CANTEEN SATISFACTION SURVEY
Author- Shriya Pant 021331025426
Pratibha Singh Rathore
Divyansh Jain
Introduction-
Understanding what drives student satisfaction at a canteen or food court is critical for improving service quality, food offerings, and the overall dining experience. Students often face time constraints and limited choices, making the canteen a key part of their daily academic life. Their satisfaction depends on a complex interplay of factors such as food taste, hygiene standards, waiting time, and the range of food options available.
This study aims to uncover the hidden structure behind student satisfaction responses collected through a primary survey. By identifying latent dimensions and grouping respondents with similar behavioural patterns, educational institutions can make targeted improvements.
Objectives-
1. To identify the underlying factors of canteen satisfaction using Factor Analysis.
2. To segment students into distinct groups based on satisfaction patterns using Cluster Analysis.
Data Collection-
A structured questionnaire was administered to 80 students of ITM Business School. The survey captured responses on the following variables:
· The taste of food served in the canteen is satisfactory
· The food is fresh and hygienically prepared
· The variety of food options available meets my expectation
· The serving staff are polite and helpful
· The waiting time to get food is reasonable
· The canteen environment (cleanliness, seating, ambiance) is comfortable
· The prices of food items are affordable for student
· The food offers good value for money
· Overall, I am satisfied with the canteen services
· I would recommend the canteen to new students
A Likert table is provided with following codes:
Strongly Disagree: 1
Disagree: 2
Neutral: 3
Agree: 4
Strongly Agree: 5
We approached student of ITM Business School for our primary research.
Data Analysis-
Factor Analysis:
|
KMO and Bartlett’s Test |
||
|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. |
.959 |
|
|
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity |
Approx. Chi-Square |
1568.770 |
|
df |
45 |
|
|
Sig. |
<.001 |
|
Analysis of KMO and Bartlett’s Test:
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is highly significant (p < .001), confirming that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and that meaningful relationships exist among the variables. This indicates that factor analysis is statistically justified for this dataset.
The KMO value of 0.959 is above the conventional threshold of 0.50, which typically indicates very good sampling adequacy, suggesting that the data is suitable for factor analysis. that the partial correlations are smaller relative to the simple correlations.
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity < 0.001, indicating that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and that meaningful relationships exist among the variables. Therefore, factor analysis is appropriate and justified for this dataset.
|
Total Variance Explained |
|||||||
|
Component |
Initial Eigenvalues |
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings |
|
||||
|
Total |
% of Variance |
Cumulative % |
Total |
% of Variance |
Cumulative % |
|
|
|
1 |
8.843 |
88.425 |
88.425 |
8.843 |
88.425 |
88.425 |
|
|
2 |
.224 |
2.245 |
90.670 |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
.168 |
1.681 |
92.351 |
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
.148 |
1.475 |
93.826 |
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
.134 |
1.335 |
95.161 |
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
.126 |
1.258 |
96.419 |
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
.116 |
1.160 |
97.579 |
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
.102 |
1.021 |
98.600 |
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
.085 |
.849 |
99.449 |
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
.055 |
.551 |
100.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. |
|
||||||
Analysis of Total Variance Explained:
The results show that two components were extracted based on the eigenvalue criterion (eigenvalue > 1).
• Component 1 has an eigenvalue of 8.843 and explains 88.425% of the total variance.
Together, these two components explain 88.425% of the total variance, indicating that they capture the large majority of information present in the dataset. The remaining components have eigenvalues less than 1 and contribute minimally, therefore they were not retained.
|
Component Matrixa |
||
|
|
Component |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
The taste of food served in the canteen is satisfactory |
.937 |
|
|
The food is fresh and hygienically prepared. |
.935 |
|
|
The variety of food options available meets my expectation |
.943 |
|
|
The serving staff are polite and helpful |
.945 |
|
|
The waiting time to get food is reasonable |
.939 |
|
|
The canteen environment (cleanliness, seating, ambiance) is comfortable |
.940 |
|
|
The prices of food items are affordable for student |
.944 |
|
|
The food offers good value for money |
.942 |
|
|
Overall, I am satisfied with the canteen services |
.940 |
|
|
I would recommend the canteen to new students |
.938 |
|
|
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. |
|
|
|
a. 1 components extracted. |
|
|
Due to the presence of high cross-loadings, factor rotation (Varimax method) was applied to obtain a clear, interpretable, and meaningful factor structure.
Cluster Analysis:
The method we are using for cluster analysis is K Mean Cluster
|
Initial Cluster Centres |
|||
|
|
Cluster |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
The taste of food served in the canteen is satisfactory |
5 |
4 |
|
|
The food is fresh and hygienically prepared. |
2 |
1 |
|
|
The variety of food options available meets my expectation |
5 |
4 |
|
|
The serving staff are polite and helpful |
5 |
3 |
|
|
The waiting time to get food is reasonable |
5 |
2 |
|
|
The canteen environment (cleanliness, seating, ambiance) is comfortable |
5 |
1 |
|
|
The prices of food items are affordable for student |
5 |
5 |
|
|
The food offers good value for money |
4 |
5 |
|
|
Overall, I am satisfied with the canteen services |
1 |
2 |
|
|
I would recommend the canteen to new students |
4 |
1 |
|
|
Final Cluster Centres |
|
|
|
Cluster |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
The taste of food served in the canteen is satisfactory |
5 |
1 |
|
The food is fresh and hygienically prepared. |
1 |
2 |
|
The variety of food options available meets my expectation |
5 |
4 |
|
The serving staff are polite and helpful |
1 |
1 |
|
The waiting time to get food is reasonable |
5 |
5 |
|
The canteen environment (cleanliness, seating, ambiance) is comfortable |
4 |
2 |
|
The prices of food items are affordable for student |
5 |
5 |
|
The food offers good value for money |
4 |
5 |
|
Overall, I am satisfied with the canteen services |
2 |
1 |
|
I would recommend the canteen to new students |
2 |
1 |
|
Number of Cases in each Cluster |
|||
|
Cluster |
1 |
23.000 |
|
|
2 |
75.000 |
|
|
|
Valid |
98.000 |
|
|
|
Missing |
.000 |
|
|
Analysis of Final Cluster Centers
The final cluster centres represent the average scores of variables after convergence, showing two clearly distinct student groups based on fear of failure dimensions.
Cluster 1 – Good Variety But not good hygiene:
This cluster shows high scores (5) on:
· Variety of food options
· Taste of food satisfactory
And low scores (2) on:
· Food hygiene and freshness
· Overall satisfaction
This indicated that students find the variety and taste of the canteen food good but their experience in terms of hygiene is not great.
Cluster 2 – Affordability of food prices but dissatisfied with the services.
This cluster shows high scores (5) on:
· Affordable prices of food
· Good value for money
And low scores (2) on:
· Services of the staff
· Overall satisfaction
This shows that the students are happy with the prices of the canteen food but are dissatisfied with the staff services and overall functioning.
Table of Members:
Cluster Membership
Case Number Cluster Distance
|
1 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
2 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
3 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
4 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
5 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
6 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
7 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
8 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
9 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
10 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
11 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
12 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
13 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
14 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
15 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
16 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
17 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
18 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
19 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
20 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
21 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
22 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
23 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
24 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
25 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
26 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
27 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
28 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
29 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
30 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
31 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
32 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
33 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
34 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
35 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
36 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
37 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
38 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
39 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
40 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
41 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
42 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
43 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
44 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
45 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
46 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
47 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
48 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
49 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
50 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
51 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
52 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
53 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
54 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
55 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
56 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
57 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
58 |
1 |
1.966 |
|
59 |
1 |
2.182 |
|
60 |
1 |
1.839 |
|
61 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
62 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
63 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
64 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
65 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
66 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
67 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
68 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
69 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
70 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
71 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
72 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
73 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
74 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
75 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
76 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
77 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
78 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
79 |
2 |
2.551 |
|
80 |
2 |
2.551 |
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Analysis of Cluster Membership:
The cluster membership results show that all 92 respondents have been successfully classified into two distinct clusters based on similarity in their fear of failure responses.
• Cluster 1: 60 respondents
• Cluster 2: 20 respondents
Conclusion:
The study successfully examined the underlying dimensions regarding the services and reviews of the canteen among students of ITM Business School using Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis. The KMO value (0.959) and significant Bartlett’s Test (p < 0.001) confirmed that the data was suitable for factor analysis. The results revealed a strong two-factor structure explaining approximately 88.425% of the total variance, indicating a highly reliable and meaningful model.
The two major dimensions identified were:
1. Good Variety But not good hygiene – This dimension reflects appreciation for the good variety and taste of the food but high dissatisfaction among the students when it comes to hygiene.
2. Affordability of food prices but dissatisfied with the services – This dimension represents students being in favour of the affordable prices but very unhappy with the staff and canteen’s services .
Further, K-Means Cluster Analysis classified students into two distinct groups:
• Cluster 1 (60 students): Good Variety But not good hygiene
• Cluster 2 (20 students): Affordability of food prices but dissatisfied with the services
Overall, the findings indicate that the students are very dissatisfied with the quality and services of the canteen although they find the prices and taste very affordable. Taking constant quality checks and counselling the staff to encourage them for providing the students with better services will be very helpful in gaining back the student trust in the canteen.