restaurant or dining in the finest restaurant in the area. The décor, ambience, and service standards must all contribute to the customer's perception of the dining experience.
  37. 37. 37 2.3.9 Marketing Marketing concept Van Hoof et al. (1996) illustrated that marketing is all of activates designed to move goods and services from the producer to the consumer. Walker (2006) said that marketing is attracting guests and establishing a relationship with the guests that ensure their continuous loyalty. Everyone from the corporate executive to the line employee should be involved with marketing. Reid and Bojanic (2006) stated that:  Marketing is the process of determining consumer needs, creating a product service mix that satisfies these needs, and promoting the product service mix in order to attain the goals and objectives of the firm.  Marketing concept is a framework for the marketing philosophy that consists of three interrelated elements: an organization's basic purpose is to satisfy customer needs; satisfying customer needs requires integrated and coordinated efforts throughout the organization; and organizations should focus on long-term success. The marketing mix Powers and Barrows (2006) agreed with Reid and Bojanic (2006) also in that the marketing mix is conventionally though of as encompassing the four Ps: product, price, place, and promotion. The researcher agree with this opinion. Ronald and Nykiel (2005) added that there are many different perspectives on marketing and marketing strategy especially in ever- changing environment. In the 1990s as we transitioned to a predominantly service-oriented economy and marketing environment, marketing strategies shifted to focus on the four Cs, as delineated by waterborne:  Consumer wants and needs  Cost to satisfy (want and needs)  Convenience to buy  Communication (creating a dialogue)
  38. 38. 38 In the current decade, while marketing must still focus on the four Ps and four Cs, marketing strategies appear to have shifted and are now more and more based on the new five Ps:  Preparation  Positioning  Perception  Proclamation  Power thrusts Market segment Walker (2006) defined that market segment is a smaller, identifiable group that can be defined using any set of, such as moose found in geographic, demographic, or psychographic. Van Hoof, et al. (1996) indicated that marketers go through a process called market segmentation and separate people into distinct group based on their individual characteristics and buying habits. The target market Wade (2006) agreed with Negl (2002) in that the target market is the type of customer who the restaurant is attempting to reach and entice to frequent the establishment. Writing a menu requires understanding the customer's wants, needs, and expectations. A customer will judge a restaurant on several critical areas: food quality and presentation, service, ambiance, cleanliness, and value. The menu informs customers of the choices available to them. This is known as menu engineering. The goal of menu engineering is not to force the customer to purchase an unwanted item, but rather to place certain items in high visibility locations. Marketing and selling Reid and Bojanic (2006) agreed with Medik (1999) in that the difference between selling and marketing is very simple. Selling focuses mainly on the firm's desire to sell products for revenue. Marketing is different from selling because marketing focuses on the needs of consumers, whereas selling focuses on the needs of the seller. In addition,
  39. 39. 39 the marketing concept advances the finical goals that the firm may have. The concept holds that if the consumer's needs and wants are very satisfied, then financial success will follow. The researcher agrees with this opinion. 2.3.10 Promotional Element Promotion concept From Etzel (2004) point of view the extent to which the product is promoted by the producer or intermediaries and the methods used are added considerations in pricing if major promotional responsibility is placed on retailers. Walker (2006) said that having an excellent product at a good price and in the right place is not enough. Sales goals will not be obtained unless the consumer is aware of the product's existence. There are several ways of doing this with promotion. Stutts and Wortman (2006) illustrated that have one single overriding common purpose: to fulfill a marking need. This need may be to build trial (new) business, develop a greater share of existing business, keep businesses, or get repeat business regardless of the type of promotion the objective is to help the overall marketing effort. Promotional mix Reid and Bojanic (2006) agreed with Reid (1989) in that the promotional mix elements include advertising, personal selling, sales promotion, and public relations. Sales promotion Schultz et al. (1993) stated that sales promotion: usually short-term tactical incentives offering something over and above the normal product offering to encourage customers to act in particular ways. Product-based sales promotions: sales promotions that centre on some kind incentive connected with the product: extra product free, or samples. In addition Reid (1989) agreed with Gottleb (1982) in that sales promotion is a direct inducement offering an extra incentive to
  40. 40. 41 take action. Sales promotions seek to accomplish several broad objectives and can be used for several reasons:  To increase consumer awareness  To introduce new products and services  To increase guest occupancy and customer counts.  To combat competition  To encourage present guests to purchase more.  To stimulate demand in no peak periods. 2.3.11 Services for Children Fast food restaurants and children Spurlock (2005) said that fast food chains make no secret of the fact that kids are their primary targets. Fast food restaurants are significantly more likely to be visited by respondents with children than those without. There is Happy Meal, launched nationally in 1979. It cost a buck in those days. Inside a cardboard box with a circus theme, kids found a McDonald stencil, a puzzle book, and a Mc Wrist wallet. The meal-plus-toys packaging proved to be an instant hit with the first star trek Happy Meals that very year. Hahm and Khan (2001) considered that parents with young children enjoy the conveniences of eating out, and they often take their young families to quick serve restaurants. They especially like to take their young families to those restaurants that are equipped with playgrounds or play areas, and those that offer give – always to their children. From Spurlock (2005) point of view, parents are their children's primary role models kids learn their life habits, good and bad, from their parents. Hahm and Khan (2001) stated that in the future healthy option for to – go kids meals could include carrot sticks instead of French fires, hand held yogurt stick such as Yoplait's Go-Curt, and flavored milks in aseptically packaged containers, these options meet the demand for hand held to – go food, but also provide a healthy alternative to traditional quick service restaurant menu items.
  41. 41. 41 2.3.12 Atmosphere (Surroundings) Atmosphere Briggs (2000) agreed with Pepper et al. (1984) in that atmosphere is the overall effect created by a restaurant's lighting, color scheme, furniture, and service. Wade (2006) highlighted that restaurant decor should support the overall concept and not be a haphazard collection of props, as the decor helps set the tone for the atmosphere.Wiley and Sons (2006) declared that a restaurateur who is largely dependent upon neighborhood business would do well to establish a friendly atmosphere, maintain consistent standards, and offer good value. A friendly greeting is the best possible start to a dining experience. People do not require heart, soul, and internal devotion, just a smile and a cheerful greeting. Cleanliness Pepper et al. (1984) stated that customers would stop coming if they feel a restaurant is not clean. Customers like to eat in clean surroundings. Constant attention to cleanliness keeps luncheonettes and chain restaurant dining areas attractive. Wade (2006) agreed with Negl (2002) in that the incidence of food-borne illness has increased as the food service system has become more complex and the number of operations has expanded. One case of food poisoning can seriously injure a restaurant's reputation. More than one can endanger an operation's survival. 2.3.13 Customer Satisfaction Customer satisfaction Johnson and Clark (2005) agreed with Cooper and Lawson (2004) in that satisfaction is the outcome of the consumer's evaluation of a service, which sometimes refer to as perceived service quality, and can be represented on a continue from delight to extreme dissatisfaction. Lillicrap et al. (2002) pinpointed the factors contributing to the meal experience were summarized. Factors, which might affect the customer's
  42. 42. 42 enjoyment of a specific meal experience in a particular operation, could be:  The welcome, the décor, and the ambience.  Efficiency, has the booking been taken properly, using the customer's name.  Location of the table.  Menu and drinks list (presentation and cleanliness).  The order is been taken recognition of the host.  Availability of dishes / items.  Speed and efficiency of service.  Quality of food and drink.  Courteousness of staff.  Obtrusive / attentiveness of staff.  Ability to attract the attention of staff.  Other customer's behaviour.  Methods in which complaints are handled.  Methods of presenting bill / recovery payment.  Departure attentiveness. Schroeder (2004) told that customer satisfaction is a relative concept that varies from one customer to another. Also, a customer may be satisfied with today's products but not satisfied in the future. For example, while one customer may consider a Ford automobile perfectly satisfactory, another may not. Seidman and Johnson (2002) argued that customer satisfaction is regards as the highest mission by the chains. Johnson and Clark (2005) described that customer satisfaction is something that can be managed to some extent by influencing customers' perceptions and expectations of service delivery. This demands in-depth understanding of this subject. Pepper, et al. (1984) stated that satisfied customers are return customers, which means good business. Improving customer service and customer satisfaction Bateson (1995) mentioned that customer satisfaction is depends on the production of services as well as their consumption. Field (1999) pointed out that a common five – step process for developing a customer satisfaction program is:
  43. 43. 43  Identify the attributes of your product or service that are most important to customers.  Measure customer – satisfaction levels on these important attributes.  Link satisfactions levels to key customer behavior (use levels, member retention).  Identify and implement concrete actions that will improve customer satisfaction and correspondingly, customer behavior.  Track results. Reid and Bojanic (2006) illustrated that improving customer service should be a top priority of all managers working in the hospitality and tourism industry. Walker (2006) said that we not only need to keep guests happy during their stay, but also to keep them returning-with their friends. It costs several times more to attract new guests than to retain existing ones. Employee satisfaction Easerbrook (2006) agreed with Dube and Renaghan (1999) in that the best way to drive growth and profit is by looking after the company's staff. Healthy profit has to start with people, if you get the people part right, the rest will follow. Gregory and Brieiter (2001) found that satisfied employees are more likely to exhibit customer-oriented behavior, which in turn will lead to guest satisfaction. Seidman and Johnson (2002) agreed with Ghislli et al. (2001) in that job satisfaction as one key to turnover seems to be a job's characteristics.
  44. 44. 44 CHAPTER THREE MATERIALS AND METHODS
  45. 45. 45 Materials and Methods Research methodology is the treatment that will be applied to the data collected. This includes the population, instrument, and analysis of the data. The aim of this chapter is to assign and define the limits of the sampling of the study, and to clarify the methods that will be used in this research in order to collect the desired information and data. 3.1. Materials 3.1.1. Population survey: The aim of this study is evaluating the experiment of the local restaurant chains compared to the international ones in Egypt. To obtain results representing enough the actual conditions. The research conducted three groups’ four samples from each group. Four samples from independent fast food restaurants in Sharm El Sheikh, four of the famous local fast food restaurants chains as well as four international chains in Sharm El Sheikh. 3.1.2. The Samples: 3.1.2.1. Samples from independent establishments (Quick Meals, Sharmawy Sharm, El Sheikh, Naama) 3.1.2.2. Samples from local establishments (Cook Door, Makani, Felfela, Gado) 3.1.2.3. Samples from international establishments (McDonald's,
  46. 46. 46 Burger King, Hardee's, KFC) Table 3: Samples from the establishments Old Sharm Hadaba Marina Samples from independent establishments Quick Meals 1 - - Sharmawy Sharm 1 1 - El Sheikh 2 - - Naama 1 - - Samples from local establishments Cook Door - 1 * Makani - 1 1 Felfela 1 - - Gado - 1 1 Samples from international establishments McDonald's - 1 2 Burger King - 1 - Hardee's - 1 1 KFC - 1 1 * Mean under preparation
  47. 47. 47 According Menu Specialty of the selected QSR: Table 4: Menu specialty of the selected QSR. Restaurant Burger Pizza Chicken Snacks Sandwich Foul& Falafel Seafood Independent restaurants Quick Meals * - * * ** * * Sharmawy Sharm * - * * ** - - El Sheikh - - * * ** ** - Naama * - * * ** ** - Local restaurant chains Cook Door * - * * ** - - Makani - * * * ** - - Felfela * - * * ** * * Gado * - * * ** * * International restaurant chains McDonald's ** - * * ** - - Burger King ** - * * ** - - Hardee's ** - * * ** - - KFC * - ** * * - - - Not serving * Serving ** The core product Walker (2006) agreed with Brymer (1995) in that classifying.
  48. 48. 48 3.2. Methods The collected data has been divided into primary sources and secondary sources. Every type of this data will be illustrated and discussed in some details. 3.2.1. Primary Data Primary sources have been collected through the following methods: 3.2.1.1. Guest Questionnaire The guest questionnaire was designed and distributed at a sample of fast food guests. This questionnaire form has been developed based upon the relevant review of literature. The main purpose of this questionnaire is to know  How much does the guest like the fast food and at which meal he prefers.  The most important factor in a fast food restaurant which attracts the guest to select fast food chains.  Evaluation the local fast food restaurant chains experiment compared to the international chains.  The advantages and disadvantages in local fast food chains in Egypt.  Any problem has the guest ever met through his experiment with the local fast food restaurant chains? Questionnaire form distribution took nearly one year, starting at 15/9/2006 up till 1/8/2007. The questionnaire form was written and distributed in Arabic and English languages. The questionnaire form been shown in Appendix (A1).
  49. 49. 49 3.2.1.2. In-depth Personal Interviews In- depth interviews were been carried out with the restaurants and chains managers under the investigation. The purposes of these interviews were:-  Identifying the guest evaluation for the fast food chains.  Egyptian market expectations, needs, and preferences of the Egyptian customer. And how do the chains deal with these needs and preferences?  Common attributes of local and international restaurant chains.  Training strategy in fast food ones.  Evaluating marketing strategies in fast food chains.  Evaluating quality levels in fast food chains, and what is quality assurance strategy in fast food chains.  The extent of product development according to customer needs in their chains.  Customer satisfaction measuring methods in fast food chains.  Strengths and weakness points in fast food chains. The in-depth personal interview are been shown in appendix (A2). 3.2.1.3. Observation Checklist The observation checklist has been designed to evaluate food service quality, cleanliness, atmosphere, staff and management performance. The checklist composed of six functional areas, which are: 1- Exterior 2- Interior 3- Food Quality 4- Guest Service 5- Employee Appearance 6-Managament Functions
  50. 50. 51 The observation checklist has been shown in Appendix (A3). 3.2.2. Secondary sources All sources of secondary data been illustrated in the previous chapter "Review of Literature". The sources of secondary data include: 3.2.2.1. Government Publications This source includes the data mentioned by the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and the Chamber of Tourism Establishments (CTE). 3.2.2.2. Periodicals and Books Books, theses, as well as periodicals such as, journal of food service business research™, Cornell quarterly, restaurant hospitality, and caterer and hotelkeeper and different articles from many sources. 1.2.2.3. Electronic Sources Internet websites related to the subject of research have been mentioned, illustrated and discussed. 3.2.3. Pilot study The thesis shows a research questionnaire and an interview which entailed three separate interviews with lecturer's and assistant lecturers from Helwan University, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Also entailed by McDonald's training consultancy team and their training managers, Americana Company, Gulf Aria human resource corporate manager, Cilantro, quality assurance managers and Cinnabon training manager. This helped towards shaping the final questionnaire and interviews. The pilot study of questionnaire has been conducted on a limited
  51. 51. 51 segment of guests from independent restaurants, local and international fast food restaurant chains. The questionnaire form has been revised and adopted according to the guest’s comments. 1.2.3. Data Analysis Most data were then analyzed utilizing procedures of the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) version 10.0 for windows. Frequencies standard deviation, percentages and cross-tabulation were calculated to determine which group differs significantly from each other and correlation between variables.
  52. 52. 52 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  53. 53. 53 4.1 Introduction The business of food service deals with the preparation and service of food for consumption by others, whether the food is made from scratch or is convenience food products that are finished in microwave or deep fryer, whether the service is over the counter or at the table. Food service is "the service of food and beverages to internal and external guests in an efficient, safe and hygienic manner, and in a way that will create guest satisfaction" Food service may be defined as "that phase the food flow (that is, from the purchasing of the foods to service to the guest) mainly concerned with the delivery and presentation of the food to the guest, after the completion of the food production". In some situations food service may include an element of transportation due to the separation of the service facilities from the food production, for example of a centralized cook-freeze operation serving peripheral units. Food service establishments are those engaged in providing food service. These establishments include not only the obvious examples of restaurants and college dining halls but also the salad bars and sandwich counters in food markets and such" distant relations" as food vending machines. Food service enterprises range from full-service restaurants to self-service buffets, from fine restaurants to takeout operations, and from company cafeterias to hamburger stands. Quick service or fast food restaurant offer limited menus featuring food such as hamburgers, fries, hot dogs, various finger foods and other items for the convenience of people on to the go. Customers order their food at a counter under a brightly lit menu featuring color photographs of food items. Quick-service restaurants have increased in popularity because of their locations. They can usually be found in very convenient places in every possible area. Their menus are limited, which makes it easier for customers to make quick decisions on what
  54. 54. 54 to eat. 4.2 Questionnaire Response Rate The research targeted 1500 customers randomly in fast food operations. A total of 1248 usable replies were obtained, representing an effective response rate of 83.2 percent. Table 5: Questionnaire response rate Category Customers Number targeted 1500 Number shared 1248 Response rate 83.2 % 4.3 Questionnaire Analysis Results and Discussion The next evaluation of the questions is ranking according to the objectives of the questionnaire as follows.
  55. 55. 55 Question NO. (1):- Customers’ preferences to deal with fast food restaurants The aim of this question is to illustrate customers’ preferences to deal with fast food restaurants. Figure (1) shows this issue and illustrated that out of 1248 respondents who dealing with fast food restaurants; 16.3% of respondents deal with fast food restaurants always, 24.1% are usually preferred to deal with fast food restaurants usually. 45.2% of customers deal with fast food restaurants sometimes. While 14.4% of respondents indicated that they deal with fast food restaurants rarely. 16.3% 24.1% 45.2% 14.4% 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 AlwaysUsuallySometimesFew Figure 1: Customers preferences to eat fast foods. Cross tabulation analysis showed that 52.4% of category "from 15 to less than 25 years old" customers and 45.3% of category "from 25 to 40 years old " deal sometimes with fast food restaurants, while 33.3% of category "over 40 years old" respondents rarely deal with fast food restaurants. Also 44.4% of married with children customers and 47.4% of single respondents deal with fast food restaurants sometimes, besides 50% of female respondents and 43.1% of male respondents deal with fast food restaurants.
  56. 56. 56 Question NO. (2):- Customers' preferable meal The aim of this question is to illustrate customers' preferable meal. Data in table 6 show that most respondents prefer to have the lunch meal in fast food restaurants by mean 1.77. Statistically, X2 sig=0,000 showed a significant variances among respondent as (P<, 05) Finn et al. (2000). Breakfast meal came in the second position by mean 2.22 and std. deviation .94, while dinner was the least preferable meal to most of customers. Table 6: Customers' preferable meal Meal Mean Std. Error Std. Deviation Lunch 1.77 0.02 .80 Breakfast 2.22 0.03 .94 Dinner 2.29 0.02 .77 Cross tabulation analysis indicated that 37.5% of male respondents, 42.1% of single respondents and 37% of Egyptian customers indicated that breakfast was the most preferable meal to eat in QSRs. while 48.6% of male customers, 50% of married without children respondents and 52.2% of foreigner customers ensured that lunch was the most preferable meal. Finally, 31.3 of female customers, 25% of married without children respondents and 22.2% of Egyptian respondents enjoyed eating dinner in QSRs.
  57. 57. 57 Question NO. (3):- Customers' restaurants preferences The aim of this question is to illustrate customers' restaurants preferences. From the tabulated data in table (7), it could be noticed that local chain restaurants were the first category, which attracted most of customers by a mean of 1.87, and a std. deviation of .72. International chain restaurants came in the second position by a mean of 1.95 and a std. deviation of .92. The mean 2.32 highlighted that independent restaurants took the third place in the customers' restaurants preferences. Table 7: Statistics of customers' restaurants preferences Restaurant Mean Std. Error Std. Deviation Local chain restaurants 1.87 0.02 .72 International chain restaurants 1.95 0.03 .92 Independent restaurants 2.32 0.02 .84 Cross tabulation analysis indicated that 31.3% of female respondents, 25.9% of married with children respondents and 27.2% of Egyptian customers indicated that independent restaurants was the most preferable restaurants. In the other hand, 37.5% of male customers, 37% of married with children respondents and 35.8% of Egyptian customers ensured that local chain restaurants were the most preferable QSRs. Finally, 46.9 of female customers, 50% of married without children respondents and 65.2% of foreigner respondents enjoyed eating in international chain restaurants. Question NO. (4):- Customers reasons for restaurant type preference The aim of this question is to illustrate customers' reasons for restaurant type preference. From Figure (3), it could be noticed that 37% of respondents prefer international chain restaurants for the following reasons:
  58. 58. 58  Safe  Trust  Cleanliness  Good promotions  Brand name  New product  Food quality  Consistence standard  Good location in every where  Good quality  Fast service  Atmosphere  Good price Besides, 38% of customers highlighted that they prefer local chain restaurants for the following reasons: Egyptian investment Know the source Egyptian traditional taste Trust Halal Quality Good service Good value Good price Safe Atmosphere Brand name Menu variety Only 25% of customers were satisfied with the independent restaurants' food for the following reasons:  Good price  Fair value  Egyptian taste  Delicious  Halal
  59. 59. 59  Fresh food  Friendly service  Good quality  Atmosphere 25% 38%37% 0 10 20 30 40 Independent resturants Local chains resturants International chain resturants Figure 2: Customers' reasons for restaurants type preferences This agreed Lan, and Khan (1995) with see page 10. Question NO. (5):- Important factors in QSR that attract customer The aim of this question is to show important factors in QSR that attract customer. Data in Table (8) showed statistics (means, standard deviations, standard error) of important factors in QSR that attract customer. Table 8: Statistics of important factors in QSR that attract customer Important factors Mean Std. Error Std. Deviation X2 signification Food quality 4.40 0.03 .95 0.00 price 4.11 0.03 .95 0.00 Service quality 3.90 0.03 1.01 0.00 Consistence Standard 3.60 0.03 1.13 0.00 Atmosphere 3.48 0.04 1.25 0.00 Brand name 3.30 0.04 1.31 0.01 Menu variety 3.17 0.03 1.11 0.00 Location 3.11 0.03 1.00 0.00 Promotional 2.71 0.04 1.29 0.00
  60. 60. 61 activities Results indicated that the variables food quality, price and service quality were the first three important factors in QSRs that attract customers by means of 4.40, 4.11 and 3.90, respectively. Consistence standard, atmosphere and brand name came in the second position by means of 3.60, 3.48 and 3.30, respectively. The means of 3.17 and 3.11 highlighted that menu variety and location respectively took the third place in the customers' restaurant preference, while promotional activities were the last factor by a mean of 2.71 to choose restaurant. Statistically X2 sig=0,000 showed a significant variation among respondent as (P<, 05). This agreed with Ball (1992).see page 7. However, the X2sig=0,000 for the other factors indicated that there was a significant variation among respondents (P<, X2sig, 05) as follow: 2.9% 3.8% 26.9% 32.7%33.7% 4.8% 11.5% 28.8% 28.8% 26.% 8.7% 11.5% 30.8% 21.2% 27.9% 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 1 =Least im portant Low im portantIm portantHigh im portant5 =Most im portant Service quality Consistence Standard Atmosphere Figure 3: Important factors in QSR that attract customer (service Quality, consistence standard and atmosphere) Figure 3 shows that 93.3% (Important, High important & most important) of the respondents ranked service quality as an important factor in QSR that attracts customers, 83.6% of them gave the same rank to consistence standard variable and 79.9% (Important, High important & most important) of customers indicated the above ranks to atmosphere variable, while, only 6.7, 16.3 and 20.2% (Low important & least important) of respondents ranked service quality, consistence
  61. 61. 61 standard and atmosphere, respectively, as the lowest important factors. Agreed with Noel and Cullen (1996), see, p.14. Figure 4: Important factors in QSR that attract customer (Brand name and menu variety) Figure 4 highlighted that 74% (important, High important& most important) of respondents indicated that brand name is an important factor to chose a restaurant. 71.2% of them gave the same rank to menu variety variable, While 26% and 28.9% (Low and Least important) of respondents ranked brand name and menu variety respectively as the lowest important factors. 4.8% 22.1% 39.4% 25% 8.7% 25% 16.3% 31.7% 16.3% 10.6% 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 Least important Low important ImportantHigh important Most important Location Promotional activities Figure 5: Important factors in QSR that attract customer (Location and promotional activities) Figure 5 illustrates that 73.1% (Important, high important & most important) of the respondents indicated that the location is an important factor to choose a restaurant. While, 58.6% of them gave the 22.1% 14.4% 25%23.1% 26.9% 33.7% 12.5% 23.1% 13.5% 5.8% 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Least important Low important ImportantHigh important Most important Brand name Menu variety
  62. 62. 62 same rank to promotional activities variable, 26.9, and 41.3% (Low and least important) of the respondents are ranked the location and promotional activities, respectively, as the lowest important factors. Question NO. (6):- Restaurant important categories factors' evaluation The aim of this question is to illustrate Restaurant categories factors' evaluation. From the table (9) it could be showed statistics of different restaurant categories in the study. Table 9: Statistics for restaurants factors' evaluation Independent Local chain International chain Important factors Mean Std. Deviatio n Mean Std. Deviati on Mean Std. Deviat ion Brand name 2.32 1.30 3.63 0.93 4.19 1.09 Location 2.63 1.33 3.55 0.97 4.07 1.07 Price 3.91 1.33 3.73 1.06 3.37 1.37 Food quality 2.93 1.38 3.87 1.07 4.22 0.94 Service quality 2.68 1.27 3.56 0.97 3.95 1.03 Consistence Standard 2.48 1.28 3.51 0.97 4.03 1.01 Menu variety 2.85 1.38 3.25 0.99 3.65 1.25 Atmosphere 2.27 1.18 3.12 1.04 3.80 1.16 Promotional activities 1.57 1.00 2.85 1.03 3.78 1.30 All factors statistics 2.63 0.28 3.5 0.09 3.89 0.34 Results proposed that the respondents evaluated all factors in independent restaurants as neutral factors by a grand mean of 2.63, while they evaluated the same factor in local chain restaurants and international chain restaurants as high level factors by a grand means 3.5 & 3.89, respectively (see table 9).
  63. 63. 63 From the tabulated data in Table (10) it could be illustrated customers' ranking of preferable factors for different restaurant categories according to their means. Table 10: Restaurant categories factors' ranking According to their means Independent factors Mean Local chain factors Mean International chain factors Mean Price 3.91 Food quality 3.87 Food quality 4.22 Food quality 2.93 Price 3.73 Brand name 4.19 Menu variety 2.85 Brand name 3.63 Location 4.07 Service quality 2.68 Service quality 3.56 Consistence standard 4.03 Location 2.63 Location 3.55 Service quality 3.95 Consistence standard 2.5 Consistence standard 3.51 Atmosphere 3.80 Brand name 2.32 Menu variety 3.25 Promotional activities 3.78 Atmosphere 2.27 Atmosphere 3.12 Menu variety 3.65 Promotional activities 1.57 Promotional activities 2.85 Price 3.37 Results highlighted that price was the first preferable factor by the respondents for independent restaurants and they ranked it as a high level factor. Food quality, menu variety, service quality, location and consistence standard were respectively the second preferable factors by respondents in the independent restaurants, where customers ranked them as neutral factors by means ranged from 2.5 to 2.93. Brand name, atmosphere and promotional activities were the lowest level factors indicated by the respondents for independents restaurants. However the customers evaluated food quality, price, brand name, service quality, and location and consistence standard respectively, as high level factors to choose a local chain restaurant, while they ranked menu variety, atmosphere and promotional activities at the last position respectively, as neutral factors to eat in local chain restaurants.
  64. 64. 64 Finally, the respondents evaluated the most attractive factors in international chain restaurants as follows; food quality, brand name, location, consistence standard, service quality, atmosphere, promotional activities and menu variety respectively. Price was the last factor mentioned by customers; where they ranked it as a neutral factor. X2 sig=0,00 illustrated that there is a significant variation between respondents' evaluation for restaurant categories' factors according to (P<,05) as follows:
  65. 65. 65 Brand name From the Figure 6, it could be noticed that international chain restaurants took the highest level among restaurant categories with that factor by 79.8% (Highest level & high level) of respondents. While local restaurant chains are in the second position by 54.8% (Highest level & high level) of them. Only 21.2% (Highest level & high level) of customers ranked brand name factor in independent restaurants as high-level factor. In the other side, 59.6% (Low level & lowest level) of respondents mentioned that independent restaurants had unknown brand name 37.5% 7.7% 13.5% 19.2% 22.1% 1.9% 19.2% 35.6% 36.5% 6.7% 4.8% 52.9% 26.9% 11.5% 3.8% 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Lowest levelLow levelNeutralHigh levelHighest level Independent Local chains International chains Figure 6: Brand name factor's evaluation in QSRs. See Brand concept According to King and Ronald (2006), p.21. From the researcher point of view brand name is very important to built and to keep it.
  66. 66. 66 Location Figure 7 shows customers' evaluation of locations for different restaurant categories. 27.9% 18.3% 27.9% 14.4% 11.5% 3.8% 6.7% 36.5%36.5% 16.3% 2.9%4.8% 22.1%23.1% 47.1% 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 Lowest levelLow levelNeutalHigh levelHighest level Independent Local chains International chains' Figure 7: Location factor's evaluation in QSRs. Results illustrated that 70.2% (Highest level & high level) of customers indicated that international chain restaurants had the most attractive locations. While the local chain restaurants took the second position by 52.8% (Highest level & high level) of them. Only 25.9% (Highest level & high level) of the respondents evaluated independent restaurants' locations as good places. In the other hand, 46.2% (Low level & lowest level) of customers unaccepted independent restaurants' locations. This agreed with Ridgeway and Ridgeway (1994). See page, 15.
  67. 67. 67 9.6% 6.7% 15.4% 19.2% 49% 2.9% 9.6% 26.9% 32.7%27.9% 11.5% 16.3% 27.9% 12.5% 31.7% 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Lowest levelLow levelNeutalHigh levelHighest level Independent Local chains International chains Price From the figure 8 it could indicate customers' evaluation of price factor for different restaurant categories. Figure 8: Price factor's evaluation in QSRs. Results indicated that price was the most effective factor in independent restaurants; 68.2% (Highest level & high level) of the respondent proposed that the price in independent restaurant was reasonable. 60.6% (Highest level & high level) of the customers mentioned that local chain restaurants provide a logical price. International chain restaurants were in the third position by 44.2% (Highest level & high level) of the respondents expected that they provide rational price. The researcher agreed that the price has a tremendous impact on the success or failure of a product. Etzel (2004). See page 16.
  68. 68. 68 Food quality Figure 9 shows customers' evaluation of food quality factor for different restaurant categories. Figure 9: Food quality factor's evaluation in QSRs. Results illustrated that, 77.9% (Highest level & high level) of the customers indicated that international chain restaurants had the maximum food quality level. While the local chain restaurants took the second position by 69.2% (Highest level & high level) of them. Besides, 37.5% (Highest level & high level) of respondents evaluated independent restaurants' food quality as a top level. In the other hand, 38.4% (Low level & lowest level) of customers disagreed with independent restaurants' food quality level. The researcher agree with that keeping consistency of food quality is a though task for all service restaurant in QSR chains Seidman and Johnson (2002). See page 13. 22.1% 16.3% 24.1% 21.2% 16.3% 4.8%4.8% 21.2% 37.5% 31.7% 1.9%1.9% 18.3% 27.9% 50% 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Lowest levelLow levelNeutalHigh levelHighest level Independent Local chains International chains
  69. 69. 69 Service quality Figure 10 shows customers' evaluation of service quality factor for different restaurant categories. Figure 10: Service quality factor's evaluation in QSRs. Results highlighted that, service quality was the most effective factor in international chain restaurants by 64.4% (Highest level & high level) of customers, While 50% (Highest level & high level) of the respondents were satisfied with service quality in local chain restaurants. Besides, 28.9% (Highest level & high level) of customers agreed with service quality in independent restaurants. In the other side, 45.2% (Low level & lowest level) of the respondents were unsatisfied with the level of service quality offered in independent restaurants. Service is an intangible product that sold or purchased in the marketplace. Reid and Bojanic (2006). See page 14 24% 21.2% 26% 20.2% 8.7% 3.8%4.8% 41.3% 31.7% 18.3% 2.9%2.9% 29.8% 25% 39.4% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Lowest levelLow levelNeutalHigh levelHighest level Independent Local chains International chains
  70. 70. 71 Consistence standard Figure 11 shows customers' evaluation of consistence standard factor for different restaurant categories. Figure 11: Consistence standard factor's evaluation in QSRs. Results illustrated that, 71.1% (Highest level & high level) of the customers ensured that international chain restaurants had a consistence standard level for their products and services, 49% and 16.3% (Highest level & high level) of them claimed the same result for local chain restaurants and independent restaurants respectively. But, 50% (Low level & lowest level) of the customers mentioned that independent restaurants had no consistence standard level. Zero defects is the standard that service organizations must set this very high standard. Noel and Cullen (1996). See page 14. 29.8% 20.2% 33.7% 4.8% 11.5% 1.9% 11.5% 37.5% 31.7% 17.3% 1.9%5.8% 21.2% 29.8% 41.3% 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 Lowest levelLow levelNeutalHigh levelHighest level Independent Local chains International chains
  71. 71. 71 Menu variety Figure 12 shows customers' evaluation of menu variety factor for different restaurant categories. Figure 12: Menu variety factor's evaluation in QSRs. Results indicated that, 51% (Highest level & high level) of the customers claimed that international chain restaurants provide a variety of choices in their menu, and 35.6 and 35.6% (Highest level & high level) of them ensured the same results for local chain restaurants and independent ones, respectively. But, 38.5 and 22.1% (Low level & lowest level) of the customers were disagreed with the above result for independent restaurants and local chain ones, respectively. Walker (2006) highlighted that quick-service restaurant menus are limited, which makes it easy for customers to make quick decisions on what to purchase. While the researcher agree with Ball (1992) in that QSRs may be provided in product range offered or by variations in one basic product (dressings, fillings, supplements). See page 5, 7. 26% 12.5% 26% 22.1% 13.5% 1.9% 20.2% 42.3% 22.1% 13.5% 5.8% 11.5% 31.7% 13.5% 37.5% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Lowest levelLow levelNeutalHigh levelHighest level Independent Local chains International chains
  72. 72. 72 Atmosphere Figure 13 indicates that, 62.5% (Highest level & high level) of the customers claimed that international chain restaurants had the most attractive atmosphere, as 37.5 and 14.4% (Highest level & high level) of them ensured the same results for local restaurant chains and independent restaurants, respectively. On the other side, 53.8%, 28.9 and 13.5 (Low level & lowest level) of respondents were disagreed with the above results for independent restaurants, local restaurant chains and international restaurant chains, respectively. Figure 13: Atmosphere factor's evaluation in QSRs. The researcher agreed with Wiley and Sons (2006). that a friendly atmosphere, maintain consistent standards, and offer good value. A friendly greeting is the best possible start to a dining experience. See page 28. 37.5% 16.3% 31.7% 10.6% 3.8% 5.8% 23.1% 33.7% 28.8% 8.7% 4.8% 8.7% 24% 26.9% 35.6% 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 Lowest levelLow levelNeutalHigh levelHighest level Independent Local chains International chains
  73. 73. 73 Promotional activities Figure 14 showed customers' evaluation of promotional activities factor for different restaurant categories. Figure 14: Promotional activities factor's evaluation in QSRs. Results indicated that, 66.4% (Highest level & high level) of the customers claimed that international chain restaurants had the most attractive promotional activities, as 23 and 4.8% (Highest level & high level) of them ensured the same result for local restaurant chains and independent restaurants respectively. On the other hand, 80.8, 35.6 and 16.4 % (Low level & lowest level) of the respondents were disagreed with the above results for independent restaurants, local chain restaurants and international chain restaurants, respectively. The researcher agrees with that having an excellent product at a good price and in the right place is not enough. Sales goals will not be obtained unless the consumer is aware of the product's existence. There are several ways of doing this with promotion.Walker (2006).see page 26. 70.2% 10.6% 14.4% 1.9%2.9% 9.6% 26% 41.3% 16.3% 6.7% 10.6%5.8% 17.3% 27.9% 38.5% 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 Lowest levelLow levelNeutalHigh levelHighest level Independent Local chains International chains
  74. 74. 74 Question NO. (7):- Customers' evaluation for the experiment of local fast food restaurant chains. The aim of this question is to illustrate customers' evaluation for the experiment of local fast food restaurant chains. The mean of 1.4 and standard deviation of 0.49 proposed that the most of respondents found the experiment of local fast food restaurants as successful. Figure 15: Customers' evaluation for the experiment of Egyptian QSRs. Figure 15 shows that 59.6% of the customers indicated that the experiment of local fast food restaurants is successful, while 40.4% of them mentioned that the experiment is acceptable. The researcher agrees with that the experiment of local fast food restaurant chains is successful. 59.6% 40.4% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 SuccessfulAcceptable
  75. 75. 75 Question NO. (8):- Advantages and disadvantages of local fast food restaurant chains. The aim of this question is to illustrate customers' evaluation for the advantages and disadvantages of local fast food restaurant chains. Results highlighted that 21.2% of the respondents had no experience to know the advantages and disadvantages of local fast food restaurant chains. While, 78.8% of customers had enough experience to indicate the advantages and disadvantages of local fast food restaurant chains as follows: A- Advantages:  Egyptian investment  Know the source  Egyptian taste  Trust  Halal  Quality  Good service  Good value  Good price  Save  Atmosphere  Brand name  Menu variety  Specialist  Suitable for youth B- Disadvantages:  Few promotional activities.  Not very strong marketing  Doesn’t have a very strong brand name.  Low level of consistence standard  Not very well atmosphere.  Few outlets, limited locations  Service time is not always fast
  76. 76. 76  Price not reasonable for many segments in the society  Nutritional facts aren’t shown for the guest.  Not serve soups, or fruits.  Need more care of kids  Need more attention for the languages level (English, Russian, and Italian).  Need to offer more services for the guest such as Wi – Fi, art channels, and visa card payment.  Need to have hot line.
  77. 77. 77 Question NO. (9):- Customers' problems with local fast food restaurant chains. The aim of this question is to illustrate customers' problems with local fast food restaurant chains. As Figure 16 presents this issue and illustrates that 48% of the respondents had no problems with Egyptian fast food restaurant chains. Yes 52% No 48% Figure 16: Customers' problems with Egyptian QSRs. However, 52% of customers had real problems during their experience with local fast food restaurant chains; and these problems include:  Late ordered.  Cold food.  Long service time.  Low service level.  Wrong order.  Some items in the menu but not available.  Their no enough care about special order.  Low level of cleanliness.  No consistence standard.  There is no kids’ corner.  There is not a non-smoking corner.  There is not a family corner.  Chairs aren’t comfortable.  Tables aren’t stabilized.
  78. 78. 78  Need more attention for the languages level (English, Russian, and Italian).  Nutritional facts aren’t shown for the guest.  More care about nutrition value should be taken.  Need more variety in soups, salads, and fresh fruits fresh vegetables, cereals, and other group products.  Need more variety for the kid's fun box and toys for the children meals.  The price of the meal should be related according to perceived value for money and be in line with customer's expectations.  Home delivery need to be covering most the distances, Single- telephone-number systems in delivery firms use computerized guest histories to facilitate order taking, could make the order through the internet.  Need more care about carhop, drive in, and drive through services.  Credit card payment should be acceptable, and credit card machine should be available.  New product should be frequency every limited period.  Creating a web site, hot line or other advertisement that makes the users meeting with your product or service memorable, fun or useful.  Need enough area for the youth (comfortable chairs, ART channels, Wi- Fi wireless connection with the Internet.  More care for the kids (kid's meals, kid's gifts, kid's birthdays, kid's area, and kids in the school.
  79. 79. 79 Question NO. (10):- Customers' suggestions and recommendations. The main aim of this question is to guess customers' suggestions and recommendations. Results highlighted that, 24% of the respondents had no experience to propose suggestions and recommendations. In the other side, 76% of the customers had enough experience to indicate some suggestions and recommendations include the following:  Should have corporation for the restaurant staff avoid individualism.  More attention for staff selecting.  Listen to your staff and your guests and chair them.  More attention for the languages level (English, Russian, Italian).  Need more awareness of personnel hygiene and sanitation.  Staff should be aware of the standard importance.  Make changes when you need to.  Marketing research study and customer needs analysis should be frequency.  Chains should be aware of market new trends.  The effective use for the Internet through survey, or questionnaire for the guest through the Internet.  A name must be memorable and should be easy to pronounce.  A logo is the restaurant's identifying mark that the public will recognize.  The price of the meal should be related according to perceived value for money and be in line with customer's expectations.  Nutritional facts should be shown for the guest chain should include nutritional information on the packaging of all of its products.  Fresh juices, decaffeinated, water or low fat milk making good choices when the guest are eating out will help the guest maintain a healthy diet care about nutrition value should be taken.  More variety in soups, salads, and fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, cereals, and other group products.  Special meals for diabetic, heart problems, high blood, sports, healthy food items.
  80. 80. 81  More care for the kids (kid's meals, kid's gifts, kid's birthdays, kid's area, and kids in the school.  Soda is highly caloric and not nutritious – kids should have water or milk instead.  Avoid chicken nuggets – fried nuggets are sorry imposters of very chicken  Skip the fries - consider taking along a bag of mini carrots, grapes or other fruits and vegetables to have instead. This will add vitamins and fiber to the meal.  Order the kids meal with some substitutions.  In sit-down restaurants, help them for chicken and vegetables rather than a big plate of macaroni and cheese.  Chain should not try to find more customers for its products, but to find more products for its customers.  Home delivery need to be covering all the distances, single- telephone-number systems in delivery firms use computerized guest histories to facilitate order taking, could make the order through the internet.  Development of, drive in, and drive through services.  Credit cards are convenient to the guest, credit card payment should be acceptable, and credit card machine should be available.  New product should be frequency every limited period.  Creating a web site, hot line or other advertisement that makes the users meeting with your product or service memorable, fun or useful.  Need enough area for the youth (comfortable chairs, ART channels, Wi- Fi wireless connection with the Internet.  More care about catering for banks, schools, factories.  Customer feedback is vital to improve product quality.  Value is a big lure.  Chains have to reach the customer in a way that is compatible with their beliefs, language, needs and expectations.  To be flexible with the changing times, chains have to be flexible with the needs of the guest.  Aligning your customer service with your brand is the best way
  81. 81. 81 to build a solid relationship.  More and more sales are taking place in trade outlets such as forecourt shops and convenience stores.  Dealing well with problems and queries.  Providing a personal touch.  Customers expect fast foods to be served quickly.  Mention portion control, plate design. Personal data analysis.-Question NO. (11): Table 11: Personal data analysis. Variables Categories Percent Gender Male Female 69.2% 30.8% Level of age Less than 25 years From 25 to 40 More than 40 40.3% 51% 8.7% Martial status Single Married without children Married with children 54.8% 19.2% 26% Nationality Egyptian Foreigner 77.9% 22.1%
  82. 82. 82 4.4 Interview Response Rate Out of 42 fast food restaurants' managers in Sharm El Sheikh (study population), 36 of them accepted to make interview with the researcher and they appear greet cooperation with the researcher, only 8 persons apologized to make interview with the researcher saying that they are not ready to deal with the researcher as they are too busy. Table 12: Interview's response rate Category Independent Local chains International chains Total Number targeted 12 16 16 44 Number shared 9 15 12 36 Response rate 75 % 93.8 % 75 % 81.8 % 4.5 Interview Analysis Results and Discussion The next analysis of the questions is ranking according to the objectives of the interview as follows.
  83. 83. 83 Question NO. (1):- Managers evaluation for QSRs in Egypt The main aim of this question is to illustrate managers’ evaluation for QSRs in Egypt. Figure 17 helps this aim and highlights that 88.9% of managers accepted the fast food chains in Egypt as a successful experiment, while; only 11.1% of the respondents indicated that it was acceptable. 11.1% 88.9% 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 SuccessfulAcceptable Figure 17: Managers evaluation for QSRs in Egypt. Restaurant managers proposed the following reasons for that success:  Operations provide fast service with good quality.  Good meals with cheap prices  Very famous, very clean and trust.  Customers can find it in every place and it's easy to deal with.  The man and woman are working and there is no time for cooking.

×