Company Research Analysis - Essay Example

?QUESTIONAIRE: SECTION ONE: PERSONAL INFROMATION Are you: Male Female 2. What is your age? 18-24 35-44 55-64 25-34 45-54 65 or over 3. What is thehighest level of formal education you have completed? (Please check only one.) Attended High School Attended College Post-Graduate Study Without Degree Graduated High School Graduated College Post-Graduate Degree 4. What is your marital status? Married Separated or Divorced Single, Never Married Widowed 5. How many children under the age of 18 live in your household? 6. How much time did you spend at the center ? _____________ 7. What is your profession ? _____________________ 8. How often in a year will you be in a convention or conference center? [ ] 1 – 2 times [ ] 3 – 5 times [ ] 5 or more times. 9. Was this your first visit ? Yes/NO 10. Would you recommend the center to friends or professional contacts ? YES/NO 11. Would you come back to the center ? YES/NO SECTION TWO. SUBSECTION A: QUALITY SURVEY: 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Very Good 5 Excellent QUESTION Scale 1. WHAT WAS YOUR OVER-ALL EXPERIENCE LIKE? 1 2 3 4 5 2. HOW DID YOUR EXPERIENCE COMPARE WITH YOUR EXPECTATIONS? 1 2 3 4 5 3. HOW WELL ORGANIZED WERE THE SIGNS & DIRECTIONS? 1 2 3 4 5 4. HOW COURTEOUS WAS THE STAFF AT THE CENTER? 1 2 3 4 5 5. HOW CLEAN AND TIDY DID THE CENTER SEEM TO YOU ? 1 2 3 4 5 6. RATE YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE PARKING FACILITIES ? 1 2 3 4 5 7. RATE THE AMENITIES THAT YOU USED LIKE WASHROOMS 1 2 3 4 5 8. RATE YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY OF OUR SPECIAL SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 9. HOW DID YOU LIEK THE FOOD SERVED AT THE CENTER? 1 2 3 4 5 10. HOW WAS THE SOUND OR AUDIO SYSTEM AT YOUR PRESENTATION? 1 2 3 4 5 11. HOW WAS THE VISIBILITY OF ANY PRESENTATIONS YOU SAW? 1 2 3 4 5 12. RATE THE ADMINISTRATION AT THE CENTER IF YOU USED THEM ? 1 2 3 4 5 SECTION TWO – SUBSECTION B - IMPORTANCE SURVEY: 1 Not important at all 2 Somewhat unimportant 3 No opinion either way 4 Somewhat Important 5 Extremely Important Question Scale 13. HOW IMPORTANT TO WORK WAS YOUR VISIT? 1 2 3 4 5 14. RATE THE IMPORTANCE OF CONFERENCE FACILITIES TO YOUR PROFESSION 1 2 3 4 5 15. HOW IMPORTANT IS THE LOCATION OF A CONFERENCE CENTER TO YOU? 1 2 3 4 5 16. HOW IMPORTANT TO YOU IS SUPPORT STAFF AT A CONVENTION CENTER? 1 2 3 4 5 17. HOW IMPORTANT TO YOU ARE THE TECHNOLOGIES USED TO DELIVER PRESENTATIONS? 1 2 3 4 5 18. HOW IMPORTANT TO YOU IS THE AVAILABLITY OF FOOD AT A CONVENTION OR CONFERENCE CENTER? 1 2 3 4 5 19. HOW IMPORTANT TO YOU IS THE SETTING OR ENVIRONMENT WHERE YOU MEET CLIENTS? 1 2 3 4 5 20. HOW IMPORTANT IS ACCESSABILITY BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR YOU? 1 2 3 4 5 21. HOW IMPORTANT IS AVAILABLE PARKING TO YOUR CONVENTION NEEDS? 1 2 3 4 5 22. HOW IMPORTANT TO YOU ARE MAJOR URBAN LOCATIONS LIKE LONDON FOR A CONFERENCE CENTER? 1 2 3 4 5 23. HOW IMPORTANT TO YOU ARE SUPPORT STAFF AT A CONVENTION CENTER ? 1 2 3 4 5 24. HOW IMPORTANT TO YOU IS CONSISTENCY WHEN DEALING WITH A CONVENTION OR CONFERENCE CENTER ? 1 2 3 4 5 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ //--/--// 1 b. QUESTIONAIRE ANALYSIS: While there are some important and notable limitations or slight problems, the content of the questions is arguably the biggest strength of the questionnaire First, the content is a solid reflection of the needs in consideration. That is, the questions capture both the general concerns of anyone who is visiting a conference center, but also and very specifically, addressing the needs of someone who has a part or role in booking or carrying on the administrative function of interacting with a conference or convention center. The general questions are primarily focused on the facilities, and the staffing. The focus can be said on both acknowledging or recognizing what is needed or required, over and against the specific needs of a conference goer. While there is some room and some questions that focus on the specific area that a given conference goer might be professionally affiliated with, the general nature of the questions can be said to be issues or concerns that would reflect almost anyone. And, by anyone, it is implied in terms beyond the conference or convention attendee. That is, they are the kind of questions that could be posed to anyone visiting just about any facility. One of the significant dimensions of approaching the survey in such broad terms, is that it establishes a type or a form of baseline, so to speak. That is, it establishes a baseline of very minimal or universal expectations held by individuals for just about any public space. Thus, with having the general baseline be any public facility or building, a more refined sense can be established of what is wanted or desired from a convention center or conference center, in very specific terms. There is a clear line between those type or forms of questions that are phrased to address general concerns, from those type or form of questions that are very pointedly directed toward determining the needs or interests of people with a focused or professional interest in convention centers. Having looked at the contents from the most general perspective, and in turn, established a baseline for what is expected for any facility, it is now possible to begin examining how the questions are aimed at specific interests or needs of the conference or convention goers. At the first level, the questions are very good insofar as they establish some general aspects of the convention or conference attendee. Individuals, for example, are asked in the questionnaire about their demographic background -- that is, their age, gender and profession, but also, what specifically they have come to use the convention center for. Further to the issues that specifically address the nature of the convention experience, the questionnaire has a strong focus on comparative thinking. That is, the critical or the crucial areas of getting the visitor to compare their past experiences with other convention centers, is an approach that has a strong potential outcome. The questions in this sense, are facilitating and provoking the collection of information that goes beyond the center itself. That is, while there are questions that really just seem to compare the center with itself, there are also questions that try and engage the visitor with the best practices that they have encountered before? Arguably, the content at this level is its most strongest as a marketing research tool. The net benefit of drawing on an individuals past experience is potentially very rewarding, and it would not be unthinkable that some of the individuals who filled out the questionnaire, were individuals who have traveled throughout the world attending conventions and conferences. The questionnaire in a sense can benefit from the best practices of other centers given that the questions themselves are very comparative in scope. One can imagine the cost savings of learning about other institutions or centers in this regard or sense. The basic cost of traveling to any particular convention center or using a consultant to compare centers is basically mitigated or overcome by the way that the questions are phrased. In short, comparative questions are arguably one of the core strengths of the questionnaire with respect to the 'content' of the questionnaire as a whole. Finally, it should be stressed that there is a collection of basic demographic information captured by the questions. The first section in particular, asks some of the main background information that allows the researcher to analyze the individuals or type of individuals over and against their particular needs. It would not be possible to do pointed analysis of conference needs by profession, without first capturing the basic demographic information that is mostly laid out in the first section of the questionnaire One of the strengths of using demographic information as a building block, as it creates an easy transition to further study. By measuring the results of some professions against others, the center can begin to target market their facility. In other words, are there particular needs or particular professions that the facility holds a particular appeal? The questionnaire in this regard, allows for any easy or targeted follow-up. That is, the questionnaire allows for the organization to follow up with a focused or pointed marketing strategy, but also follow up in terms of producing further market research questionnaires -- that is, questionnaires that will allow the organization to serve the particular needs of some professions but also expand to accommodate the needs or wishes expressed in the questionnaires In other words, the questionnaire serves a dual function of establishing information that can be further analyzed, and it has information that will serve for particular marketing strategies. For example, this survey or the content of the questions for this survey, will allow the organization to focus on particular trade periodicals or particular professional associations. There is thus an advance toward market segmentation and the basic understanding of it. It is market segmentation that leads to better or more focused surveys, but also leads to better services themselves. In terms of some of the limitations of the content of the questionnaire, arguably, one of its strengths is also one of its weaknesses. It has been said so far that because it leaves itself open to further analysis in a functional way is one of its strengths, it is also one of its weaknesses. There is no reason why the questionnaire could not have focused some questions that were specific to the usage. That is, there are no questions that tries to very specifically try and determine some of the use, needs and functions for participants on a very individual level. While the survey will be able to yield what a lawyer might need in general, that is the problem. There could be more specific information solicited so, for example, we are aware not just what lawyers would need in general, but what a criminal lawyer as opposed to a real-estate lawyer might need. Arguably, a more specific type or form of questionnaire in this sense could yield better results for future marketing strategies. Having looked at the questions from the perspective of their content, the following will analyze and critique The structure and presentation format and that will include the type of questions asked. There are a few notable problems with the form and structure. Very obviously, this is a survey that is beyond a mere clipboard or a mere few minutes of an individuals time. One of the problems is therefore, the relative size of the survey. It can be said that large surveys or those that are asking for more than five minutes of an individuals time, are not going to succeed at attracting many willing respondents. Arguably, the questionnaire could be a little shorter in this regard. Second, the structure could have included much shorter responses. While the majority of questions are focused on quality or importance, and they are consequently, gradations, some of the questions are more involved. This is mentioned because these latter type or form of questions cannot be readily tabulated. The response is qualitative rather than quantitative. It could have 'grouped' the responses. For instance, rather than asking what profession an individual belonged to, a list of groups could have been made available for the respondent to choose from. This form of question would have been easier to both tabulate and analyze. In terms of the flow of questions from one section to the next, it can be said that the questionnaire is pretty solid. The sections in question are both succinct in terms of the content that is being sought, but also the form. That is, where the content being sought is different, so too with the form of the questions. Therefore, the separation of the questionnaire into the given sections, serves a very useful function as it keeps the areas of questions separate from one another. Further, the flow is good in that the type or the form of questions move from the very general, to the very specific. The respondent is asked to respond on the broadest issues at the outset of the survey, and in turn, they are gradually or progressively led toward questions that are very specific to what is being sought in this analysis. The instructions provided with the questionnaire, are very straight forward and very visually easy to navigate. One of the strengths of the questionnaire, is the ease at which an individual can both read and respond to the given questions PARK 2. A.: The 'welcome' provided to visitors to the conference center was rated on a quality scale from 1 to 3. 1 represents 'Good', 2. Neutral and 3. Poor. What is important about the ratings, and noteworthy is the relative percentage that found it poor over and against those who found it good. As indicated in the chart above, only 2 % of the 100 respondents found that the greeting that the received at the very outset of their visit was good. Conversely, the vast majority or 76 % found that their experience of the welcome was poor. The 'mean' overall was 2.74. 2.i.b. MAIN AUDITORIUM The data tracking the 'main auditorium' was rated on a quality scale from 1 to 3. 1 represents 'Good', 2. Neutral and 3. Poor. 2.i.c. CATERING The data tracking the 'catering' was rated on a quality scale from 1 to 3. 1 represents 'Good', 2. Neutral and 3. Poor. 2.i.d. FACILITIES: The data tracking the 'facilities' was rated on a quality scale from 1 to 3. 1 represents 'Good', 2. Neutral and 3. Poor. 2.i.e. SEMINAR ROOMS: The seminar room where the individual spent the most amount of their time. 2.i.f. SCORE : 2.i.g. AGE : The age of the visitor measured in years. Valid total: 100 Missing 0 |Mean AGE: 48.42 |Minimum : 22 |Maximum: 80 2.ii ii. TO WHAT EXTENT IS GENDER ASSOCIATED WITH FACILITIES, CATERING AND WELCOME FIGURE: GENDER & FACILITIES: GOOD NEUTRAL POOR MALE 10 29 4 FEMALE 3 22 29 FIGURE: GENDER & CATERING GOOD NEUTRAL POOR MALE 18 15 10 FEMALE 19 22 15 FIGURE: GENDER & WELCOME GOOD NEUTRAL POOR MALE 2 13 27 FEMALE 0 8 47 iii. TO WHAT EXTENT IF ANY DOES GENDER INFLUENCE SCORE? Women are unquestionably rating the core higher than men. Iv TO WHAT EXTENT IF ANY DOES FUNDING INFLUENCE SCORE? : Individuals who funded their own visit, were less satisfied with their visit than those who had their visit paid by their employer. V. TO WHAT EXTENT IF ANY DOES SEMINAR ROOM INFLUENCE OVERALL SCORE ? The Seminar is the room where the visitor spent the most amount of time. 1. Westminister Room, 2. Cantebury Suite and the 3. York Suite. The Westminister Room and the Cantebury Suite were far more liked or popular than the York Suite. VI: ASSESS THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE OVERALL SCORE IS ASSOCIATED WITH TWO CONTINUOUS QUANTITATIVE MEASURES: Figure: Score & Age. The Chart demonstrates the consistency of age and Score. The younger the individual or respondent is, the greater the probability that there will be a low score rated out of 100. Figure: Score & Gender: The above chart demonstrates that females overwhelmingly have a higher satisfaction rating than males. VII. REGRESSION ANALYSIS: Variables: Variable 1: HOURS: |Mean: 12.95 |Minimum: 3.00 |Maximum: 24.00 Variable 2: AGE: Mean: 48.42 Minimum: 22. Maximum: 80 Variable 3: SCORE: Mean: 68.37 Minimum: 10 Maximum: 100 Variable 4 INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE 35 & THEIR SCORES: Person 1 = > 6 HOURS => 62/100 Person 2 => 10 HOURS => 88/100 Person 3 => 17 HOURS => 87/100 AVERAGE FOR X3 INDIVIDUALS @ AGE 35 = 11 HOURS + 79/100 SCORE AGE HOURS SCORE MEAN 48.82 12.95 68.37 AGE 35 35 11 79 REGRESSION MODEL: T-TEST: PAIRED SAMPLES MEAN N. STD DEVIATION SE. MEAN AGE 48.42 100 16.49 1.65 HOURS 12.95 100 6.07 .61 CONCLUSIONS: AVERAGES AS AN EXPRESSION: AGE 34 – 36 = 12 HOURS + 71 / SCORE PREDICTION: Someone who is 35 and spends 10 Hours will predictably have a score of 75 PREDICTION II: Someone who is 55 and spends an average of 40 Hours will predictably have a score of: 80.73 B: Managerial Implications - recommendations to the manager The data in the current study, yields a number of important conclusions that will be outlined in the following. The criteria for importance in the following recommendations is two-fold. First, those factors which have a strong or significant impact on the score will be outline. Second, those factors or variables that demonstrate some of the general overall trends will be examined. Concerning both areas, it will be shown exactly where and how, the numbers being presented can lead to some direct recommendations as far as change goes. First, in terms of the general demographics of the study in question, there are a number of important broad trends worth noting. In terms of the gender distinction, it can be said unequivocally that women scored much higher than men overall. Likewise, the older the individual was, the more likely that the individual in question was satisfied with their experience at the conference center. While the male/female distinction is one that is notable in statistical terms, the variation in difference is no where near as pronounced as the distinction in outcomes where the age variable is being concerned. In short, visitors who were in the younger age category or the younger age bracket, were significantly less satisfied than older individuals. Indeed, the age 40 is somewhat of a dividing line. The majority of individuals who were over the age of forty had a higher score than the majority of individuals who were under the age of 40. What can be inferred in terms of recommendations from these very general observations is that the center needs to do much more in terms of finding out what it is that women particularly like about the center, and likewise older individuals as well. Conversely, finding out what the deficits are and why is similarly an important for further research. Not only does the center have to improve on its appeal to younger individuals, and also men, but it also has to find out why it is that there is such a poor score among both groups -- and, younger individuals as a whole (both men and women) is in current terms a much more severe problem. In terms of comparative data that can be built on for positive outcomes. There is a real difference between the rooms that are used. In particular, the Westminster Room held a much higher appeal than the other seminar rooms. The difference or range of opinion on the seminar rooms, was one of the clearest ranges of differences from which recommendations can be determined. Further research that the management team can conduct, will ask what it was about the Westmnister room as opposed to the other two rooms that held such significance. The converse is also true, what was it about the poorly rated rooms that made them so distinct from the Westminister. This range of differences ought to lead to more research, but also the agenda of building on the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses. What was appealing about the Westminster room can unquestionably be incorporated or adapted to the other two rooms in question. One of the most alarming sets of data accumulated in this study, concerns the welcome that the individuals receive when they arrive at the center. The rating for the Welcome was such that only 2 % of the 100 respondents rated the Welcome as 'good' while an alarming 76 % rated the welcome poorly. Only 22 % of the 100 respondents were neutral about the welcome. This is an important area for two-reasons: First, the welcome is important because it arguably establishes a mood or an overall tone/impression of the center at the outset. The second reason that this is an important consideration, is because there is no mistaking the data on this issue. It is not a subtle distinction between those who found the welcome in favorable terms, from those who found it to be quite poor. One of the strong recommendations that come out of this fact is that the welcome unquestionably has to be changed. Research needs to be done in order to establish why the welcome was so poor, and from that research a new protocal and set of procedures can be established. The welcome unquestionably should be changed from its current set-up to something completely other than its current status. CONVENTION CENTER DATA ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Read More