QUALITY CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT

PRACTICES AMONG FAST FOOD RETAIL

OUTLETS IN SOUTHWESTERN NIGERIA



BY



FAKOKUNDE, TOLUTOPE OLUBAMIJI
(99/68MJ002)

B.Sc.(Business Administration) Unilag, MBA., FUTA,
M.Sc.(Management Science), Unilorin, ANIM., AISMN.



BEING A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE POSTGRADUATE
SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN, ILORIN,
NIGERIA.

OCTOBER 2010



2

CERTIFICATION
We certify that this work was carried out by Tolutope Olubamiji
Fakokunde, Department of Business Administration, University of Ilorin, Ilorin.


.
DR (MRS) S.L. ADEYEMI Date
Supervisor


.
DR. J . A. BAMIDURO Date
Head of Department



.
DR. J . O. OLUJ IDE Date
Postgraduate Studies Coordinator
( Business Admin.)



..
PROF. K. J OSEPH
Internal Examiner Date


..
PROF. I.O. ABIMBOLA Date
Dean of Postgraduate School



3

DEDICATION

This project is dedicated to the Highest Authority on earth and in
heaven and to all Fakokundes that ever lived and yet unborn, especially to my
late father, Samson Oluwatusin, who waited painfully to hear this good news
on his sick bed before joining the saints triumphant.



4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
What shall I say unto the Lord? All I have to say is thank you Lord.
(Psalm 118:23). I therefore cannot but appreciate God in the lives of the
following people whom He used in one way or the other for the successful
completion of this programme.
Im greatly indebted to my supervisor, Dr. (Mrs.) S.L. Adeyemi, who
adopted me and accepted to supervise this thesis, despite her tight
schedules of duties, after the passing to the great beyond of Dr. J .A. Adeoti.
The successful completion of this thesis would not have been possible without
your timely intervention, motherly guidance and academic charisma. Thank
you ma, for the confidence reposed in me. Also, to the departed, I solemnly
recognize the solid foundation laid for this academic work.
I would also not forget in a hurry, Dr. J . O. Olujide for his personalized
attention, uncommon tutelage and fatherly nurture. Your spring of knowledge
will never run dry. Kudos to Dr. J .A. Bamiduro, the amiable Head of
Department, Dr. Umar Gunu, Dr. R.A. Gbadeyan, Dr. (Pastor) J .O. Adeoti, Dr.
O.A. Ilesanmi, Dr. D.G. Adejumo, Dr. J .A. Oladipo and other lecturers and
staff in the faculty and the PG School, including other colleagues on the
programme, for the friendly and conducive environment provided for the study.
More grease to your elbows.
I acknowledge the following great personalities for their various inputs,
encouragements and supports towards the successful completion of the
programme; Prof. A. F. Adedayo, (Dean, Faculty of Business and Social
Sciences, Unilorin), Prof. J .F. Olorunfemi, (Faculty of BSS, PG Boards
Representative, Unilorin), Dr. Bukoye Arowolo (Department of European
Languages, Unilorin), Dr. A. M. Arowomole (Department of Business
Administration, Federal Polytechnic, Ede), Dr. O.A. Adebile (Deputy Rector,
Federal Polytechnic, Ede), Dr. & Mrs Ademola Adejumo (Fine Arts
Department, O.A.U., Ile-Ife), Prof. Diran Famurewa, (Provost, College of
Science, Engineering and Technology, Osun State University). Special thanks



5

to Prof. J .A. Oloyede (Dean, Faculty of Management Sciences, UNAD, Ado-
Ekiti), Dr. H.T. Iwarere (Head, Department of Accounting, UNAD, Ado-Ekiti)
and Dr. Olajide Oladele, my pragmatic Head of Department, Business
Administration, University of Ado-Ekiti. Also noteworthy are: Prince & Mrs
Dapo Oyinlola and Pa & Evang.(Mrs) Isaac Falase families of Erin-Oke,
Venerable Dayo Ojo (Osun Anglican Archdeaconry), Pastor Funso Akande
(Ori-Oke Baba Abiye, Ede), Rev.(Mrs.) M.B. Babalola (Gods Women Mission,
Osogbo) and Evang. & Mrs. G.O. Bolaji. Also, I do not forget the efforts and
good gestures of Larry Moses Elebiyo, Deji Adeoti and his entire family at
Shaare, Mr. Ayotunde Ibitoye, the data processing expert (Globacom, Yola),
Mr. S.A. Ajiboye ( Former Registrar, College of Education, Ikere-Ekiti), Mr. &
Mrs. I.O.S. Okeya (Liverpool) and Rev. Benjamin Adekunle Adeniyi for various
materials sent down from Geneva, Switzerland. You are all God-sent. God
bless you all.
I will forever remember my late big brother, Olukunle Fakokunde, J P,
who until, that gruesome life-puncturing incident in J une 2005, was the Deputy
Registrar (Academics) at the Osun State College of Technology, Esa-Oke, for
introducing me to the academic circle. For you and other departed beloved
souls, the labour of our heroes past shall never be in vain.
I greatly acknowledge the fervent prayers and moral supports of my
entire household, most especially, my heartthrob and jewel of inestimable
value, Prophetess Toyosi and our Precious Boluwatito, Victor Oluwatoyose,
Mercy Oluwatunmise and Victoria Anjola Titilopemi. You all held the fort
patiently while the programme lasted. I am particularly grateful to my late dad,
Samson, and mum, Sarah (Big Daddy and Big Mummy), for channeling this
best course for me. Big mummy, you will live longer to eat more of the fruits of
your labour. Also acknowledged are my siblings and their immediate families,
Lt-Col. Yinka Fakokunde, Mrs Funke Agboola- Thomas, Mrs Dupe Akinde and
Capt. Temitayo Fakokunde. Best wishes to my colleagues and students at the
University of Ado-Ekiti who contributed in one way or the other to the success



6

of this programme. Also best wishes to all my cousins, in-laws, friends and
other compatriots I came across during the study, especially NAFDAC and
C.A.C. officials, and others too numerous to mention.
I gave all honour and adoration to my Lord and Saviour, J esus Christ,
for leading me thou on and thus far.
Tolutope Olubamiji Fakokunde
October, 2010.



7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page.i
Certificationii
Dedication.iii
Acknowledgement.iv
Table of Contents.vii
List of Tables.............................................................................xi
List of Figures.xiv
List of Appendicesxv
Abstract...xvi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.. 1 11
1.1 Background to the Study........1
1.2 Statement of the Problem.. 5
1.3 Objectives of the Study......7
1.4 J ustification for the Study ......8
1.5 Research Questions..10
1.6 Scope of the Study .......10

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW....12 - 107
2.1 Introduction...... ...12
2.2. The Concept of Quality ...12
2.2.1 The Evolution of Quality (The Quality Revolution) ...16
2.3. The Product Concept .......24
2.3.1 Broadened View of a Product .25
2.3.2. The Product- Service Mix ......26
2.4. Quality Measurements and Appraisal Methods ..28
2.4.1. Quality Dimensions and Determinants.....................................................29
2.4.2. Measuring Service Quality.......30
2.4.2.1.Service Quality Indicators....31
2.5. Quality Appraisal in the Fast Food Industry....33



8

2.5.1 Customers Perception of Fast Food Service Quality....35
2.5.1.1.Service Quality Gaps39
2.6. The Cost of Quality .42
2.6.1. Significance and Classification of Quality Costs.43
2.6.2. How to Minimize Quality Cost .......46
2.7. Total Quality Management...47
2.7.1. The Core Concepts of TQM.51
2.7.2. Fundamental Principles of TQM..56
2.7.3. The TQM Conceptual Models.............................................63
2.8. The Concept of Quality Control.......68
2.8.1. The Quality Control Process71
2.9. The Concept of Quality Improvement..74
2.10. Fundamentals of Quality Control Programmes....77
2.11. Problem-solving Techniques and Tools in Quality Control and Improvement
Programme.......81
2.12. Quality Assurance Standards and Certification Schemes....87
2.12.1. Standards Used in Assessing Quality ......89
2.12.2. ISO 9000, ISO 14000 and ISO22000...90
2.13. Quality Control and Improvement Practices in the Fast Food Industry..94
2.14. Implementation Model for Quality Control And Improvement in the Fast Food
Industry...100
2.15. Background Information on the Fast Food J ndustry......102

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..108-133
3.1 Introduction....108
3.2 Brief Profiles of Leading Fast Food Operators in Nigeria.108
3.3 Choice of Research Method. .....111
3.4 The Research Problem . .....112
3.5 Data Specification......113
3.5.1. The Study Population.114
3.5.2. Sample Design116
3.6 Methods of Data Collection...122



9

3.6.1. Research Instruments.122
3.6.2. Measurement Scales...124
3.6.3. Research Variables.124
3.7 Methods of Data Analysis......128
3.8 Pilot Study..131
3.9 Limitations..133

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS.134-185
4.1 Introduction134
4.2 General Information About Respondents...134
4.2.1. Response Rate/Background Information134
4.2.2. Frequency Distribution by State Location, Outlet Size, Income Level and Staff
Status..136
4.2.3. Frequency Distribution by Age, Sex, Marital Status, Occupation, Length of Service
and Years of Patronage...139
4.3. Crosstabulation Analysis of Demographic Variables142
4.3.1 Crosstabulation of State- Locations by Staff Demographic Variables...142
4.3.2. Crosstabulation of Sizes of Outlets by Staff Demographic Variables...143
4.3.3. Crosstabulation of Staff Status by Staff Demographic Variables..145
4.3.4. Crosstabulation of State- Location by Customers Demographic Variables...146
4.3.5. Crosstabulation of Size of Outlets by Customers Demographic Variables147
4.3.6. Crosstabulation of Income Group by Customers Demographic Variables............148
4.4. Analysis of Data Associated with Quality Control Practices in the Industry150
4.4.1 Objective 1: Level and Pattern of Fast Food Patronage..150
4.4.2. Objective 2: Adequacy of Quality Control and Improvement Practices in the Fast
Food Industry.155
4.4.3. Objective 3: Empirical Relationship between Customers Patronage and Perceived
Quality161
4.4.4. Objective 4: Empirical Relationship among TQM Factors165
4.4.5. Objective 5: Dominant Factors in Quality Control Practice in the Fast Food
Industry...170



10

4.4.6. Objective 6: Empirical Relationship between Quality Control Practice and
Qrganisation Sales Performance179
4.5. Discussions of Results and Policy Implications.181

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS
AND CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE.186-195
5.1. Introduction186
5.2. Summary of Findings.186
5.3. Conclusions189
5.4. Suggestions and Recommendations for Further Studies190
5.5. Contributions to Knowledge......................194

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......196
APPENDIX....204



11

LIST OF TABLES

2.1. The Quality Phases and System...18
2.2. Tools used in Solving Quality Control Problems............................82
2.3. Applications of Control Charts in Service Organisations86
3.1. Categories of Fast Food Outlets In Southwestern Nigeria.115
3.2. Population of Regulated Fast Food Outlets in Southwestern Nigeria116
3.3. Distribution of Selected Sample of Fast Food Outlets in Southwestern
Nigeria....118
3.4. Distribution of Respondent Staff by Category...119
3.5. Distribution of Respondent Staff of Fast Food Outlets in the Six States of
Southwestern Nigeria. ...119
3.6. Sizes and Proportion of Respondent Customers of Fast Food Outlets in Southwestern
Nigeria... 120
3.7. Distribution of Respondent Customers by Income... 121
3.8. Distribution of Respondent Customers of Fast Food Outlets in the Six States of
Southwestern Nigeria 121
3.9. Description of Variables.125
3.10. Analytical Procedures Matrix129
3.11 Correlation Matrix for Quality Variables in the Fast Food
Industry. 132
4.1. Distribution of Total Response Rate Of Staff and Customers...135
4.2. Distribution of Total Response Rate by State Location.....136
4.3 Respondents Distribution by State, Outlets, Income and Staff Status...138
4.4 Respondents Distribution by Age, Sex, Marital Status, Occupation and Length of
Service141
4.5 Crosstabulation of State- Locations by Staff Demographic Variables...143
4.6 Chi-Square Table of State Locations and Staff Demographic Variables...143
4.7 Crosstabulation of Size of Outlet by Staff Demographic Variables..144
4.8 Chi-Square Table of Sizes of Outlets and Staff Demographic Variables..144
4.9 Crosstabulation of Staff Status by Staff Demographic Variables..145
4.10 Chi-Square Table of Staff Status and Staff Demographic Variables.146
4.11 Crosstabulation of State-Location by Customers Demographic Variables146



12

4.12 Chi-Square Table of State Locations and Customers Demographic Variables..147
4.13 Crosstabulation of Size of Outlet by Customers Demographic Variables.147
4.14 Chi-Square Table of Sizes of Outlets and Customers Demographic Variables.148
4.15 Crosstabulation of Income Group by Customers Demographic Variables149
4.16 Chi-Square Table of Income Groups and Customers Demographic Variables.149
4.17 Chi-Square Table of Frequency of Patronage and Customers Demographic
Variables.151
4.18 Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis of Demographic Variables with
Frequency of Patronage..154
4.19 Final Empirical Results of the Regression Analysis of Demographic Variables with
Frequency of Patronage..154
4.20 ANOVA Table of Frequency of Patronage155
4.21 Concern for Quality Issues By States, Outlets, Income and Staff Categories157
4.22 Chi-Square Table showing Concern For quality Control Practices.......158
4.23 ANOVA Table of Staff and Customers Assessment of Quality in the Fast Food
Industry...159
4.24 Duncans Tests between Average Customers Response to Quality Issues and
Patronage160
4.25 Duncans Tests between Average Staff Response to Quality Issues and
Patronage161
4.26 Customer and Staff Responses to the Influences of Quality on Patronage163
4.27 Chi-Square of Frequency of Patronage and Perceived Quality..164
4.28 Correlation between Frequency of Patronage and Perceived Quality164
4.29 ANOVA Table of Customers Frequency of Patronage and Perceived Quality.165
4.30 Mean Responses to TQM Strategic Issues in the Fast Food Industry166
4.31 Correlations of Major TQM Variables...167
4.32 ANOVA Table on Mean Responses to TQM Issues in the Fast Food Industry....169
4.33 Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis of Continuous Improvement Variables
and Patronage.171
4.34 Final Empirical Results of the Regression Analysis of Continuous Improvement
Variables and Patronage.171
4.35 Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis of Customer-focused Variables and
Patronage173



13

4.36 Final Empirical Results of the Regression Analysis of Customer-focused Variables
and Patronage.173
4.37 Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis of Employee Empowerment Variables and
Patronage174
4.38 Final Empirical Results of the Regression Analysis of Employee Empowerment
Variables and Patronage.174
4.39 The Results of The KMO and The Bartletts Tests176
4.40 Summarised Results of the Factor Analysis of Customer Perceived Quality
Variables.178
4.41 Table showing Assessment of Patronage and Attainment of Sales Targets...180
4.42 Correlation between Quality Practice and Sales Performance...181







14

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1: Quality Perspectives.13
2.2: The Evolution of Quality Management17
2.3 The Servqual Service Quality Model...41
2.4 Graph showing the Determination of Optimum Quality..42
2.5. The Scope of Total Quality..62
2.6. A Simple TQM Model.63
2.7. Oakland Model of TQM..64
2.8. Coles Cycle of TQM..65
2.9 The Three Strategies Angles of Focus Model of TQM............................................66
2.10. The Qality Control Process........71
2.11. The Pyramid of Control72
2.12. The Fishbone Diagram.83
2.13. The Why-Why Diagram...84
2.14 Illustration of How-How Diagram...85
2.15. The Eight Dimensional Model of Total Quality...99
2.16. The Implementation Model of Quality Control and Improvement Practice in the Fast
Food Industry.101




15

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: List of Sampled Fast Food Retail Outlets..204
Appendix 2: Sample of Staff Questionnaire.......205
Appendix 3: Sample of Customer Questionnaire...209
Appendix 4: Frequency Tables of Customer Respondents212
Appendix 5: Frequency Tables of Staff Respondents....216
Appendices 6-19: Data Analysis Sheets.....219-280













16


ABSTRACT

The increased global competitiveness and health awareness have
revitalized the call for fast food firms to put more efforts on quality issues in
relation to customer satisfaction. Unfortunately, the pattern and depth of
responses vary greatly thus leading to a plethora of unethical practices,
unhealthy competition and the existence of gap between fast food customers
expectation and quality delivery. A total reappraisal of this existing system is
therefore necessary towards restoring the waning public confidence and
achieving future survival of the emerging fast food industry in Nigeria. This
study was therefore designed to address the following issues: (i) examining
quality control and improvement practices among fast food retail outlets and its
impact on patronage/performance of the industry in Nigeria; (ii) investigating the
level of concern for the Total Quality Management (TQM) strategies
(continuous improvement, customer-focus and employee empowerment)
influencing fast food service delivery and the relationship between them; and
(iii) appraising the pattern of fast food patronage and its relationship to
customer perceived quality.
This study focused on the formal fast food industry in the six states of
Southwestern Nigeria. A pilot study was conducted to identify the nature and
categories of fast food service providers (small, medium and big) and
customers (low, middle and high income) in the zone. A total of 59 outlets were



17

selected for the study, out of 365 outlets operating in the zone representing
16.2%, using quota sampling technique. About 41% of the outlets were small
(24), 35% medium (21) and 24% big (14). In addition, 324 members of staff of
the sampled outlets and 2506 of their customers were selected, using quota
sampling technique, for questionnaire administration drawn on a 5-point Likert
scale. The analytical methods used are stepwise multiple regression analysis,
factor analysis and ANOVA. While the stepwise regression analysis was used
to analyse data obtained from members of staff, factor analysis was used to
analyse customers responses. ANOVA was used to identify differences in
opinions of respondents.
The major results of this study revealed: (i) the existence of eight quality
factors (competitive benchmarking; 0.28, systematic inspection; 0.12, quality
assurance; 0.18, compliance; 0.12, customer relations; -0.11, teamwork; 0.29,
staff resources; 0.18 and motivation; 0.22), which significantly (0.01) influenced
patronage/performance of fast food retail outlets; (ii) that four service quality
elements (competitiveness; 13.21, empathy/relationship; 9.44, compliance; 9.24
and environmental factors; 9.11) were perceived by customers as influential to
their patronage of fast food in the zone, which constitute 41.0% of variance
explained of service quality delivery, with the Kaiser Meyer Olkins (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy (0.639) and Bartletts test of sphericity
(659.333) significant at 0.01; (iii) a high level of patronage among respondents;
(iv) a very low positive correlation (0.023) between frequency of patronage and
perceived quality; (v) that the level of TQM strategies adopted by fast food



18

operators generally falls within average, but not enough to match customers
expectations; (vi) the existence of a weak positive intercorrelation (0.183, 0.178
and 0.161) among the TQM strategies; and (vii) that quality control and
improvement practice was not yet a major determinant of the overall
performance of fast food businesses in Nigeria.
The study concluded that prospects for a reliable and productive fast
food culture are most likely to be feasible when a total overhaul of the industry
is initiated through a pragmatic total quality control approach. It was
recommended that the eight dominant quality factors and the related four
customer perceived variables be adopted and placed on the checklist by fast
food operators for continuous improvement of their performance. Furthermore,
employee empowerment strategy should be strengthened with regular
technology acquisition training and career development programs in order to
ensure total participation.




19

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The product is generally considered to take a very significant position
among the four marketing-mix elements. Since it is regarded as what a
company or business enterprise offers to the market, it occupies a special
position in the hearts of decision-makers and management. According to
Kotler (1997), the product does not only mean the tangible object in a
package. It refers to the entire image of the product including, packaging,
design, colour and after-sale services.
The product is what brings an enterprise into operation and it also
determines whether the enterprise stays on or packs up. It follows then that
the viability of a product is also the viability of the enterprise.
Kotler reiterates that the success of a product in the market starts right
from its creation. It depends on how the product is brought into existence.
This actually explains why most of managements attention is devoted to the
making of the physical product. It is therefore the responsibility of
management to plan and develop the right type of product for the market. This
can be achieved by developing new products/services or improving on the
performance of the existing ones. All these activities are aimed at the viability
of the product. That is, the ability of the product to perform to customers



20

satisfaction, thus leading to its continued profitable existence in the market. All
these centre on the notion, Quality.
This view is corroborated by Allen (1991). He asserted that the new
vogue is to tailor both products and delivery according to the features which
are seen to have value to the customers. According to Allen (1991), the
backbone of all these (marketing) activities, i.e. promotion, pricing, distribution
etc. is not just a matter of product quality, rather, it is a matter of service
quality. This is even more essential for business organisations and
enterprises, considering the volatile environment in which they operate
nowadays. The American Management Association estimates that the
average company loses as many as 35% of its customers each year, two-
thirds of which is due to poor service quality.
Quality is a common universal word, usually used equivocally in
everyday language to depict varieties of meanings. It may be ambiguously
interpreted as excellence, efficiency, performance, profitability, productivity,
effectiveness, value, luxury, high standard and specifications etc. As a subject
of managerial discipline, quality can be defined both in a narrow sense and in
a broad sense. It has evolved over the years, to become a matured discipline.
In a narrow sense, Quality is a measure of the degree to which the
product meets its technical and design standard, which may relate to materials
used, performance, reliability, durability or any quantifiable characteristic. This
can be referred to as quality control, which became very important among



21

companies in the 1960s. It focuses on the use of inspection in finding and
correcting defects during the making of the physical product.
Appleby (1981) stressed the need for quality control in industries,
especially as competition becomes intense and consumers become
discriminating. Quality according to Appleby (1981), determines the direction
or objective, whereas control is the statistical element with which the product
quality is measured.
The broadened concept of quality according to Smith (1994) later
started with the emergence of the idea of what is referred to as Total Quality
Control, which he believed, lays more emphasis on improvement rather than
control. A total quality revolution occurred, and thus emerged, on the business
scene, what is now referred to as Total Quality Management (TQM).
According to Smith (1994), the revolution emphasized the totality of all the
quality approaches over the years, and stressed the critical role of
management in quality improvement. It rethinks Quality as holistic, rather than
products alone. In this regard, Smith also argues that it is helpful to think of
quality as an umbrella concept which integrates a whole spectrum of
improvement initiatives such as service enhancement, cost reduction, value
analysis and others. Thus quality is considered as a viable tool for enhancing
the performance of the sales force towards achieving accelerated business
improvement.
Total quality is defined as the ability of a good/service to satisfy
customer expectations with respect to the products design. It relates to how



22

well the design takes the user into consideration, how closely the product
conforms to the design standards, and what additional service is needed to
keep the product operational and alive.
Quality, although, understandably difficult to measure, serves as a
competitive variable among firms in similar industries, and even in different
industries. According to Cole (1994), one of the most consistent themes to be
found in mission statements/goals/objectives of organizations is quality. It
encompasses all efforts to achieve a competitive edge and ever changing
victory in the economy. Peters and Waterman (1982) found quality to be an
important element among excellent companies in J apan. The increase in
global competition in the 1980s even forced many firms to reassess the quality
level of their entire goods and services production systems. This led to a
massive national focus and increased international importance attached to
quality. Oladunni (1998) added that the current globalization process no doubt
creates the need for continuous improvement in productivity and quality
necessary for an effective use of new technologies.
One can therefore say without equivocation that Nigerian firms today
have evolved in response to the increased competitiveness both locally and
globally, in one way or the other (Aluko et al, 2007). These have led to the
continued profitable stay of some products in the market and even survival of
some firms on one hand, and untimely death of some products and firms
caused by poor sales performances and then market failures, on the other
hand.



23

It is from this view of the dynamic and competitive business
environment that effective quality delivery is of great significance, especially to
service rendering enterprises such as the emerging fast food retail outlets in
modern day Nigeria. The survival of the organization therefore does not only
entail the making of the products, but also the continuous improvement and
profitable existence of the products facilitated by effective quality control and
improvements efforts.
All these are issues that form the backbone of quality control and
improvements practices in any organization.

1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
` Government and business enterprises have come to acknowledge the
fact that consumers have basic rights to quality products and services. This is
even more essential and important in enterprises, whose main business is to
satisfy the stomachs of targeted consumers. This is in consonance with the
old adage that the stomach is a god to whom regular sacrifices must be made
and homages paid. It is the bedrock upon which the state of health of a nation
is laid. That is why, a nation can not afford to toy with the feeding and
nutritional components delivery systems of her citizens. It goes a long way in
determining the state of both physical and mental alertness of citizens, which
in turn influences their individual levels of creativity, skill development,
productivity and performance in the workplace.



24

However, close observations of the business activities of enterprises
operating and springing up in this sector, fondly referred to as fast food outlets
or modern day eateries, have shown a major source of concern for policy
makers, analysts, customers and other interested parties. The unpalatable
trend and distress symptoms observed in some of these so called modern day
quick service restaurants (QSRs) can not be overlooked considering the huge
amount of resources already invested in the sector. According to the
Association of Fast Food and Confectioners of Nigeria (AFFCON), the
Nigerian organized fast food industry is worth 190 billion naira as at the
beginning of the year 2009. The increasing public concern in the
nonperformance of this sector is also based on their expected closeness to
customers and even their significance to the growth of the nations health
sector. These worrisome trends have been attributed to many factors and
challenges facing the industry. These include dynamism of the environment,
cultural orientation, unstable government policies among others. With regards
to the outcry in the sector, The Daily Vanguard of Wednesday, 13
th
May 2009
also reports there is competition in the industry with a plethora of the
informal sector. The informal sector not only eats into the market share of the
organized fast food sector, the attendant effect on public health and the
environment has far reaching grave effect on the economy.
It is clear that despite all odds, businesses and organisations, whatever
their areas of operation and specialisation must work towards future survival.
The objective is to make profit and at worst to break-even. This is not



25

automatic. Attention needed to be directed to the making of the product and its
acceptability by the targeted consumers. It is against this background that the
Nigerian fast foods retail outlets should reappraise their efforts towards better
service delivery and continuous improvements of their existing systems for a
total overhaul of the sub-sector of the economy. All these require that
management efforts of these outlets should be directed towards providing
quality, and nothing but quality service to their customers.
As a result, the central problem of this study is to relate quality control
and improvement practices with the sales patronage of fast food retail outlets
located in the southwest zone of Nigeria.

1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The main objective of the study is to examine how and to what extent
quality procedures are carried out among fast food retail outlets in the
southwest zone of Nigeria, with a view to investigating how such efforts affect
customer patronages and sales performances.
The specific objectives of the study include:
(i) To appraise the level and pattern of fast food patronage in Nigeria.
(ii) To assess the level of adequacy and concern for quality control and
improvement practices among fast food retail outlets in Nigeria.
(iii) To determine if the frequency of customer patronage is related to
perceived quality of fast food products/services.



26

(iv) To investigate the relationship among the TQM factors influencing
service delivery in the fast food industry.
(v) To identify the dominant factors involved in quality control and
improvement practices in the fast food industry in Nigeria.
(vi) To determine if quality control practice is significantly related to
organizational sales performance.

1.4. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STUDY
The increasing importance attached to quality internationally, coupled with the
dynamic economic climates and increase global competitiveness, have
revitalized the urge in firms to adapt to new changes and put more efforts on
issues relating to their customers satisfactions, if their major reason of
existence (profitability) is to be achieved (MacDonald & Piggot, 1990). This,
they referred to as global quality challenge. Therefore, business organisations,
small or big, must realise that their continuous existence and survival should
rest solely on satisfying and fulfilling the expectations of their customers.
This actually justifies the formulation of series of standards relating to
guidelines by various international organisations, such as the World Health
Organisation (WHO) and International Organisation For Standardisation (ISO).
These operating rules governing the operations of business organisations,
apart from ensuring customers safety and security, have a direct effect on the
global health system (Dubois, 2002). It is against this background that the
issue of standard and quality control can not be compromised in the fast food



27

industry considering their significance to the health sector of a nation. Any
effort in this direction, it is believed, will also go a long way in sanitising the
rots presently experienced in our public health system.
In Nigeria, similar efforts such as the ones targeted at increasing life
expectancy and those aimed at reducing mortality / morbidity rate of citizens
can also not go unnoticed. Thus, the establishment of the National Agency for
Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), as a regulatory agency
in 1993, has also brought to the forefront the contending quality issues that
needed to be regularly examined in the food administration sector of the
economy.
All these phenomena, coupled with the greater health awareness on the
part of consumers, have made the issue of product quality control and
improvements more vital to fast food operations. Unfortunately, the pattern
and depth of firms responses to these phenomena vary greatly. This was
confirmed by Akpeiyi (1996), who asserted that the pattern and depth of an
organizations responses to quality pressures tends to determine its present
and future state of affairs. This probably accounted for reasons why some
firms manage to find their feet in the challenging market, while others
eventually get sunk.
Thus, the need to examine the adequacy of quality programmes in
these firms. It is therefore expected that any investigation carried out in this
area will be a right step in the right direction. The study would, thus, contribute
immensely in determining what could be rightly regarded as the total quality



28

control and improvement procedures needed for the fast food industrys
growth and survival.

1.5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following questions are raised to guide the conduct of this study:
(i) What is meant by the term quality control and improvement?
(ii) To what extent is customer patronage influenced by perceived
quality?
(iii) To what extent is quality control practised by these firms?
(iv) What could be the impact of an enhanced quality control and
improvement practices on the patronage and performance of
these firms?
(v) What can firms do to effect improvement in quality?

1.6. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The scope of this study is to examine critically the impact of quality
control and improvement on fast food retail outlets in southwestern Nigeria
between 2005 and 2010.
Specifically, and considering certain limitations, firms involved in fast
food business, operating in the south west zone of Nigeria, comprising Lagos,
Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti states are the centre stage on which the
study is placed. This zoning may also be considered to coincide with one of
the six geo-political zones of Nigeria.



29

Nevertheless, this restriction will not in any way diminish the content
and purpose of study as the level and concentration of infrastructures,
manpower and economic resources existing in this zone is well comparable to
those existing in other parts of the country. Furthermore, there is abundant
presence of fast foods operators in this zone, although, majority are still
unregulated. Only few fast food firms and allied groups, with their numerous
chains and restaurants scattered in major towns and cities in the zone, are
under the regulatory guidelines and supervision of NAFDAC as at the time of
study. This concentration of fast food operators can also be linked to the
higher literacy rate existing in this part of the country. It is therefore expected
that good service awareness as well as adequate experience of issues
relating to effective customer service delivery and satisfaction will be
possessed by the customers in this zone.




30

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. INTRODUCTION
In this section, a theoretical background is presented for the study
covering areas such as product concept, quality concept, quality control,
quality improvement, total quality management and other areas relating to the
operations of fast food industry.

2.2. THE CONCEPT OF QUALITY
As demonstrated in the ever-changing business world, the philosophies
and tools of management are changing, and the current thinking the world
over is that of quality.
Quality is both a user-oriented and a production-oriented expression,
having a variety of uses and meanings. From the users point of view, Quality
relates to excellence, reliability, dependability, predictability, consistence e.t.c
of products or services. Most people associate quality with defects in
products. It therefore stands for elimination of wastes, or absence of error and
therefore meeting perceived customer requirements at the lowest internal
price (Mohanty and Lahke, 2000). From the production point of view,
according to Mohanty and Lahke (2000), the quality of a product is measured
by the quality of its performance with regards to its design and conformance.



31

Experts therefore believe that quality programmes begin with a corporate
culture.
Figure 2.1: Quality Perspectives

Transcendent quality
and
Product-based quality
User-based quality



Needs
Customer Marketing

Value-based
quality

Design
Products
and
Services Manufacturing


Manufacturing-based
Distribution quality



Information flow

Product flow

Source: Evans and Lindsay (2005).

As shown in Figure 2.1 above, Garving (1988) outlines the different
perspectives of quality as:
Transcendent Quality as a simple analysable property recognised
only through experience.
Product based Quality as a precise and measurable variable.



32

User-based - Quality lies in the eyes of the beholder. That is, fitness for
intended use.
Manufacturing-based Quality as conformance to the requirements.
Value-based Quality as performance or conformance at acceptable
price or cost.
Mohanty and Lahke (2000) corroborate that quality is everything that an
organization does, in the eyes of its customers, which will encourage them to
regard that organization as one of the best in its particular field of operation.
Evans and Lindsay (2005) also agree because individuals in different
business functions speak different languages, the need for different views is
necessary to create products of true quality that will satisfy customers needs.

Simply put, Quality is meeting or exceeding the customer requirements.
This statement has been expressed in many ways by authors:
A. Quality is fitness for purpose or use (J uran, 1989).
B. Quality is conformance to the agreed requirement of the customer.
(Crosby, 1979).
C. Quality is delighting the customers by meeting desired requirements.
(Oakland, 1993)
D. Quality is the totality of features and characteristics of a product or
service that bears on it the ability to satisfy given needs (American
National Standards Institute and American Society of Quality Control,
1978).



33

E. Quality means best for certain customer conditions, that is the actual
use and the selling price of the product. (Feigenbaum, 1961).
F. Quality is aiming at the needs of both present and future consumer.
(Deming, 1986).
G. Quality is uniformity around the target with goal of continual
improvement towards perfection. (Imai, 1986).
H. The degree of conformance of all the relevant features and
characteristics of the product to all of the aspects of a customers need,
limited by the price and delivery he or she will accept. ( Groocock, 1986)
To understand how quality may be built into a product or service at any
stage, it is necessary to examine the following two distinct, but interrelated
aspect of Quality.
A. Quality of Design: This is the measure of the design in relation to the
customer requirements. That is, how well the product or service is designed to
achieve the agreed or imposed requirement. The most important feature of a
product, with regard to achieving quality standard and specification is the
design. Arora (2006) reinstates that for quality to be built into the product, it
must be through good design, which starts with market research, sales input
analysis and continues to the development of product/service concept.
B. Quality of conformance to design: This is the extent to which the
products or services achieve the specifications required to serve the need of



34

the customer. What customers actually receive should conform to the design.
Operating costs are also tied firmly to the level of conformance achieved.
Aluko et al (2007) considers this as important by also distinguishing
between performance and conformance quality. While performance quality
refers to the level at which a product performs its functions, conformance
refers to freedom from defects and the constituency with which the product
delivers a specified level of performance. For instance, small fast food outlets,
although rated lower than the big ones in terms of performance are still
expected to maintain the minimum level of performance desired by their
customers. An average service time of 15 minutes is not unexpected in a
casual restaurant compared to less than 10 minutes expected by customers in
a modern eatery.
Customer satisfaction must be designed into the whole system and the
conformance check must make sure that things go according to plan.
2.2.1. THE EVOLUTION OF QUALITY (The Quality Revolution)
In practice, no definition of Quality can encompass the beliefs and
ambition of all quality applications. This connotes that there is a shift and
evolution in the management field towards providing the best products and
services over the years. The meaning of quality will therefore continue to
evolve as the quality profession grows and matures.
As companies came to recognize the broad scope of quality, the
concept became widened from the initial technical and inspection focus to



35

organization-wide focus. Different movements and fields recognizing the
significance of quality such as Quality Assurance, Quality Control, Total
Quality Control, Total Quality Management and Total Quality started emerging
worldwide.
As Smith (1994) puts it, there now emerged the new thinking of quality
denoted by the big Q from the old thinking denoted by the little q. According
to him, the old thinking was narrow-minded, focused only on products control
and led by inspectors and experts alone. The new thinking on the other hand,
is strategic and for everyone in the organization. It is about improvement and
led by management. So, it now becomes, if quality matters most in
yesterdays factories, total quality is more important in todays organizations.
Figure 2.2: The Evolution of Quality Management.


Organization-
wide
total quality
management

Total quality
control


Statistical control
quality assurance


Inspection


Zero
Foreman defects


Individual
craftsman




36


1900 1920 1940 1960 1980


Source: MacDonald and Piggot (1990).
Arora (2006), on his part, sees both the inspection and quality control
phases as part of the quality conformance programme. Inspection is
corrective, while quality control is preventive. Quality assurance, according to
Arora, aligns with both conformance and performance programmes.
Table 2.1: The Quality Phases and System.
Quality Programme
Phases
of Quality
Design Conformance Performance
Quality assurance


Quality Control Preventive
Inspection Corrective
Source: Arora (2006)
Total quality therefore evolved as a management tool out of the need by
companies for continuous improvement which is due to the critical importance
now attached to increased profitability, effective customer service delivery and
good sales performance in the face of competitive challenges in the world
market.
Therefore, if quality is important in todays management style, then
there is the need to identify the brains behind its revival. According to



37

Macdonald and Piggot (1990), these quality experts have become known as
the quality gurus. Their key concepts and approaches to quality have made
major and lasting impact on the successful life of major organizations. It is
widely believed that the idea is originally American, but its initial profound
applications occurred in J apan. According to
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Quality_Management, total quality control was
initially the key concept identified by Armand Feigenbaum in 1951, but The
American Society for Quality says that the term Total Quality Management
was first used by the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command and became popular
in the 1980s. Evans and Lindsay agree with Smith that people now simply use
TQ. Also, of great significance are the individual works of J oseph J uran, Phillip
B. Crosby, Kaoru Ishikawa and the philosophy of Edwards W. Deming to the
development of global quality culture, that mentions will always be made of
them in the field of study. All these are among the early quality gurus.
Armand V. Feigenbaum
Dr. A.V. Feigenbaum is best known for introducing the concept of total
quality control in the 1950s, which he defined as an effective system for
integrating the quality development, quality maintenance, and quality
improvement efforts of the various groups in an organisation so as to enable
production and service at the most economical levels which allow full
customer satisfaction. It is widely believed that this concept served as a



38

foundation for the J apanese practice of companywide quality control (CWQC)
which began in the 1960s.
Feigenbaum believes in the integration of a customer-driven quality into
the management process which must be accepted by everyone in the
organization. According to him, the quality of products and services is directly
influenced by the 9 Ms ( Kumar and Suresh, 2008):
- Markets
- Money
- Management
- Men and women
- Motivation
- Materials
- Machines and mechanization
- Modern information methods, and
- Mounting product requirements.
Philip B. Crosby (1926-2001)
Philip Crosby was known for publishing popular books setting
management attention to the need for quality improvement, among which is
the best-selling Quality is Free published in 1979.
Crosby is most associated with the concept of zero defects or do it right
the first time approach to quality improvements. Rather than have managers
simply accept the statistical notion that some things will always go wrong, he
settled on the notion that what you should design and build is prevention of
defects. The measurement of quality is therefore, the price of non
conformance to requirements (cost of quality) not quality indices. He identifies



39

additional quality building tools, including the Quality Management maturity
grid, which enables the company or establishment to measure its present
quality position. He also classifies cost of quality into three (3) categories:
prevention, appraisal and failure costs. To eliminate quality cost and to prove
that quality is free, Crosby says that organizations must implement a quality
management system to its fullest.
Crosbys ideas are summarized in his Four Absolutes of Quality.
Although, highly criticized, his view on quality is more accepted in western
management than any other simply because of its easy and inspirational
approach to changing management attitude to quality.
Joseph M. Juran
Dr. J . M. J uran was born in 1904 in Romania. He later went to the U.S.
in 1912 and joined the Western Electric in 1920. J uran, together with another
U.S. scholar, Edward Deming, later became a principal force in the J apanese
quality revolution by introducing the techniques of SQC. Simply defining
quality as fitness for use, J uran developed the idea of quality trilogy (quality
planning, quality control and quality improvement) and wrote Quality Control
Handbook in 1951. Apart from advocating the use of quality cost accounting
and Pareto analysis to focus attention on quality problems, he identifies other
external and internal concepts and his concept of quality is that everyone in
the organization must also consider the Fitness for Use of the interim
product at each stage of production/operation flow.



40

He offers management the following steps to quality improvement:
(a) Build awareness of the need and opportunity for improvement.
(b) Set goals for improvement and provide training.
(c) Organise to reach the goals (establish a quality council, identify
problems, select projects, appoint team, designate facilitators).
(d) Provide training.
(e) Carry out projects to solve problems and report progress.
(f) Give recognition, communicate resultS and keep scores.
(g) Maintain momentum by making annual improvement on parts of the
regular systems and processes of the company.
Edwards W. Demi ng (1900-1993)
Dr. E.W. Deming, an American scholar and statistician encouraged the
J apanese to adopt a systematic approach to problem solving, which later
became known as the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Cycle. His teaching is
basically, that, clearly meeting and exceeding the customers requirements is
the task every one within an organization must accomplish. In addition the
management system must be structured to enable everyone to be responsible
for the quality of output to customers.
Demings model differs substantially from old bureaucratic model of
inward-looking administrator, whose primary interest is directing and
controlling the behaviour of others. He stated the following 14 points which,



41

he believes, will assist in establishing the culture of constituency, continuous
improvement and profound knowledge in an organization.
1. Create consistency of purpose towards continuous improvement of
products and services.
2. Adopt a new philosophy, that the customer should be entitled to
good and reliable product in the first place.
3. Switch from defect detection to defect prevention as a way of
achieving quality. Therefore, instead of inspection, try to improve
processes and reduce cost.
4. In dealing with supplier one should end the practice of awarding
business on the basis of price tag alone.
5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service.
6. Institute training on the job, and in a modern way.
7. Teach, supervise and institute leadership.
8. Drive out fears and encourage two way communication.
Supervision should change from chasing to coaching and
supporting.
9. Remove barriers between departments. Optimise teamwork.
10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations and unrealistic targets for the
workforce.
11. Eliminate quotas and numerical targets. Eliminate MBO. Instead
learn how to improve.
12. Remove barriers that prevent employees from having pride in the
work they perform.
13. Encourage education, retraining and self-improvement programmes
of everyone.



42

14. Take action by involving everybody in the organization, to
accomplish the transformation.
Kaoru Ishikawa
Professor Kaoru Ishikawa was well known for his contributions, to
J apanese theory of quality, that a companywide approach to quality control
was necessary. He introduced, in the early 1980s, the idea of Quality Circles.
At the simplest technical level, his work emphasized on good data collection
and presentation, the use of Pareto diagrams to prioritize quality improvement
and the cause and effect diagram. He sees the cause and effect diagram, like
other tools, as a device to assist groups or quality circles on quality
improvement. He sees the Company Wide Quality Control (CWQC) as
implying that quality does not only mean the quality of the product, but also
the quality after sales service, quality of management, the company itself and
the human life.
He presented the seven basic tools for quality improvement in the
organization as:
1. Process flow chart
2. Tally chart
3. Histograms
4. Pareto diagram
5. Cause and effect diagram
6. Scatter diagram
7. Control chart



43


2.3. THE PRODUCT CONCEPT
In 1969, Peter Drucker was particularly concerned about the future of
business, economy and society, and wrote a beautiful piece on the gods of
Management. Today, in the twenty-first century, our daily lives and schedules
depend mainly and totally upon the satisfactory performance and operation of
products and services. It is observed that todays buyers continue to
purchase with strong attention to price. Unlike buyers of a few years ago, they
place increasingly high emphasis on quality, expecting acceptable products at
any price level. It is quality and price that sell today and it is quality that brings
customers back to purchase a product or service several other times.
The philosophy underlying the implementation of quality control strategy
in line with the product concept is to see the customers and clients as the vital
key to organizational success. Organisations implementing the quality control
strategy see their businesses through the eyes of their customers and clients
and then measure their performances against customer expectations not
through organisational expectation.
2.3.1. BROADENED VIEW OF A PRODUCT
The market view of what constitutes a product has been broadened
since the 1960s to include many other things beside goods and services.
Product in a broadened form includes people, places, ideas and
organizations. The total satisfaction provided by the core product often is



44

enhanced by other elements. As core product tends to become more
standardized, those other features can be the deciding factors in purchase
decisions.
Products are well conceived in advance before they are actually
manufactured. And since the basic rationale is to satisfy the needs of
consumers, it is necessary to design it in a way and manner that will meet
certain specifications required by the consumer. Consumer obtains a bundle
of satisfaction as a result of making a purchase. As long as the consumer
feels that the bundle of satisfaction is worth the time, money and
psychological cost of buying and using a product, he/she will be satisfied.



45

2.3.2. THE PRODUCT SERVICE MIX
It is proper to draw a clear-cut distinction in the usage and application of
the meaning of the notions of a product and a service. They are usually
confused in their day-to-day usages, especially by non-practitioners.
Three aspects of the usage of these notions of product and service can
be identified and considered suitable in this study.
First, the product is considered to be tangible and physical in nature
only. It can be seen or touched, e.g. cars, computers, television etc. if not, it is
considered primarily as a service. This, on the other hand is intangible. It can
not be seen or touched before it is offered. e.g. medical services, consultancy
services etc. In this case, a product is strictly referred to as a product, while a
service is also strictly referred to as a service. That is why, the offers made to
the customers by fast foods outlets can be considered to include solely
products on one side and services on the other side. i.e. products/services. A
fast food customers intention may only be to purchase from the various items
of products such as food, drinks and snacks on sale. All these products can
be seen, tasted, felt or even smelled before they are bought. At the same
time, another customers intention might be to patronize the services provided
at the outlets only, such as relaxation corners, toy shops, meeting points etc.
Secondly, the product can contain both tangible and intangible
attributes. According to Charles (1987), the product is a set of tangible and
intangible attributes that include the colour, packaging, price, manufacturers



46

image, retailers prestige and the service by both manufacturers and retailers
which the buyer may accept as offering wants satisfaction. In this case, items
offered to consumers are still referred to as products despite the fact that it
contains some elements of intangibility. This situation occurs when the fast
food industry is referred to as a product selling industry. The products offered,
apart from being food items and drinks, may as well include catering and other
supporting services, which are all considered collectively as products offered
for sale.
Thirdly, the offer can be referred to, solely, as a service, despite the fact
that it may include some other physical components. This distinction is further
drawn by Kotler (1997) in his definition of a service, as any offer to the market
place, which is essentially intangible and may or may not be tied to a physical
product. According to Kotler, the service component in the offer can be a
minor or major part of the total offer. This implies that there can as well be
elements of tangibility in the services rendered to the consumers in a fast food
outlet. In this case, it may not be erroneous to refer to such fast food outlet as
a service-rendering outfit.
Kotler further distinguishes this offer into five categories outlined below.
1. Pure tangible good. The offer consists primarily of a tangible good such as
soap, toothpaste, or salt. No service is accompanying the product.
2. Tangible good with accompanying services. The offer consists of a tangible
good accompanied by one or more services to enhance its consumer
appeal. e.g. cars, computers with accompanying services such as display



47

rooms, delivery and installation services, training, repairs and maintenance
etc.
3. Hybrid service. The offer consists of equal parts of goods services. e.g. fast
food and restaurant services.
4. Major service with accompanying minor goods and services. The offer
consists of a major service along with additional services and/or supporting
goods. e.g. airline services.
5. Pure service. The offer consists primarily of a service. e.g. day care and
physiotherapy services.
2.4. QUALITY MEASUREMENTS AND APPRAISAL METHODS
Quality appraisal programs in organizations may include a combination
of many approaches. It may involve the use of charting tools and check sheets
for data collection and analysis (Gitlow et al, 1989). Also, opinion polls are
used to collect information on customers satisfaction in order to appraise the
product/service quality. This may include the use of marketing research,
suggestion boxes, comment cards etc. An effective customer satisfaction
measurement system results in reliable information about customer ratings of
specific product and service features and about the relationship between
these ratings and the customers likely future market behaviour (Evans and
Lindsay, 2005).
Arora (2006) identifies the measures of quality, especially in service
organizations, to be in line with two different kinds of conformance, namely:



48

(i) Internal conformance, and
(ii) External Conformance.



49

2.4.1. QUALITY DIMENSIONS AND DETERMINANTS
Garvin (1984), in understanding customer needs, suggests some
dimensions of products/service quality:
1. Performance. The products primary operating characteristics.
2. Features. The products secondary characteristics.
3. Reliability. The extent to which the product can perform under stated
conditions of use.
4. Conformance. The degree to which physical and performance
characteristics of the product match preestablished standards.
5. Durability. The extent to which the product is used before it
deterioriates, expires or is replaced.
6. Serviceability. The ease at which repairs are done and errors
resolved.
7. Aesthetics. The appearance and aura surrounding the product and
service.
Also, Parasuraman et al (1985) propose The SERVQUAL model, a
conceptual framework for measuring service quality.
The 5 dimensions or determinants of service quality usually identified by
customers which are presented in the SERVQUAL model are:
1. Reliability: The ability to perform the promised service dependably and
accurately.



50

2. Responsiveness: The willingness to help customers and provide prompt
service.
3. Assurance: The knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability
to convey trust and confidence.
4. Empathy: The provision of caring, individualized attention to customers.
5. Tangibles: The appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel
and communication materials.
2.4.2. MEASURING SERVICE QUALITY
Due to its nature, service quality is more difficult to measure. But,
Lawton (1991) says that the difficulties in measuring service quality can be
overcome by a systematic and pragmatic approach which is required to create
a customer-centred culture in the industry. There is usually too much focus on
service quality provided to the external customer, yet it is the effective
coordination of internal customer activities which determine the quality of
service to the external customers. Evans and Lindsay (2005) reaffirms that the
firm must recognize that employees who view themselves as both customers
of and suppliers to other employees are as important in assuring quality as are
external customers who purchase the products.
Therefore, in measuring service quality, it is much better and even
logical to measure the service rendered to the internal customers, first. Based
on this, it is easier to effect any necessary changes and amendments
necessary internally. The external customers, when finally surveyed, will serve



51

as the ultimate measurement. In achieving this, the following issues must be
considered:
(i). Service quality must be defined from the perspective of the customer and
not by the organization. It is the customer that decides what the
performance adds up to (Lawton, 1991)
(ii). Measure actual service failure. Percentage can be misleading. A 99%
performance level for a one million customer market implies that 10,000
people are not being satisfied.
(iii). Each type of service failure has a different level of irritation to the
customer. Therefore each carries a different weighting to reflect the
impact on customer satisfaction.
(iv). Continually track and measure performance against a 100% service
performance goal. It should be an ongoing process.
(v). Relate the measured performance to your own annual service quality
goals at all levels.
(vi). Provide accurate, immediate and visible feedback so that employees are
informed and the additional effort required known (Mefford, 1993).
2.4.2.1. Service Quali ty Indicators
In measuring service quality, another approach is to identify and monitor
the key quality indicators. Service quality indicators are the critical points
which need to be measured, monitored and controlled regularly. These are
means of measuring the extent to which key service factors are meeting levels



52

of service expectations and assist in determining those critical processes
which contribute to eventual customer satisfaction. These may include among
others:
Frequency of task
Accuracy of work done
Turnaround time
Timeliness.
In all, measuring service quality requires a thorough analysis of
customer expectations, analysis of systems, process and functions, defining
the quality parameters, developing system for measurement and control and
integrating this system with the business system (Mohanty, 2000). Mohanty
suggested the following TQM implementation approach in the service sector:
Step 1: Develop a well-defined service quality strategy containing
among others, a set of performance evaluation standards and feedback
mechanisms.
Step 2: Analyse service processes and define the quality dimensions
upon which the service is measured.
Step 3: Establish process control system in other to identify and collect
data on key performance areas.
Step 4: Investigate the internal process to identify service bottlenecks
and improvement opportunities.



53

Step 5: Strive to achieve and sustain new levels of performance through
regular review of quality standards.

2.5. QUALITY APPRAISAL IN THE FAST FOOD INDUSTRY
The fast food industry is a product-offering as well as service-rendering
industry. This poses a fundamental challenge for any practitioner in the
industry, moreso that service quality is even more difficult to measure.
Research shows that different approaches could be adopted in
identifying quality of fast food products and services. These mainly include:
A. The subjective/objective approach
B. The descriptive approach
A. The subjective method is based on the individual opinion, and arises
from psychological reactions to product/service offering. It is also usually
based on personal past experiences and previous trainings. It involves the use
of sensory organs to perceive and evaluate product\ service quality. Thus, the
interpretation or judgement is based on personal preference and may not be
an exact recording of the situation Schiffman and Kanuk (1998) offered that
the basis for perceptions of product and service quality are usually provided
by both the intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of the product/service. For
example, the aroma and colour cues surrounding the operating environment,
including the approach and interior decorations all contribute significantly to
the assessment of quality service offered by a fast food operator.



54

On the other hand, the observation of quality level may entirely exclude
personal preferences and attitudes. Instead, quality judgements are purely
based on generally accepted and recognized scientific standards. This is
referred to as the objective method. Thus, service quality indicators provide
the accurate yardsticks in evaluating quality and satisfaction. These are
considered as veritable means of measuring the extent to which key service
quality factors such as the ones proposed in this study, are meeting levels of
service expectations and satisfaction. In the Nigerian fast food industry, these
may include maintaining a certain level of cleaningness, hygiene, nutritive
contents etc, as prescribed by a supervisory authority such as NAFDAC, from
time to time. Fast food practitioners must therefore strive to continually
upgrade their operations in line with these standard operating procedures
(SOPs).
B. Descriptive approach: This is another perspective from which product
quality can be determined or measured. It may be classified as:
(i) Physical method of measurement, which is concerned with using
physical attributes to evaluate product quality such as colour, texture,
size etc. For examples, the size and colour decorations of cakes are
often used to judge its quality.
(ii) Chemical method of measurement. These are standard methods for
the quantitative evaluation of the nutritive value of the product offer. In
this case, the extent to which the prepared items such as pizzas, cakes,
breads etc meet the nutritive content and requirements specified by



55

regulating authorities is used as a basis for quality evaluation of fast
food services.
(iii) Microscopic method of measurement. This requires considerable
amount of training and state-of-the-art equipment for product quality to
be examined. This is a special method of quality evaluation usually
applied in cases involving contamination, adulteration, expiration etc.
Stored and frozen foods usually fall under this category



56

2.5.1. CUSTOMERS PERCEPTION OF FAST FOOD SERVICE QUALITY
Some researchers believe that, since quality is inherently difficult to
measure, a better yardstick should be seen in customers perception of
quality. That is, service quality measurement may be based on a comparison
of customer expectation with actual service performance. Arora (2006) agrees
that quality measurements, especially in service organizations, should include
external conformance, which can be traceable to the aspect of the
organizations operation that can be sensed by the consumers. Therefore,
how a customer perceives a product has a strong influence on both purchase
intentions and purchase satisfaction (Schiffman & Kanuk, 1998). Perception
can be described as how we see the world around us. It represents the
interpretation of a situation by the individual based on his cognitive processes.
Within the framework of consumer behaviour, perception is regarded as the
process of becoming aware of products and their qualities by way of the sense
organs. The sense organs function singly or collectively to evaluate the status
and ability of a product or service to reach a certain level of acceptance.
Schiffman et al discovered that, apart from the purchase price, product utility
is associated with consumer purchase. This represents the perceived
economic gain or loss, pleasure or displeasure, associated with a purchase.
The customer is always wary of the difference between his expectation of a
product and the actual quality of the product. This provides a yardstick in



57

measuring his level of satisfaction with a product/service and thus sharpening
his continuous patronage decisions.
Schiffman et al offered the following explanation regarding customers
perception of quality:
Informational cues provide the basis for perceptions of product and
service quality. These cues include both intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics
of the product. Intrinsic cues used, in some cases, by consumers to judge
product quality concerns the physical attributes of the product itself, such as
the size, colour, flavour, or aroma. For example, consumers often judge the
flavour of ice cream or cakes by colour cues. Even the perceived quality of
food of an eatery is affected by the aroma surrounding its physical operating
environment. Although, more often than not, the physical characteristics are
used to judge quality, however, they have no intrinsic relationship to the
products/service quality.
It is therefore not surprising to discover that consumers usually find it
difficult to identify superior brand through physical attributes. Moreso, it is
difficult for consumer to evaluate the quality of services than the quality of
products, due to certain distinctive characteristics of services such as
intangibility, variability, perishability and inseparability.
To overcome the inability of consumers to compare services side-by-
side as they do with competing products, consumers tend to rely on surrogate
cues (i.e. extrinsic cues) to evaluate service quality, such as pricing,
packaging, advertisement, company image, trademarks and even peer



58

pressure. For example, in evaluating a fast food retail outlets services, the
approach, the reception, interior decorations, professionalism among others
contribute more to the consumers overall evaluation of service quality.
On the other hand, the actual quality of services have been observed by
researchers to vary from day to day, employee to employee, outlet to outlet,
and even from customer to customer, especially in the fast food industry. The
main concern should therefore be the institution of proper quality processes in
the industry towards achieving a high level of standardization in service
delivery. These processes, which must be entrenched in all operations of the
organization and imbibed by management, must be based on everyones
understanding of each others needs. This is referred to as customer /
supplier alignment, which includes all specific exercises organization, must
follow to streamline work processes and maintain quality.
The study shows that three levels or types of quality could be identified
based on customers perception.
1. Expected Quality or Compulsory Quality: This level of quality never
excites the customers, but if not provided can cause deep
dissatisfaction. Whilst the customer will not tell it or ask for it, he actually
expects this minimal level of service. The customer may therefore be
indifferent to this type or level of quality unless disappointed. For
example, the fast food customer expects quick and courteous service,
cold drinks, safe and hygienic environment, a clean toilet and even a
television set in the dining hall.



59

2. Selecti ve Qual ity: This second level of quality can excite the customer
if provided, and can cause indifference or dissatisfaction if not provided.
In this case, the customer expressly specifies his requirements. A fully
air-conditioned dining hall, secured car park, traffic controller, even
installation of insects electrocutors could actually excite the customer if
he gets it or otherwise cause indifference or great dissatisfaction if his
specifications are not met.
3. Unexpected or El ecti ve Qual ity: This third level of quality can cause
real excitement if provided, but may not cause any difference or
dissatisfaction if not provided, because it is unexpected. Customers
cannot request for it because they are not aware of its existence or
possibility. It is only introduced to encourage customer loyalty. However,
once experienced, an unexpected & exciting quality becomes expected
quality and more room is thus created for further improvement of
service delivery. The customer would be excited by personalized
service delivery, seasons greetings and text messages, all serving as
marks of appreciation and recognition towards customers.
2.5.1.1. Servi ce Quality Gaps
A consumers evaluation of service quality is a function of the
magnitude and direction of the gap between the consumers expectations of
service and the consumers assessment (perception) of the services actually
delivered.



60

In measuring the service quality gap, The PZBs SERVQUAL model
developed in 1985 now prevails as one of the most widely used scale. It was
designed to measure the gap between customers expectation of services and
their perceptions of actual service delivered. It identified 5 gaps upon which
service quality could be measured respectively on the sides of the service
provider.
The 5 gaps on the service provider side according to Parasuraman,
Zeithaml and Berry (1990) culminated in customers misperception of service
quality and eventually cause unsuccessful service delivery and dissatisfaction.
This level of dissatisfaction may be traced ultimately to any one or a
combination of these gaps within the company itself. Service providers should
therefore endeavour to reduce the level of misperception of service quality by
closing these gaps as much as possible.
Gap 1: Gap between customers expectation and management perception.
This occurs when management does not perceive correctly, what
customers wants and needs are. The outlet may think customers want
better food, but customers may need better attention.
Gap 2: Gap between management perception and service-quality
specifications. Although there is correct perception of customers need
by management, management still fails to satisfy customers, because
of management inability to measure and understand the actual
customers requirements. For instance, what is the real customer
service ratio during peak hours to ensure quick service?



61

Gap 3:Gap between service quality specification and service delivery.
Although, correct specification and actual requirements is determined,
but still fails to provide adequate resources or meet the standard
required by customers. This may be due to staff unethical behaviour,
poor technology and financial impropriety.
Gap 4: Gap between service delivery and external communication. Although,
quality service is actually delivered, but customers expect it to match
promises and statements made in companys brochures and
advertisement.
Gap 5: Gap between perceived service and expected service. This is the
outcome of all the other 4 gaps. There is tendency for customers to
misperceive the service quality, the fault of which may ultimately be
traced to any one or combination of the other gaps allowed by
management, to exist in the organization.





62

Figure 2.3: The SERVQUAL Service Quality Model




Word of Mouth Personal Needs Past Experience
Communications





Expected Service


GAP 5



Perceived Service

Consumer



Marketer GAP 4
Service Delivery External
(including pre-and Communications to
post-contacts) Consumers


GAP 3


Translation of
GAP 1 Perceptions into
Service Quality
Specifications


GAP 2


Management
Perceptions of
Consumer
Expectations




Source: Parasuraman, Valerie and Berry (1985).



63

2.6. THE COST OF QUALITY
According to Heizer and Render (1993), in designing the quality of a
product, the most profitable quality level need to be known and this level is
achieved by a balance between cost of quality to the manufacturer and the
value of it to the consumer.
Figure 2.4: Graph Showing The Determination Of Optimum Quality.


Maximum
Difference

Design Quality Level


Source: Heizer, J . and Render, B. (1993).

Optimum quality of design, Z is the point of optimum profitability and is
achieved at the greatest distance between the highest value of quality, X and
the lowest cost of quality, Y. Above the optimum, the cost of achieving greater
quality of design, more than outweighs any increase in market value.
Cost of quality to
the manufacturer
V
a
l
u
e

o
r

c
o
s
t









(
E
)


Value of
quality to
consumer
Y
X
Best Quality Design
Z



64

Quality and reliability are two different but related aspects that produce
better service to customers. Reliability is a proof of quality. Purchase
decisions are usually made by rational consumers based on the expectation
that the products will function satisfactorily.
The investigation by J uran (1988) revealed that about 80% of quality
failures are management controllable. Quick action is needed to secure quality
and reliability and that is why any quality organization must have top
management backing and control.
2.6.1. SIGNIFICANCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF QUALITY COSTS
Okolie (1996) posits that in todays turbulent and dynamic business
environment, the ability of any organization to retain its competitive position,
improve its market share, product mix and profitability to a large extent
depends on the effort initiated to streamline operations, minimize waste,
producing quality products and effectively utilizing available resources, more
especially its people in meeting the ever changing needs of its customers.
For any quality improvement process to perform well, the cost of quality
needs to be determined. This includes the total cost in achieving a quality
product or service. They include prevention costs, appraisal costs, internal
failure costs, external failure cost, the cost of exceeding customer
requirements and the cost of lost opportunities. Aspects of cost are usually to
be found in materials, money and time.



65

Quality costs are not isolated, but manifested in the different aspects of
organizational activities, sales, design, research and development,
purchasing, storage and handling, production or operation, planning and
control, delivery e.t.c. Also, a companys relationship with its suppliers and
dealers can influence the incidence of quality cost.
Quality costs may vary significantly among industries in magnitude and
their identification will provide management with a basis to:
- Set cost reduction targets
- Monitoring quality improvement performance
- Identify product, processes and departments for investigation
- Measure progress towards targets and cost effectiveness.
- Evaluate the worth of individual quality activities.
Notwithstanding, Agunbiade (1996) reiterated that quality cost, if not
effectively managed may have significant impacts on the ability of an
organization to compete favourably in a highly competitive and dynamic
environment. He identified these impacts to include:
i. Reduced profit margin.
ii. Steady decline in market share.
iii. Increased overheads, labour and material costs.
iv. Unrealistic product prices.
v. High inventory holding.
vi. Impact severally on ability and capacity to deliver.



66

All the above are serious cost implications which could reduce the
profitability of an organization.
The identification of these costs will provide a framework for their
classification, which ultimately will reveal a trend on behaviour and their
impact on product cost and operational performance. Quality costs are usually
classified according to the activities, in which they occur. The research
considers these costs under the following headings and sub-headings:
A. Appraisal Costs: These are costs associated with policing and evaluating
the achievement of quality requirement. Such might include
- Service consumed
- Test materials consumed
- Incoming inspection
- Process Inspection, final inspection results
- Field testing
- Product destroyed during destructive test
B. Failure Costs: These are costs associated with products and services that
do not comply or meet specification desired by the organization. These
costs are grouped into.
(i) Internal failure cost: These include
- Scrap, junk
- Yield losses
- Repair, rework, replacement.



67

- Trouble shooting
- Re-inspection or re-testing
- Downtime among other. These costs usually affect the morale of
employees and consequently affect their attitude to work.
(ii) External failure costs: These include:
- Warranty charges
- Rejected and returned products/materials
- Price concessions.
- Loss of sales.
- Complaint analysis and payment.
- Recall cost.
- Product liability
C. Preventi ve costs: These are the costs incurred to prevent or reduce to an
acceptable level, the risk of non-conformity or defects. They include:
- Quality planning.
- New product.
- Training programme.
- Quality data acquisition and analysis.
- Quality audits and survey.
- Analysis associated with improvement programme.
2.6.2. HOW TO MINIMIZE QUALITY COST



68

Agunbiade (1996) also mentioned that the identification of quality costs
will invariably spur management to initiate measures that would reduce or
eliminate the incidence and magnitude of these costs. Management can
achieve this through:
(i) Seeking employee commitment.
(ii) Initiating new research and development focus.
(iii) Initiating a comprehensive system/process review
(iv) Use of ad-hoc groups and committees.
(v) Training and re-training of employees.
(vi) Undertaking layout review and modification.
(vii) Initiating a new culture.
All these, among others, according to him, will be of help to an
organization to have adequate control over its operations and also help in its
effort to achieve zero defects, reduce variations and increase capacity.

2.7. TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT
The era of industrial revolution experienced a shift from inspection and
sampling to quality control, which is nowadays referred to, as total quality
management. This is a comprehensive approach to quality assurance and
improvement involving individuals at all levels of the organisation. It also
ensures that management adopts a new strategic overview of quality and
focuses on prevention not detection of problems. Aluko et al (2007) defines



69

Total Quality Management as a system approach to management that aims to
enhance value to customers and clients by designing and continually
improving organizational processes and systems.
Total quality management strives towards the improvement of the
operations of firms to world-class levels. It is a managerial philosophy with a
strong customer-driven focus aimed at a continuous improvement of the
organisations products and processes. TQM involves activities that are
targeted towards reshaping the perception of a products quality, from raw
materials acquisition to the ultimate customers level of satisfaction. It strives
towards exceeding customers expectations of every interface and at the
same time motivating all employees to contribute positively and fully towards
the achievement of business goals.
TQM, as a management philosophy, suggests ways of doing things with
alternative methods that can be used to improve upon the existing operations.
A TQM environment is influenced by conformity, responsibility, standards,
clarity, accountability, and team spirit.
Okolie (1996) sees Total Quality Management as a management tool
that builds customer satisfaction with continuous improvement in the
effectiveness and efficiency of the organization and its processes. It can be
seen as a strategic business issue which concerns customer satisfaction,
market share and corporate profitability.



70

Total quality management concept is for improving business
performance through the commitment of all employees to fully satisfy
customer requirement at the lowest overall cost. Total quality management
begins with standards and specifications established by the product design
and ends with a completed standard product leaving the factory. The main aim
and objective of total quality management is to ensure that no product falls
below the standard in the first place (Crosby, 1979). This is known as Zero
defects. Products must be tested and inspected regularly with the intention of
eliminating all quality problems.
Mohanty and Lahke (2000) viewed TQM as an integration of two
philosophies, that is, Total Quality and Quality Management. The word,
TOTAL underlines an all embracing nature as the search for quality covers
all the facets of the organization, people, processes, products, cost reduction,
through the integration of supplies into the activities or organization to achieve
quality outputs and contribute to quality objectives. Total Quality, thus, is a
long term success strategy for the organisation, whereas Quality Management
is the tool of corporate strategy. The way of working and managing that
combines the capabilities of all the employees for continuous improvement of
every process with the aim of increasing customer satisfaction.
The universality of the nature of TQM is explained by Oakland (1989) in
his definition: TQM is an approach to improving the effectiveness and
flexibility of business as a whole. It is essentially a way of organizing and



71

involving the whole organization, every department, every activity, every
single person at every level.
J ust as there are different levels of quality, there are also different levels
of quality management. TQM is therefore a modern approach to quality
management (Aluko et al, 2007). According to Aluko et al (2007), achieving a
defect-free product or service alone, is not the same as TQM, because TQM
involves the whole organization, and can be associated with activities such as:
(i) distinguishing potential future development projects;
(ii) paying strict attention to processes;
(iii) prioritizing and focusing attention on problems; and
(iv) focusing attention on the corporate system, among others.
Aluko et al (2007) also identified the key characteristics of this modern
quality approach to include:
(1) The Market-in principle, which means bringing customer needs into
every possible part of the organization.
(2) Quality as a salient theme, used as a unifying force towards achieving
necessary positive change in the organization.
(3) Qualitys new relationship to costs and productivity.
(4) All-employee, all-departmental involvement.
(5) Upstream prevention, especially at the design phase.
(6) Problem-solving methodology.
(7) Combination with control system.
(8) Cross-functional cooperation and information sharing.



72

Cole, Bacdayan and White (1993) also identified the following key
characteristics of total quality management, which must be imbibed by
management in its implementation.
(1) It is customer focused, and obsessed with providing customer-
desired product and service features.
(2) It asserts that work is not hazard. It can be and must be studied,
analysed and scientifically dissected, with the aid of problem-solving
tools.
(3) Cross-functional cooperation and collective participation.
(4) Cost-reduction and productivity improvement.
(5) Up- stream prevention activities key to quality improvement.
(6) Integrated system of goals, plans and actions.
2.7.1. THE CORE CONCEPTS OF TQM
In understanding the nature of this revolutionary management tool
(TQM), it is better and appropriate to unveil it by examining the core concepts
that are behind it. These core concepts according to Akpeiyi (1996) and Arora
(2006) as implemented in organisations involves:
1. Achieving quality in everything.
2. Doing the right thing right, first time every time.
3. Continuously striving for improvement.
4. Strengthening the supplier customer chain
5. Managing business through team building and team work.



73

6. Having stable organizational structure.
7. Using structured process when solving business problems, which
should be tackled proactively.
8. Providing quality leadership and motivation to foster all employees
commitment to the total quality process.
1. Quality in everything.
The word Total in the management tool underscores the fact that the
focus of any organization that aspires to be a quality oriented organization
must be to achieve a corporate culture of quality in everything it has or does
its people, process, product and service.
Achieving quality in people calls for quality in recruitment and selection,
quality in orientation, quality in deployment, quality in training, quality in
promotion and quality reward. It also calls for quality leadership at all levels of
the organization that can motivate their subordinates through the process of
creating room for innovation, inspiring vision and empowerment.
Attaining quality in process means all business process of
administration, information, finance, strategic planning, marketing, etc must be
capable of delivering the right products and services to the customers.
2. Do the right thing first time every time.
When TQM has become the culture of an organization the employee in
that organization is bound to strive to be doing only the right things. The right
things are judged strictly from the perspective of the customer. Thus, only



74

activities that are perceived to help in satisfying the requirements and
expectations of the customers are considered acceptable. Having identified
the right thing to do, a structured process is used to ensure that all associated
activities are correctly performed, by first determining what is the right thing to
do and doing it right first time every time. The TQM tool ensures that money,
time and energy are not expended on correcting errors, scrapping outputs or
re-works.
It is therefore obvious that organizations where doing the right thing
right first time every time become a culture, achieve substantial reductions in
operational cost.
3. Continuously striving for improvement
Organizations that must achieve excellence in using the TQM tool must
continuously strive for improvement. The culture is that regardless of how
good present performance may be, it can be improved.
4. Strengthen the supplier customer chain
This is also referred to as the synergistic relationships existing in the
organization, which must be continually strengthened. According to this
principle, Mehrotra (2006) in www.isixsigma.com reiterated that, an
organization must focus, first and foremost, on its suppliers and customers.
Mehrotra further stated that, in a TQM organization, everyone is both a
customer and supplier. This relationship built on trust, ethics and integrity is
fostered by training and teamwork.



75

5. Using of team building and team work.
A crucial element in the success of any organization is the quality of the
decisions made by managers and the leaders, for the organization. In team
work, the quality of decision made is generally better than that from one single
individual. This is because the skill, knowledge and ability of each member of
the team are pulled together to develop a synergy in which the sum of the
whole is greater that the sum of its parts. Team work only happens in an
organization when supervisors, managers and executives transform their
traditional commands and control roles and use them consistently in achieving
organizational goals and objectives. Mehrotra (2006) emphasizes that team
work and collaboration are essential, because the systematic nature of the
work involves everyone, and that it results in high- quality benefits for all.
6. Stable organizational structures.
Many organizations have too many levels of management. The more
levels, the greater the communication difficulties and the slower the response
time to customer needs and expectations. The TQM tool rejects the multiple
layers and states that, to achieve excellence; the organization must be lean
and fit.
7. Use structured process for solving problems.
Companies that have achieved excellence by travelling on the total
quality management route adopted structured processes to analyze and



76

identify the causes of problems and proffer solution so that they are eliminated
once and for all.
In www.isixsigma.com., Hashmi (2006) demonstrated the use of the
Seven Steps of Problem Solving to show how TQM works in a young, rapidly
expanding finance company.
These seven steps of problem solving are stated below:
Step 1. Define the problem.
Step 2. Analyse the problem.
Step 3. Generate ideas.
Step 4. Test the ideas.
Step 5. Implement the ideas.
Step 6. Check the result.
Step 7. Standardize control.
The use of these structured processes in problem solving situations
may involve the use of certain tools like brainstorming, fish-bone diagram
(also Ishikawa diagram) and the amplifier filter mode.
Brainstorming is a powerful tool for generating a list of good ideas on a
problem in a very short space of time, while the fish bone diagram is a
structured form of brainstorming. The amplified filter model has six important
steps namely.
1. Brainstorm as many problems as possible.
2. Select the most important problem by filtering the problems
identified in (1) above.



77

3. Generate as many causes as possible that are responsible for the
key problem (2) above.
4. Select the main causes.
5. Generate as many solutions as possible for the main causes
identified in (4) above.
6. Select the solutions by filtering the many solution identified in (5)
above and implement the solution.



78

8. Quality leadership and motivation.
Padhi (2006) also in www.isixsigma.com considered leadership as one
of the building blocks of TQM, and possibly the most important element. For
TQM to be successful, there must be committed leadership. It is therefore the
responsibility of top management to ensure the success of TQM in the
organization. Also, an organization cannot be said to be innovative, or think of
improvement without top management leading and demonstrating the use of
the TQM tools. Besides, leaders are required to provide an inspiring vision,
make strategic decisions that are understood by all and to instill values that
guide and motivate subordinates.
2.7.2. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF TQM
Mohanty and Lahke (2003) identified the underlying principles behind
TQM efforts as:
- customer satisfaction,
- continuous improvement,
- management-by-fact
- participative and integrated problem-solving process
According to Evans and Lindsay (2005), whatever the language, total
quality is summarized on three fundamental principles:
1. A focus on customers and stakeholders. (Customer- focus principle)
2. Participation and teamwork by everyone in the organization.
(Employee participation, involvement and participation).



79

3. A process focus supported by continuous improvement and learning.
(Continuous improvement principle).
1. Customer-focus processes. According to Evans and Lindsay, the
customer is the principal judge of quality. Therefore, if the customers
expectations must be met and exceeded in order to ensure continuous
patronage, organizations must fully understand all product and service
attributes that contribute to customer value and lead to satisfaction and
loyalty. To accomplish this, a companys efforts need to extend well beyond
meeting specifications, reducing defects and errors, or resolving complaints to
designing new suitable products and responding rapidly to changing
consumer and market demands. In order words, the firm must continually
strive towards enhancing customer relationships.
Customer- focused factors therefore include such management and
staff practices associated with effective customer-staff relationship, with the
aim of meeting and satisfying customers specifications and requirements.
These are identified by the study as:
Customer relations.i.e instituting occasional dialogues with
customers.
Recognition, of customers sovereignty.
Empathy: The provision of caring individualized attention to
customers (Parasuraman et al, 1991).
Responsiveness, involving willingness to help customers and provide
quick service.



80

Assurance of quality, in order to build customers trust, confidence
and loyalty.
Compliance, involving the application of appropriate measures and
mechanisms to determine and meet customers specifications.
2. Employee participation, involvement and empowerment programmes:
This is with the belief that employees are allowed to participate in decisions
that affect their jobs. Sullivan (1986) considers TQM as a company wide
drive towards excellence which stresses the need to instill an awareness of
the importance of quality in all employees and motivating them to improve
product quality through organizational cultural change, training, awards and
incentives. Sureshchandar (2001) affirms that every employee should be
responsible for quality service, and must do the right thing at the first time in
order to get good performance. This may also include elements of teamwork
in the form of quality circles, self-managed teams and problem-solving teams.
Price (2004) also affirms that employee involvement hinges on the
notion that managers may have a prerogative to manage but this prerogative
should not be exercised without considering the opinions of their employees.
This may also be considered as a sort of psychological contract. That is an
informal understanding existing between the employer and employeed
(Rousseau and Parks, 1993).
While, Evans and Lindsay emphasized that empowering employees to
make decisions that satisfy customers without constraining them with
bureaucratic rules shows the highest level of trust. Peccei and Rosenthal



81

(2001) consider it as an attempt to engender desirable customer-oriented
behaviours among employees.
Marchington (2001) identifies the following characteristics in employee
involvement schemes:
(i) Employee involvement is a process primarily instigated by
management.
(ii) Employees are assumed to want greater involvement, regardless of its
form.
(iii) A unity of purpose is thought to be achievable between employees and
their managers.
(iv) There is an expectation that employee involvement will lead to greater
commitment and productivity.
The following elements of employee empowerment, participation and
involvement principle are identified in the study:
Teamwork and synergy. This recognizes the enormous advantage
derived in combining ideas and efforts. The whole is worth more than
its parts.i.e. 2 +2 = 5.
Staff mobilization. Using awareness programmes to seek
commitment of members of staff towards achieving organizational
objectives.
Welfare. Involving the recognition and harmonization of individual
members needs and plans with the company plan.



82

Communication and feedback, especially, to obtain information on
members acceptance and satisfaction with the running of things.
Recruitment procedure i.e the use of standardized employment
procedures and regulations.
Staff resources. That is, the possession of better qualified and
experienced staff.
Training and development programmes at all levels.
Motivation and reward.
Ichniowski et al (2000) concludes that the companies which adopt such
practices should enjoy higher productivity and quality... leading to lower
costs and higher product demand, all else equal.
3. Continuous Improvement efforts: Continuous improvement refers to
both incremental changes, which are small and gradual, and breakthrough, or
large and rapid, improvements (Evans and Lindsay, 2005). According to them,
these improvements might take any one of several forms:
(i) Enhancing value to the customer through new and improved
products and services.
(ii) Reducing errors, defects, waste, and their related costs.
(iii) Increasing productivity and effectiveness in the use of all
resources.
(iv) Improving responsiveness and cycle time performance for such
processes as resolving customer complaints or new product
introduction.



83

Demin had earlier included the idea of continuous improvement as one of
his 14 point of management: Improve constantly. Parsa and Kwanza (2001)
also recognized the essence of innovation as vital to successful expansionary
operations of quick service restaurants.
These continuous quality improvement efforts to which members of staff
and management must provide and respond to as identified in this study are
as follows:
Quality commitment, based on regular review of operations, systems
and structures.
Work measurement and standard settings.
Systematic inspection. This includes the establishment and regular
conduct of stage-by-stage inspection procedures of materials and
service deliveries.
Marketing efforts. Involving the application of marketing research and
other techniques to achieve an enduring profitability.
Quality circles. Teams of workers that meet regularly and specifically
to address quality related issues. The use of quality circles
emphasized direct dialogue between staff and line management on
the subject of improving procedures (Price, 2004). The concept of
quality circles was first introduced in J apan by Kaoru Ishikawa.
Statistical controls and applications, especially in problem-solving
situations.



84

Competitive benchmarking, used as a reference point in determining
quality level of products and services. Bounds and Dobbins (1994)
declared that competitive advantage comes from exceeding quality
levels of competitors.
Environmental audit and analysis.
Tangibles i.e the availability and application of state of the art
equipment and materials in operations and presentation of the
service.
Concluding, Evans and Lindsay suggest that these three basic
principles of total quality need to be supported by an integrated organizational
infrastructure, a set of management practices, and a set of tools and
techniques. This relationship which is regarded by Evans and Lindsay as
Scope of Total Quality (shown in Figure 2.5) must be applied at three level:
the organizational level, the process level, and the performer/job level.
Figure 2.5: The Scope of Total Quality.

Practices
PRINCIPLES
Tools and Techniques
Infrastructure
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
C
u
s
to
m
e
r

F
o
c
u
s
Participation and
Teamwork




85

Source: Evans and Lindsay (2004).



86

2.7.3. THE TQM CONCEPTUAL MODELS
The principles and philosophy underlying the concept of TQM have also
been presented in the form of different models proposed by authors and
researchers. These models include J urans Quality Trilogy, Demings Chain
Reaction, Mckinseys 7S of TQM, Crosbys 14-Step of TQM, Anderson
Consulting, Zairis Building Blocks, Oaklands Model of TQM etc.
Zairi and Oakland (1994) presented a simple TQM model shown below
in Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6: A Simple TQM Model.







Source: TQM Magazine (1994)
The model begins with understanding customers needs and instituting
processes for the achievement of these identified needs and specifications.
The final element of the model is total participation of everybody in the
Planning Process Total Participation
Process Management Process Improvement
Customer focus



87

organization in other to ensure continuous improvement of the process
towards the achievement of the organisations success.
Another model of TQM is that presented by J .S. Oakland.
Fig. 2.7: Oakland Model of TQM.










Source: Oakland (1993).
At the centre of Oaklands model is the process meant to facilitate the
customers / suppliers chains. This process is integrated into a whole system
with the applications of tools, teamwork and set of standard procedures.
G.A. Cole, in presenting his own model, considers the TQM system as a
cyclical process which never stops.



88



As the model indicates in Figure 2.8 shown below, the whole process of
quality improvement strategy is cyclical and based on continually studying and
satisfying the customer.


Figure 2.8: Coles Cycle of TQM.

Perceived customer
requirements


Feedback from customers Initial specification developed



After-sales service Specification tested- trailed


Delivery to customer Final specification agreed



Product and processes Production resources funded
monitored continuously and planned


Production undertaken
(inputs process outputs)


Source: Adapted from Aluko et al (2007)



89

As part of its own contributions to this body of knowledge, the research
proposes THE THREE STRATEGIC ANGLES OF FOCUS MODEL OF TQM
as presented below:
The model as shown in Figure 2.9 depicts the principles and practice of
TQM as consisting of three basic strategic angles through which quality
improvement efforts in the organization should be focused.

Figure 2.9: The Three Strategic Angles of Focus Model Of TQM







Source: Researchers Initiative (2009)
The model which identifies the three basic angles to be focused in
achieving a successful TQM implementation in organizations is based on the
idea that everyone is a supplier and a customer of someone else in the
organization. It should not only be a fundamental aspect of the production
system, but a key feature of a total quality approach in the organization (Aluko
et al, 2007). The three basic angles to be focused are identified as:



90

1: External Customer;
2: Internal Customer; and
3: Process
External customers include clients, agencies, public and community at
large. Although, external customers are not members of the organisation, they
are greatly influenced by its activities. Effective product/service quality delivery
will only hold if the entire organizational process can focus its attention and
decisions on the external customer. Also, a customer-driven focus is
necessitated by the need to effect quality changes in response to
competitions, global trends and standards.
Situations also arise in the organization, whereby departments supply
products and attend to each other. Also, since the achievement of quality
requires teamwork, every individual in the organization is considered as a
customer of another individual. This is referred to as internal customer
arrangement in the organization system. For effective implementation of TQM,
each individual in the organization must be adequately empowered towards
achieving a collective effort necessary for continuous improvement in
processes. Internal customers should therefore participate in those planning
activities relating to the improvement of their operations. Using the internal
customer as a strategic angle of focus of TQM is also based on the concept of
internal marketing. Employees are viewed as internal customers of the
organization to whom jobs are sold and satisfied with. Critical to this, is



91

therefore, a focus on service relationship within the organization at all levels
and between all levels.
The desire to maintain and/or effect changes in quality level will not be
complete without a systematic focus on process improvement facilitated by
organizational infrastructures, tools, techniques and good management
practices.
Overall, the Three Strategic Angles of TQM Focus sees TQM as a focus
on a process continuously committed to exploring the needs and beliefs of
both internal and external customers in the organization.
2.8. THE CONCEPT OF QUALITY CONTROL
Quality control dates back to the era of industrial revolution in Europe.
This era brought the acquisition of skills and the emergence of factories and
machines which have led to rapid economic and industrial growth and
expansion. Quality Control was improved by the introduction of modern
machinery whose primary function was to duplicate parts of a product. This
century also experienced the introduction of engineers into the planning
aspects of manufacturing.
Quality Control is essentially the activities and techniques employed to
achieve and maintain the quality of a product, process or service (Kumar and
Suresh, 2008). It includes monitoring activities, but is also concerned with
finding and eliminating causes of quality problems so that the requirements of
the customer are continually met (J uran, 1988). Quality control and inspection



92

units are saddled with the responsibility or task of monitoring the established
standards and measuring variations. This will enable the production
management team to take necessary corrective action anytime deviations are
detected.
According to Montgomery (2000), quality control is the systematic
regulation of variables which affect the quality performance of a product.
Montgomery affirms that in order to ensure quality control, there is the need
for adequate monitoring and regulation of the application of men, materials,
machines and general operations in order to ensure minimum decimation from
prescribed standards of the end product. Quality control adopts statistical
techniques in controlling products (Appleby 1981).
Control of quality in production, must start with the determination of
desirable quality of a product, design quality, tolerance and conformance. It is
required for design, supplier appraisal, income, inspection of materials, price
control, research and testing. This will only be possible if pre-specified
standards, to which the products can be compared, exist. The sources of
quality lies in the decision and actions of people in many departments, hence
there should be good internal communication and reliable feedback of
information from all departments after sales and services.
Quality control is the combination of attributes of a product that are
significant in determining the degree of acceptability of the product by the
user. In industries, it is defined as the measure of purity, strength, flavour,
colour, size, maturity, workmanship and condition or any other distinctive



93

attributes of a product. Traditional quality control measures were designed as
defense mechanism to prevent failures or eliminate defects.
According to Rosander (1985), quality control differs according to the
type of product and services. Although, Broh (1982) states that product and
services can be managed and controlled for the purpose of achieving higher
profits, by the use of inspection and/or rejection procedures.
Inspection, according to Broh, involves:
Examining all materials that would go into production and reject bad
ones.
Inspecting the goods while in process.
Inspecting it after production.
Rejection, on the other hand, should occur whenever, goods are found
below the set standard. Thus, goods can be rejected if it takes any of the
following forms.
(a). Defective goods: This could be reworked and brought to
standard.
(b) Spoilt goods: This could be sold at a reduced price if deficiency is
minor.
(c) Scrapped goods: Entirely bad, scrapped as waste.
If goods are found below the set standard and were rejected, the
following procedure must be followed:
a. The goods are checked to ensure that the real cause for rejection
exists.



94

b. The quality control department must be notified so that it can inspect
the items and confirm the rejection order.
c. Purchasing department must be informed so that it can contact the
supplier to arrange for the faulty items to be collected or returned.
d. Production planning must be informed so that it will be aware of a
shortage of stock in certain area which may affect its production
programmes.
Sitkin et al (1994) in distinguishing control from learning identified some
of the reasons for organizations to embark on quality control as:
(A) To take corrective measures and assess conformity
(B) To maintain orderliness and cleanliness of the plant and floors.
(C) To prepare improved standards.
(D) To control raw materials through setting of specifications.
(E) To standardize unfinished products according to labeled specifications.
(F) To build up consumers confidence.
(G) To promote and ensure goodwill.
2.8.1. THE QUALITY CONTROL PROCESS
Quality control process can be simply put as a managerial process for
conducting operations in order to provide stability, prevent changes and
maintain the status quo.
J uran identified the following steps in a feedback loop.
Figure 2.10: The Quality Control Process

Choose Control Subject
Measure Actual Performance



95









Source: J uran, J . M. (1988).
According to J uran, quality measures can be exerted by various
sources within the organization. It can be in form of control by the managerial
hierarchy, workforce, nonhuman means, and top management.
A. Control by the managerial hierarchy: This is mainly confined to
observation, organizing, machinery, maintenance and replacement and
administrative control.
B. Control by workforce: This is the kind of statistical control carried out by
engineering staff and inspection and sampling carried out by factory
operatives and supervisors.
C. Control by non-human means: This form of control involves test carried
out by data system, computer aided manufacturing systems and the use
of sensors to measure performance.
D. Control by top management: This involves making specific quality
control policies and taking responsibility for quality control by top
management officers.
Establish Measurement
Establish standard of
performance
Interpret Actual Performance
Take action on difference



96

Figure 2.11: The Pyramid of Control







Source: J uran, J . M. (1988).
Montgomery (2000) also confirms that quality needed to be controlled in
order to achieve organizational stated objectives, mainly consumer
satisfaction. To achieve this, he outlines the following five stages that must be
carried out:
Stage 1: Advising and planning at the time of product design. Quality control
department can assist by advising which standard are appropriate in view of
past experience with customers. It can also suggest the inspection of certain
specifications and plan where and when such inspection should take place.
Stage 2: Inspecting before purchasing. Because imperfect raw materials can
affect a product, all the materials to buy or already bought should be inspected
to ensure that they confirm to the order of specification. This inspection may
vary from a visual examination or chemical and/or mechanical tests.
Control by top management
Control by top managers &
Supervisors
Control by Workforce
Automated Control.



97

Stage 3: Inspection stage during manufacturing. This stage is organized with
the following objectives in mind.
- The cost of faulty production resulting from imperfect raw materials is
charged against the sellers of materials.
- To prevent unnecessary repetition of operation
- The necessary corrective action can be taken with regard to machine
or process.
Stage 4: Inspection after manufacturing: After production of a product, there
is a need to inspect the product in order to confirm its conformity with the set
down standard.
Stage 5: Proper storage. Goods produced must be stored properly to avoid
spoilage or any other unwanted effect.



98

2.9. THE CONCEPT OF QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
Smith (1994) considers improvement rather than control as the new
thinking in quality movement, which arises as a result of increased global
competitiveness. Smith reiterates that companies must engage in continuous
improvement efforts in order to excel in their areas of operations. Quality
improvement, as part of TQM philosophy, is therefore a major strategy for
improved productivity and enhanced profitability. In this wise, Mann and
Kehoe (1994) propose quality improvement activities as foundation for a
successful TQM implementation.
Evans and Lindsay (2005) identify design, control and improvement as
the three key activities in process management. While, the essence of quality
control is to remove the causes of any abnormal conditions and maintain
certain level of performance, quality improvement, on the other hand, involves
changing the performance to a new level.
All this views are in tune with J urans recommendation of quality
improvement as a revolutionary strategy for the 90s. He therefore proposes 10
steps to quality improvement in organizations:
1. Build awareness of the need and opportunity for improvement.
2. Set goals for improvement.
3. Organise to reach the goals.
4. Provide training.
5. carry out projects to solve problems.



99

6. Report progress.
7. Give recognition.
8. Communicate results.
9. Keep score.
10. Maintain momentum by making annual improvement part of the
regular systems and processes of the company.
Unlike J uran, Crosby identified 3 basic elements of improvements as:
i. determination, must be taken seriously by top management.
ii. education, should be understood by everyone.
iii. implementation process, which must be carried out effectively, in
order to change corporate culture and attitudes.
The need for quality improvement was further highlighted in a study
carried out by Lascelles and Dale (1990). They pointed out that the quality
improvement process is motivated by the desire for organizational change.
Thus quality improvement process is ignited in the organization by what they
referred to as:
(a) catalyst of change, i.e. competition, cost reduction etc.
(b) change agents, like demanding customers, chief executives etc.
(c) change opportunities, which may abound from time to time.
Rich (1997) in identifying benefits of a quality improvement programme,
considers it as enormous that they may represent the impossible business
dream. A total win and win situation. The benefits according to Rich include:
i. A long term increase in market share.



100

ii. A major decrease in wasted resources.
iii. A massive leap in productivity.
iv. A real release of the potential of people.
v. A motivated work force.
vi. A greatly improved product or service.
vii. A sustained competitive advantage.
viii. The best opportunity to increase profit.
ix. The elimination of much hassle and frustration involved in
management.
On the contrary, Smith (1990) stated that substantial proportions of
companies are still not satisfied despite the fact that they all improved, but not
to their original expectations. The reasons for these are obviously included in
barriers such as:
i. Lack of business measurement to measure product and quality
control.
ii. Lack of management commitment.
iii. Lack of vision and planning.
iv. When quality management becomes bureaucratic.
v. When the word quality becomes constraints.
vi. When people are not really involved.
vii. Where the process of change becomes tool bound.




101

2.10. FUNDAMENTALS OF QUALITY CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMMES
Quality management initiatives should begin with a consideration of the
customer, be it internal employees or external bodies (Aluko, 2007). In
practice, firms should use the quality programme to assess and monitor the
production process as well as the service delivery system, in order to see
where improvements can be made.
Collard (1989) reports that in J apan, quality control is company-wide,
nation-wide and statistically- inclined. It forms an essential part of production
and marketing strategies.
In the U.K., many firms, as well as government agencies, hinged their
quality programmes on established British Standards, as minimum indications
of their commitment to customers satisfaction. Although, the standards do not
go quite far in total quality management, companies are still expected to
demonstrate certain key features of quality system (Cole, 1994).
Similarly, in the U.S., quality programmes among firms are also
customer-centred and governed by minimum conformance to established
standards specified by the American Society for Quality Control.
While commenting on the Nigerian situation, Aluko et al (2007) opined
that it is unlikely that all Nigerian firms will behave so differently. According to
Aluko et al, since quality programme normally increase profitability, Nigerian



102

firms today have no choice than to imbibe from good quality programmes in
order to stay in the business race.
Wadsworth, Stephens and Godfrey (2002) proposes the use of modern
statistical methods and processes in quality control and improvement
programmes. As such, concepts like Six Sigma, an emerging philosophy
supported by a collection of tools and methodologies for building quality and
reliability into products and services, have started gaining wide acceptance.
These new process improvement tools also include the advance method of
Process Simulation, intense Kaizen Blitz applications of resources, and the
Poka-Yoke automatic mistake-proof and error-tracking devices. The Poka-
Yoke quality concept is based on the Zero Quality Control (ZQC), and
advocates the use of automatic devices and methods built into the system to
prevent potential errors and mistakes from being committed in the first place.
Therefore, for a quality control system to be successful and effective,
the following issues must be addressedharmonized:
A. ORGANIZATION: The quality control department should be directly
responsible to top management which means that the quality control
technologist will report directly to the management. The quality control
department provides each other department with specific information on the
quality at the receiving plant.
B. PERSONNEL: The personnel in quality control department will depend on
the extent and size of the operation, but basically the quality control



103

technologist should have some basic qualifications which include the
following:
(i) He should be an excellent cooperator
(ii) Thoroughness in result, decision and in analysis.
(iii) He should be alert and responsive to necessary changes.
C. SPECIFICATIONS: Specification is regarded as a detailed description of
any given item. The details outlined in a specification are as follow:
(i) Size; i.e big or small.
(ii) Characteristics; colour, form, texture.
(iii) Performance.etc.
D. SAMPLING: Collection of samples should be at every stage of processing
to check whether or not there is any sudden mistake, unexpected error,
contamination etc.
E. STANDARDS: The quality control technologist is to determine any
deviation from the laid down standard and if necessary make the needed
changes to control the quality of product at the desired level. Standards can
be set in the organizations through individual efforts of the quality control
unit/committee, boardroom directives and through joint consultations.
F. MEASUREMENT: The quality control laboratory serves as the nerve centre
for measurement, monitoring, control and evaluation of quality. Apart from
carrying out experiments on the development of new designs, the quality
control laboratory is set up to also determine the efficiency of processing units



104

and facilities. Measurement also involves the use of the laboratory in
estimating and evaluating the Storage / Shelf life of finished products.
In view of the above, Aluko et al submits that many Nigerian banks and
multinationals have started appointing TQM managers in furtherance of their
quality control and improvement programmes.
Thus, quality control programmes tailored along TQM principles
requires the following to be fulfilled:
1. Customer Orientation.
2. Total Staff Involvement.
3. Staff Empowerment and Motivation
4. Managers as Role Models.
5. A Functioning Process
6. Standard Work Measurement.
7. Conducive Environment.
8. Customer Satisfaction.
Aluko et al also summarises the following considerations, which
companies must recognize before embarking on quality improvement drives:
1. Quality is in the eyes of the customer.
2. Quality must be reflected both in the product service and in every
organizational activity.
3. Quality requires total staff commitment.
4. Quality requires high-quality partners.



105

5. Quality is necessary, but may not be sufficient.
6. Quality can always be improved.
7. Quality improvement sometimes requires quantum leap.
8. Quality does not cost more.
9. Quality programme can not compensate for deficienciessave a product.



106

2.11. PROBLEM SOLVING TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS IN QUALITY
CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME
A variety of tools have been developed over the years to support the
improvement efforts in organizations. Smith (1990) suggests a process
through which quality improvement methods might be used to highlight
problem areas and facilitate their solution. He reiterates that the success of
such a process depends on the strength of the team and the tools assembled
for the purpose.
Dervitsiotis (1981) also states that for a problem to exist or for a
condition to be perceived as a problem, it is necessary to feel pressure to take
action for a change. He asserted philosophically that in such situations:
Problems provide opportunities for improvements of procedures.
Solving the identified problem boosts productivity.
Problems have to be solved by people.
People directly doing the job understand the problem better.
Employees want to be involved in improving their jobs.
Problems are sometimes better solved by teams.
Structured problem solving techniques are more effective than
unstructured approaches.
The use of appropriate problem-solving techniques and tools is
therefore critical for the proper assessment of the process that borders on
customer satisfaction. These tools are briefly discussed below:



107

Table 2.2: Tools Used In Solving Quality Control Problems

PROCESS TOOLS
1. Define problem clearly Brain storming, List reduction.
2. Analyse the causes Flowcharts, Fishbone diagrams;
Pareto Chart, Brainstorming why-why.
3. Collect data Check sheets, run charts.
4. Analyse data Pareto Chart, histograms
5.

Select a solution Flowchart/fishbone diagram. List
reduction. Force field analysis.
6. Implement Solution Flowcharts, Gantt Charts. How-how
7. Evaluate Result Flowcharts, Run Charts, etc.
8. Standardise
Solution/Prevention


Source: Smith, M. (1996).
1. Brain Storming: This is an idea generating technique where a group of
people throws out idea as they think them out. It could take two forms:
(i) Free-wheeling, which encourages wild ideas and no evaluation, and
ii) Round robin, which allows members to take turn during discussion
sessions.
2. List Reduction: This aims at pruning down the list. This method is
essentially a filter technique, which greatly complements brainstorming. In
applying this method, questions such as the following are asked:



108

- Is an item likely to improve the situation?
- Is it feasible? Can we afford it?
3. Fishbone / Cause and effect/ Ishikawa diagram: It provides a systematic
way of looking at effects and the causes that create desired effects. The
effect can either be a problem or a desired state.
Figure 2.12: The Fishbone Diagram








Source: J oseph G. Monks (1996).

4. Flow Charts: They show the inputs, activities, decision points and outputs
for a given process. Flow charts have wide applications admin, accounts
etc. Flow charts are constructed by the use of symbols which although have
universal application, are also relevant in quality control.
5. Pareto Analysis: A Pareto Chart is a special form of vertical bar graph which
helps to determine which problems to solve in what order. The Pareto
Analysis follows the Pareto Principle of 80:20 law which states that often 80%
PEOPLE
METHOD
PROCESS
TECH
LOSS BY A
BRANCH
ENVIRON MATERIAL OTHER/
HISTORICAL
Causes
Effect



109

of the problem is due to 20% of the causes. It enables us to identify the vital
few needing priority measures vis--vis the trivial many. Thus, in a Pareto
Analysis:
Otherwise ignored areas are the vital few.
Trivial many are identified and given less attention.
Priorities are established.
Thus, by concentrating on the 20% of the factors (the vital few),
managers can attack 80% of the quality problems. The few vital factors are
thus plotted in decreasing order of frequency on the Pareto Chart.
6. Why-why Diagram: This technique provides an alternative method of
identifying the root causes to a problem. It is also ideal in encouraging its
logical conclusion. The answers to the question automatically become the
solutions to the problem.
Figure 2.13: The Why- Why Diagram




Because Why




Source: J .G .Monks (1996).
7. How How Diagram: This technique is used to explore the most feasible
from available numerous solutions. It helps in the determination of the best
Poor
Materials
Poor
quality
Poor
design
Poor
Workmanship
Poor
Standard
Poor
Specification



110

steps and processes for a solution as the relative costs are also examined
before selecting the best option.
Figure 2.14: Illustration of How How diagram


what if How


Source: J .G .Monks (1996).
8. Gantt Chart / Diagram: The chart specifies the schedule, events,
activities, and assigns responsibilities necessary to complete a project. It is
suitable for a multi-phased project or task. Appleby (1981) states that the
Gantt chart shows relationships between events in a production program.
9. Forcefield Analysis: Forcefield Analysis is a means of identifying problems
by isolating the factors that bear on the problems, and for developing
strategies that bring about change. We identify the driving (positive) forces
and the restraining (negative) forces and seek for disequilibrium so that the
driving forces are greater than the negative forces.
10. 6-Word Diagram: In problem-solving situations, this stresses the basic
questions, apart from why and how, such as; who, what, when, where, how
Improve
Product
Quality

Improve
materials

Improve
design
Improve
workmanship
Revision
Standard
Clarifying
Specification



111

and why. Answers to these questions often provide solutions to most
problems.
In furtherance of the above, Evans and Lindsay (2005) highlights the
use and applications of statistical process control charts and tools in different
sectors of the service industry such as the hospitals, banks, hotels, insurance
companies etc. This is presented in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Applications of Control Charts In Service Organisations.
ORGANISATION QUALITY MEASURE
1. Hospital Lab test accuracy
Insurance claim accuracy
On-time delivery of meals and medication
2. Bank Cheques processing accuracy
3. Insurance company Claims processing response time.
4. Ambulance Response time
5.

Police Rate of Crime
Number of Traffic incidence
6. Hotel Available accommodation
Checkout time
Number of Complaints received

Source: Evans and Lindsay (2005)



112

2.12. QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS & CERTIFICATION
SCHEMES
The need to find a common ground upon which quality is measured and
best practices rewarded has led to the development of numerous local,
national, continental and international standards, prestigious awards and
certification schemes. These include the J apanese Deming Application Prize
instituted in 1951, the U.S. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award instituted
in 1988, the Canadian Award for Business Excellence also developed in 1988,
the Australian Business Excellence Award, the British Standard Award, the
Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON), the European Quality Award
launched in 1991, and the International Standard Organisation (ISO) founded
in 1946, with headquarters in Geneva.
The main objective of these standards, awards and certification
schemes, which cuts across companies, industries, national, regional and
international boundaries as observed by Macdonald and Piggot (1990), is to
ensure that customers receive the products and services they require, to the
standards they require, every time. Thus, if applied correctly, the standards
define and provide a logical and organized framework of quality management
that will provide customer satisfaction from which every organization can
benefit (Evans and Lindsay, 2005). For instance, the standards require
applicable methods, including statistical techniques be identified and used for
monitoring and measuring productions and processes, and that through
monitoring and measurement, the organization can demonstrate the ability of



113

processes to meet requirements and that product requirements have been
met. The achievement of certain levels of certification are regarded by
organizations as very vital for achieving competitive contractual feats in the
industrial landscape. The main reason therefore, many companies are under
pressure to show certifications or proofs of these standards. For example,
nearly 15000 European, 1600 American and 43000 Canadian companies
have achieved some levels of ISO 9000 certification, while more than 1000
countries have adopted it as a national standard (Arora, 2006). In addition,
Arora (2006) also stresses the need for service organization to establish
specifications and standards, for planning and executing day-to-day controls,
although their forms do not appear to be well suited for programs of quality
improvement.
Smith (1994) however warns that striving to attain these accredited
standards may put organizations in serious unwarranted pressures, which in
the end, even after certification, may leave them too exhausted to continue the
desired lasting change. Smith further asserts that customers require standards
which are higher and much more specific to them than any ISO 9000 can
assure. These recognized standards and prestigious awards are only
processed, but not based on actual performance. They are therefore not
alternatives to quality processes but only significant contributors to it. Arora
also added that strict adherence to service specifications and standards may
pose the universal problem of funding the optimum level of conformance.



114

Notwithstanding, Aluko et al (2007) advised Nigerian companies aiming
for quality awards to be organized, focused and never be satisfied with partial
quality improvement strategies.
2.12.1: STANDARDS USED IN ASSESSING QUALITY
Quality and standardization are complementary to each other. Quality
begins with standards, and standards are important tools used by
management to improve quality and productivity. Arora defines standards as
temporary crystallization of the best acceptable solution to a recurring problem
formulated in a scientific manner and subject to periodic reviews and
revisions.
The following standards can be used in assessing quality in an
organization;
1. CUSTOMER OR GRADE STANDARDS: These represent the consumer
requirements of a product and service. Therefore, quality assessment is
based on the fitness for use and the level of satisfaction derived by
consumers. They are usually set by market competition. Enforcements
of grade standards are usually voluntary.
2. COMPANY LABEL STANDARDS: This represents the various
standards established by the various segments of the industry. It
represents consumers image or symbols of present quality in order to
assure the customers that the product is not fake and it is from the real
source.



115

3. LEGAL STANDARDS: These are those standards commonly set and
enforced by the federal, state or local regulatory agencies. Legal
standards are generally mandatory minimal standards set up by laws
and legislations. In most cases, it helps to ensure safety, good
manufacturing and healthy practices.
4. INDUSTRY STANDARD: These are standards set up by various
standardization committees for various industries to regulate and
establish given limit of quality for any commodity. They are set up in
order to ensure uniformity and technical compliance.
In using standards to assess quality in the service industry, Arora also
recommended the following approaches:
(i) Market standards, based on analysis of performance attained by
multiple members of the same large service organization. This
approach is widely used by chain restaurants and numerous multi-unit
service organizations.
(ii) Competitors standard, which involves studying the performance of
competitors for the purpose of appraising quality.
(iii) Periodic standard, based on special studies conducted periodically in
line with the principles of marketing research.
2.12.2: ISO 9000, ISO 14000 AND ISO 22000
ISO 9000, ISO 14000 AND ISO 22000 are all series of significant
written international quality standards adopted and issued by the International



116

Organisation for Standardization (IOS). The first series of ISO 9000 was
based on the original guidelines adopted in 1987 by the organisations
national standard bodies from 91 nations. It was designed to encourage the
adoption of specific processes in organizations, and later revised in 1994. In
the year 2000, a new series tagged ISO 9000:2000 was released.
The increasing interest shown in ISO 9000 series paved the way for the
adoption of ISO 14000 in 2004, which was designed to provide effective
blueprints for economic development and environmental management
planning in industries and governments agencies.
ISO 22000, introduced on 1 September 2005, is the latest in the series
of IOS standards. It was specifically designed for the management of food
safety across national borders and within the entire food chain. ISO 22000
provides for a common standard covering all links and parties in the food
chain, from foodstuff producers to chains store that set food products to
consumers.
The ISO prefix is also considered as a scientific term depicting equality
as in isosceles triangles and isotherm lines on a weather map. In this wise,
ISO 9000 certified firms are recognized to have quality equal to their peers.
The ISO 9000: 2000 standards therefore focus on developing, documenting,
and implementing procedures to ensure consistency of operations and
performance in production and service delivery processes, with the aim of
continual improvement, and supported by fundamental principles of total
quality (Kumar and Suresh, 2008).



117

The ISO 9000:2000 series of standards contains 4 core standards
which can be applied in any sector, and by both small and big organizations.
These are:
1. ISO 9000:2000 - Quality Management Systems: Fundamentals and
Vocabulary.
2. ISO 9001: 2000 - Quality Management Systems: Requirements.
3. ISO 9004 : 2000 - Quality Management Systems: Guidelines for
Performance Improvement.
4. ISO 19011 : 2002 Guidelines for Quality and Environmental Auditing.

The underlying philosophy of the ISO 9000: 2000 is based on eight
quality management principles namely:
1. Customer focus.
2. Leadership.
3. Involvement of people.
4. Process approach.
5. System approach to management.
6. Continual improvement.
7. Factual approach to decision-making.
8. Mutually beneficial supplier relationships.
These quality management principles as specified in ISO 9001:2000
can be used by organizations for certifications and contractual purposes.
The TQM philosophy of prevention rather than detection is the
underlying principle of ISO14000: Environmental Management System (EMS).



118

Like ISO 9000, ISO 14000 is processed-based and can be used by
organizations to initiate and improve their working environment. ISO 14000
series also covers environment auditing, environmental self assessment,
reviews etc.
The new ISO 22000 (Food Safety And Management) is also patterned
along the previous ISO 9000 (Quality Principles) and ISO 14000
(Environmental Management). It contains requirements for managing food
safety in line with national standards and specific standards prepared by
different organizations, including the retail food chains. ISO 22000 also covers
information regarding corporate requirements, GMP, product development,
storage conditions as well as suppliers/customers relationships.
Evans and Lindsay suggest that the implementation of ISO standards
requires the resources and support of top management, but the details fall
mainly within the province of operating managers, supervisors and
employees.
Also, four major barriers to successful implementation of ISO standards
by organizations have been identified (Kim,1994). These are:
1. Misinterpretation of the requirements.
2. Overcontrol of the quality system
3. Excessive documentation.
4. Failing to identify current gaps in requirements.
Although, it is impossible for these standards to solve all organizational
problems, yet their implementations have yielded various benefits not only to



119

the organizations and their customers, employees, suppliers and partners, but
to the entire society at large (Arora, 2006). The benefits range from product
reliability, increased returns, growth, better working conditions and job
satisfaction to improved health, safety and reduced environmental hazards to
the society.



120

2.13: QUALITY CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT PRACTICES IN
THE FAST FOOD INDUSTRY
In the fast food industry, quality practices are governed and regulated
by industry, government and international standards. International standards
such as ISO 9000 and ISO 22000 have been formulated to provide series of
guidelines and regulations regarding the applications of quality management
and safety principles in the food retail industry. Firms with certain level of
compliance and conformance to these laid-down standards are certified and
awarded due recognition. The objective of these regulations and control
schemes is mainly to guide the attainment of best practices among
practitioners in the industry, towards ensuring high level quality delivery,
safety and good health of their numerous consumers.
In Nigeria, the fast food industry is regulated by the National Agency For
Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) and Association of Fast
Food and Confectioners of Nigeria (AFFCON). The National Agency For Food
and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) was established as a
parastatal of the Federal Ministry of Health by Decree No. 15 of 1993 as
amended by Decree 19 of 1999. The Agency has the mandate to regulate and
control the manufacture, importation, exportation, distribution, advertisement,
sale and use of food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devises, chemicals,
detergents, packaged water and other drinks. The mission of NAFDAC is to



121

safeguard public health by ensuring that only the right quality of food and
other regulated products are manufactured sold and used.
The need for the operations of fast food firms in Nigeria to be
harmonized necessitated the inauguration of the Association of Fast Food and
Confectioners of Nigeria in 2009. AFFCON, the only umbrella body for the
organized fast food sector in Nigeria, is therefore set up to provide a common
front in the industry with the aim of promoting further investments and unified
standard quality practices in the industry. Recently, AFFCON challenged the
Lagos State government in a law suit over the imposition of 5% tax on
consumption of food and services at events centres, hotels and eateries. Also,
at a stakeholders forum on Excellence and Quality Consumer Services in the
Fast Food Industry organized by the association in May, 2009, the President,
Mrs. Olayinka Adedayo added, our association was formed to promote
the rich and diverse nutritional culture of the nation through introduction of
Nigerian food while our restaurants had become major eateries for all
Nigerians to entertain themselves.
NAFDAC, with its headquarters in Abuja, has 5 quality control
laboratories and inspectorate offices located in all the states of the federation.
It is headed by a Director General and consists of 8 Directorates namely:
Directorate of Registration and Regulatory Affairs.
Directorate of Laboratory Services.
Ports Inspection Directorate.
Establishment Inspection Directorate.



122

Directorate of Narcotics and Controlled Substances.
Directorate of Enforcement.
Directorate of Planning, Research and Statistics.
Directorate of Administration and Finance.
The National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control
(NAFDAC), in performing its role as a food regulatory agency, listed the
contending quality issues that needed to be regularly examined in the
operations of fast food business in Nigeria. The conditions must be regularly
satisfied by fast food operators and their outlets during and after regular
unscheduled inspections and visits by NAFDAC officials.
These conditions according to NAFDAC are listed below:
The Fast Food operator must have an established retail outlet(s).
Health and Hygiene MUST be maintained.
A register of stock shall be maintained.
No banned substances or products e.g. bromate, should be used.
No expired goods should be displayed or sold.
Register of expired products should be kept.
Register of destroyed unwholesome/expired products should be kept.
Food items should be displayed away from toiletries and chemical
based items.
Pet food must be displayed separately and should be isolated from any
other foodstuffs.
Right temperature should be maintained, while storing/displaying the
chilled and frozen items and temperature records kept.



123

Fresh food handlers must be medically examined and fitness certificate
should be obtained every 6 months from a medical practitioner.
Food handlers associated with bakery and fresh products must follow
systems and procedures and their heads and hairs should be covered.
They must wear a clean uniform/apron along with their nametags for
easy identification.
The use of jewellery for food handlers should be discouraged.
Fast food chain operators/allied groups should have standard operating
procedures (SOPs) for cleaning premises and equipment.
Pesticides and disinfectants used for fumigation and cleaning should be
appropriate and safe for humans.
Since TQM is widely accepted and adopted by manufacturing and
service industries, and obtain good results in the banking and health care
sectors (Adeoti, 2008), many food retail organizations are interested in
accepting its underlying concepts and philosophy as part of their quality
control and improvement practices. Thus, apart from using standards to
measure the performance of established fast food retail firms, TQM-related
criteria such as continuous improvement, customer focus and total employee
involvement, may also be used to evaluate their services.
In addition, the attainment and maintenance of the desired standard
services in the fast food industry requires the implementation of a total quality
assurance system. According to Arora (2006), quality assurance means
quality insurance. Thus, apart from protecting both the organizations and the
customers, it also ensures product/service reliability through the quality of



124

design and conformance. The total quality assurance system requires overall
quality commitment and participation of all those connected with a
product/service. It also involves continuous evaluation, measurement, control,
reporting and reviewing of processes and operations.
Therefore, adopting a total quality management and assurance
concepts in the fast food industry involves laying emphasis on such practices
like:
- product development and design
- process planning, control and procedures
- material handling, inspection and defect analysis
- instrumentation, equipment selection and measurement
- performance testing, feedback and corrections
- customer-relations and complaints-handling
- vendor/supplier selection
- delivery, sales and promotion
- special studies using problem-solving tools and statistical analysis
- employee training, development and motivation.
Also, the Eight Dimensional Model of Total Quality recommended at the
Quality and Productivity Improvement Conference held at Vienna, Virginia,
USA, in J une 1989 can be suitably adopted in the fast food industry. This is
depicted in the diagram below (Figure 2.15).



125

Figure 2.15: The Eight Dimensional Model of Total Quality







Source: Arora (2006)
Evans and Lindsay (2005) summarises the TQ-focused elements vital
to successful operations of take-out restaurants as:
- customer relationship management
- leadership and strategic planning
- human resources management
- process management
- information and knowledge management
Chase and Stewart (1994) suggests the applications of the concepts of
automatic mistake-proof device called POKA-YOKE in designing and
improving processes in the fast food restaurants. According to Chase and
Stewart, both servers and customers of fast food commit different errors,
which could be prevented with the use of Poka- Yoke principle. Computer



126

prompts, colour-coded cash register keys, measuring scoops, signaling
devices etc are used to prevent server errors. Also to prevent unfriendliness
and cold responses, servers and attendants are trained to automatically
response with a smile at certain points during their various service encounters
with customers. Also, customer errors such as incorrect placement of orders,
inattention, misunderstandings and lack of response to service inadequacies
can be prevented with proper use of fast food facilities, based on Poka- Yoke
strategy. For instance, customers of QSRs can be reminded and encouraged
to clear the table when they have finished eating, with the use of trash
receptacles and tray-return stands strategically placed in convenient locations.
2.14: IMPLEMENTATION MODEL FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND
IMPROVEMENT IN THE FAST FOOD INDUSTRY
In this section, a compact and applicable model for quality control and
improvement practice in the fast food industry, based on TQM and established
industrial standards is developed. Following this model as shown in Figure
2.16, quality control and improvement practices require serious commitment
on the part of practitioners in combining both the required standards and TQM
philosophy to attain the desired state of affairs. This is achieved only through
strict compliance to laid-down guidelines and operating procedures and, also
through serious commitment to the implementation of quality improvement
programs, which are effectively designed to conform to specifications and



127

enhance products/service performance, and eventually, the attainment of best
practices in the industry.



128

Fig.2.16: Implementation Model of Quality Control and Improvement Practice in the
Fast Food Industry.


















Source: Researchers Initiatives (2010)
In support of the above model, Zairi (1992) sees standardization
schemes as a basic building block of TQM, which strengthens and facilitates
effective quality improvement practices in organizations. Notwithstanding,
QUALITY ASSURANCE
STANDARDS & SCHEMES
Industry Standards
National Standards
International Standards
TQM PRINCIPLES &
CONCEPTS
Continuous
Improvement
Customer-focus
Employee Involvement
MANAGEMENT
COMMITMENT
QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROGRAMMES
Quality Design
Quality Conformance
Quality Performance
QUALITY GUIDELINES
& PROCEDURES
Good Management
Practice (GMP)
Best Industrial
Practice
Quality
Award/Certification
World Class Quality
PERFORMANCE
Customer Satisfaction
Public Health & Safety
Employee satisfaction
Competitiveness
Organisational
Profitability & Survival



129

organizations can move on the road of TQM independently and survive in the
future without seeking for certifications.
Schlosser (2002), however, noted that despite efforts on the part of fast
food practitioners to improve quality and achieve best practices, the attendant
negative effects of their operations on public health is yet to be effectively
addressed by stakeholders.
Also, its full implementation among QSRs and fast food chains are still
hindered by many obstacles and bottlenecks (Parsa and Kwansa,2001).
Notwithstanding, Choppin (1995) concludes that achieving success with
TQM in organizations may still be attributed to developing a unique model,
such as the one presented here by this study, which reflects the business
ethics and purpose of the organization in question.
2.15: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE FAST FOOD
INDUSTRY
The term fast food according to www.factssheet.com. was first
recognised by Merriam-Webster dictionary in 1951. It refers to food that can
be easily prepared and served very quickly in an outlet to consumers. It can
be served directly from oven to table (sit-in) or presented in form of take-out
packages or containers (take-away). Common fast food menu found in outlets
worldwide apart from drinks include pies, chips, fries, sandwiches, pizzas,
noodles, chilis, salads, potatoes, rice, ice-cream, coffee, candies, hamburgers,
fish, beef, chicken, turkey, hot dogs etc. Also, various sizes, types and kinds



130

of outlets exist worldwide for the purpose of retailing fast foods. These range
from carts, wagons, stands, kiosks to restaurants, and modern day fast food
retail outlets, better known as Quick Service Restaurants (QSRs). They are
found and located everywhere with round the clock services where applied
e.g. in convenient shops, drives, filling stations, schools, cashpoints etc.
Mainly, fast food outlets can be classified as either providing
unstandardized or standardized services. The unstandardized outlets are
usually the unregistered small operators, providing informal but fast casual
table services to customers. In this category are the traditional food vendors,
cafeterias and casual dinning restaurants. On the other hand, the
standardized outlets include the registered food retail outfits with formalized
business names and structures, whose operations are usually large-scaled
and certified by appropriate regulating authorities. In this category are the
single-branch eateries and chained quick service restaurants that provide
minimal table service to customers. Also, unlike the former, which is
considered to have existed for generations, the latter category is regarded as
modern and emerging, as a result of recent rapid urban developments in
various countries of the world. In this light, the fast food industry can thus be
divided into two: the formal or organized sector and the informal sector. This
study is primarily concerned with quality issues and performances of the
formal fast food industry. Outlets in the organized sector are usually
established by either corporate individuals or multinational organizations
concentrating mainly in urban centres.



131

The concept of the modern fast food could be traced to the take-out
food services popularized by the then automats restaurants, which flourished
greatly in the U.S during and after the First World War. Similarly, as
automobiles became popular during this period, drive-in restaurants (later
known as drive-throughs) were introduced. The second Whitecastle
hamburger restaurant founded in 1921 in Wichita, Kansas was regarded as
the first fast food chain in America. Today, the U.S. has the largest fast food
industry in the world with locations in over 100 countries. The U.K. is also
credited with the highest number of fast food per person, followed by Australia
and the U.S. In 2008, England alone accounted for 25% of all fast food in the
world.
The formal fast food industry is highly commercialized and
characterized by various pre-formulated procedures and food preparation
methods usually set up with the intention of minimizing production cost and
delivery time. Greater emphasis is always placed in ensuring certain level of
flavour and quality consistency of products and quick services as expected by
customers. Various variants of cuisines and dishes are popularised by fast
food restaurants across the globe. While pizza is wide known in the U.S.,
sushi is common in J apan, kebab, fish and chips are popular fast foods in
Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
It is noteworthy that the business of fast food retailing is fast spreading
and striving globally with numerous fast food outlets located all over the world.
McDonalds is considered as the largest operator of fast food in the world, with



132

over 31,000 restaurants located in 120 countries, on six continents. The
busiest fast food in the world is McDonalds in Moscow, which was opened on
J anuary 31, 1990. Other fast food multinationals include Burger King,
Kenturcky Fried Chicken (KFC), Big-mac, Pizza Hut, Subway and Taco Bell.
In Nigeria, the leading fast food operators are Mr. Biggs, Tantalizers, Tastee
Fried Chicken (TFC), Sweet Sensation and Chicken Republic. The indigenous
South African fast food market is dominated by Nandos, Black Steer and
Chicken Licken. In Canada, PizzaPizza and 241 Pizza are among the leading
indigenous fast food operators.
Consumption records also show that about $110 billion was spent on
fast food in 2000 as against $6 billion in 1970 in the U.S. alone. Although the
organized fast food industry loses substantial market share to the informal
sector, sales figures of $142 billion in 2006, are expected to increase by 5%
yearly. In India, the fast food industry is growing by 40% yearly. The Nigerian
fast food industry is also currently worth about N190billion with the potential to
grow bigger.
Also, the industry is considered as highly labour-intensive. In Nigeria, it
was identified as a leading overall employer of labour, looking at the food
supply chain from farm to the table. The management and operations of QSRs
require and attract various job opportunities and professionals, including
service providers and suppliers. These ranges from farmers, caterers,
horticulturists, interior decorators, technicians, food technologists to estate
agents, architects, engineers, auditors, accountants etc. Employment records



133

shows that over 2 million workers are employed in the areas of fast food
operations and servicing in the United States.
The increasing growth and proliferation of fast food restaurants
worldwide can be attributed to the ever-increasing demand for its services for
consumers to meet and cope with the global fast ways of livelihood. Daily
increasing workloads and engagements occasioned by rigorous strifes and
struggles by individuals for survival and proficiency create less time for food
preparation at home. Even, it is not unusual for women and married couples to
engage in official assignments and duties away from homes, therefore making
the consumption of fast food to become a fact of life.
The bottom line regarding QSRs worldwide is that they exert great
influence in determining the physical and mental health status of the populace
which they feed everyday. Therefore, hygiene issues relating to sanitations,
contaminations and diets have been raised in certain quarters. Several studies
and investigations have also linked the increasing consumption of fast food to
excessive body weight, especially in children, obesity, diabetes, heart disease,
etc. Fast food restaurants have also been alleged severally of promoting
excessive calories intake beyond the daily 2000 calories needed by
individuals. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2004 ranked
obesity as the second leading cause of preventable death in the United
States. The attendant effects of all these issues are considered unfavourable
to economic growth and development of nations. In 2003, the cost of health
care in America increased by $93 billion, mainly from diabetes and heart



134

diseases. All these issues have stimulated increased interests in the
promotion of the use and consumption of natural local food and cuisines
containing fresh ingredients and unsaturated fats as against fast food choices.
Cases of litigations and health claims filed against fast food owners-operators
are also increasing daily.
In Nigeria, the growth and survival of the industry is also threatened by
various challenges. These include poor infrastructures and lack of basic public
utilities, inadequate food processing facilities, high cost of funds, multiple
taxation, informal practices among others. Stakeholders in this industry are
therefore faced with the need for proper reappraisal and realignment of fast
food operations in line with healthier laid down procedures and guidelines
targeted at increasing life expectancy.




135

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses methods that were employed in gathering and
processing necessary information on the topic under study. These methods
include both data collection and analysis employed to achieve the research
objectives and finding solutions to the main problem of this study. Also,
included in this chapter, are the detailed description and specifications of the
sample size and population covered by the study, including the summary of a
pilot study conducted in the course of the research.

3.2: BRIEF PROFILES OF LEADING FAST FOOD OPERATORS IN
NIGERIA
Although, the concept of quick service restaurants evolved in Nigeria 30
years ago by UAC, from the coffee shops of its Kingsway Departmental
Stores, which later transformed into Kingsway Rendezvous, the organised fast
food industry is still emerging in the country. The industry has witnessed the
influx of unprecedented number of fast food operators since the opening of the
first fast food outlet in Nigeria, at Yaba, in 1986 by Mr. Biggs, a subsidiary of
UAC Nigeria Plc. Today, about 400 outlets, established by corporate
individuals and organisations are classified as standardized eateries providing
fast food services in major cities of Southwestern Nigeria alone. The recent



136

proliferation is also not unconnected with the upsurge in social and economic
activities worldwide. In 2006, the global fast food market grew by 4.8% and
reached a value of 102.4 billion and a volume of 80.3 billion transactions.
Although the list of new entrants increases daily in Nigeria, only five fast
food owner-operators are identified as dominating the industry with less than
50% share of the total industry market as at 2007. Notwithstanding, all
operators in the organized fast food industry are recognized in this study for a
broad based investigation to be conducted.
Mr. Biggs is considered as the largest operator of fast food in Nigeria,
with over 175 outlets located in about 48 cities in all the states of the
federation. Mr. Biggs also operates outside Nigeria with outlets in Kumasi and
Accra, both in Ghana. The popular Mr. Biggs brand emerged in August 1986
as a result of intensive consumer research aimed at relaunching an ideal
quick service restaurant in Nigeria. In its efforts to provide what it considers a
unique eating experience for everyone, Mr. Biggs strives to offer varieties of
menu under the strictest levels of hygiene and service quality. Recently, in
response to increasing global interest in local cuisines and ingredients, the
Village Kitchen was introduced into the Mr. Biggs brand. Also, in order to
consolidate its leadership position in the industry, Mr. Biggs now offers
franchise opportunities and arrangements for willing individual investors to
own, operate and enjoy the financial and psychological benefits of the brand.
Through these arrangements and others, it is planned that more restaurants



137

will be opened in due course to meet the ever-yearning desires of Nigerians
for an ideal fast food industry in the country.
Tantalizers, established by an indigenous investor, is another leading
fast food chain in Nigeria. Its first outlet located at Festac Town, Lagos was
first opened to customers on 1 May 1997. Tantalizers, now regarded as the
fastest growing indigenous Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) in Nigeria, has
about 50 outlets nationwide, with about 21 locations in Lagos metropolis only.
It offers wide varieties of patented fast food products to its numerous
customers including both Africana and continental dishes. Of recent, franchise
arrangements have been made to establish more outlets across the country.
Tastee Fried Chicken, commonly known as TFC, is also a popular QSR
in Nigeria. The first outlet established in 1996 by one Mrs. Olayinka Pamela
Adedayo and located in Victoria Island, a choice area of Lagos was
considered as the largest outlet in Nigeria, then. TFC was established with the
aim of offering for Nigerians a world-class fast food services modeled after the
Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). TFC now has 8 retailing outlets in the country.
The proprietress, Mrs. Adedayo is in the forefront of harmonizing and
regulating the operations of fast food industry in Nigeria, with the founding
recently of the Association of Fast Food and Confectioners of Nigeria
(AFFCON), where she is the founding president.
Chicken Republic, a subsidiary of Food Concepts, S. A., is another top-
5 QSR chain operating in Nigeria. Chicken Republic launched in 2005, with
about 19 outlets in Nigeria and 1 outlet in South Africa, is considered as the



138

fastest growing fast food franchise in West Africa. With over 6 million pieces of
chicken sold in 2007 alone, Chicken Republic is also considered as the
foremost chicken brand in Nigeria, with about 5% capture of the market, and
an estimated growth rate of 40%. It targets the undeserved areas of major
cities regarded as virgin markets of smaller cities. Chicken Republic strives
to provide taste, value, ambiance and consistent quality of product offerings
well matched to the current psychology of West Africas emerging middle
class and young adult market.
There are other numerous indigenous QSRs holding sway in urban
locations in the Southwestern Nigeria especially in Lagos, namely Sweet
Sensation, Chicken Lovers, Chicken Licking, Mama Cass, Captain Cook,
Chicken Palace, Spices, etc providing varieties of Africana and continental
cuisines to teeming customers.
3.3: CHOICE OF RESEARCH METHOD
Scientific investigation may be classified according to its purpose, as
exploratory, descriptive, historical and causal in nature. In the case of this
study, investigation conducted could be identified as exploratory and
descriptive. It sought to determine the present performance status of fast food
businesses in Nigeria.
The survey method appeared to be the most appropriate for this type of
investigation. Nworgu (1991) considered survey method as best suited for
descriptive research, because it is very realistic, investigating phenomena in



139

their natural settings, while identifying present conditions to arrive at
generalised conclusions. It is employed to know or learn about peoples
characteristics, knowledge, belief, opinions, preferences, attitudes and
satisfaction and so on. The more reason, the researcher, in using this method,
relied on the respondents self- testimonies. It consists of gathering data,
especially by administering questionnaire to a limited number of people,
known as sample, selected from a large group, called population.
Although, it is usually costly and time consuming, but it seems
appropriate for developing countries like Nigeria where records are not often
kept in an orderly and usable fashion.
All these distinguishing features of survey research method justifies its
choice as the major technique used in this study.
3.4: THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
The central problem of this study is to relate quality control and
improvement practices with the performance and survival of fast food
business in Nigeria. Hence the study, specifically attempted to investigate
and determine the effects of the adoption of these practices on customers
patronage of selected fast food firms and outlets.
This research work therefore explored and examined various areas and
issues that could be attributed to the present state of our fast food retail
outlets, especially those located in the southwest zone of Nigeria, in terms of



140

effective product/service quality delivery, customer satisfaction and
achievement of desired targets and performance.
To achieve this, the following basic questions among others were
raised:
(i) What is meant by the term quality control and improvement?
(ii) To what extent is customer patronage influenced by perceived
quality?
(iii) To what extent is quality control practised by these firms?
(iv) What could be the impact of an enhanced quality control and
improvement practices on the patronage and performance of
these firms?
(v) What can firms do to effect improvement in quality?
3.5: DATA SPECIFICATION
This study was carried out in line with our stated research problems and
objectives. First, it was concerned with the determination of the extent to
which Nigerian fast foods firms and their customers are quality conscious.
Second, it focused, first on determining the existence of relationship among
the elements of quality control and improvement practices and then on the
significance of its adoption to customers patronage and hence, sales
performance in these firms.
In order to achieve this, the research made use of both the
questionnaire and oral interview schedules to obtain information about



141

independent and dependent variables. These are the quality and performance
variables respectively.
The quality variables consist of the various elements and issues
involved in quality control and improvement practices, which are categorized
in this study into 3 broad strategic factors, in accordance with TQM
philosophy:
continuous quality improvement efforts
customer-focus processes
employee involvement, participation and empowerment programmes.

The performance variables include:
patronage, and
sales targets experienced and achieved by these firms.
The quality control elements and activities comprising of all the quality
variables are interval variables, whose levels of adoption/concern by
respondents were adjudged very high, high, average, low or very low. Thus a
Likert type scale was used to rate the quality data. Likewise, the performance
variables were treated as interval scale variables.
Two questionnaires were administered to the staff and customers of
respondent fast food outlets. The questionnaire for staff elicited information on
the existence of various elements of quality control practices and their
assessments of the performance of these firms, while the other questionnaire
to the customers elicited information on the extent and degree of service



142

quality and satisfaction provided by the fast food outlets in South West
Nigeria.
3.5.1: THE STUDY POPULATION
The study population consisted of all fast food firms operating in
southwestern Nigeria, whose retail outlets operate within the standard
requirements specified by NAFDAC, at the time of this study. Records of fast
food outlets operating within the regulatory guidelines set by the agency in the
six states covered by the study revealed a higher concentration of these
outlets in Lagos state with 213 outlets, and lowest figure in Ekiti State with
only 11 outlets. Others are Ogun 44; Oyo 39; Ondo 30 and Osun State 28
outlets, all totaling 365. The nature of this study did not allow those food
outlets and eateries considered as unregulated to be included as part of the
population e.g food joints, canteens, bukateria, restaurants, unregistered
eateries e.t.c.
Records of the operations of these fast food firms also indicated that
they vary in sizes. For the purpose of this study, the sizes are considered to
range from small, medium to big outlets according to their operational capacity
i.e. staff strength and number of customers. This is showing in the Table 3.1
below:

Table 3.1: Categories of Fast Food Outlets In Southwestern Nigeria.




143

SIZE NO OF STAFF NO OF CUSTOMERS
(Daily average)
Small Below 20 Below 250
Medium 20-50 250-1000
Big Above 50 Above 1000
Source: Field survey (2007).



144

3.5.2: SAMPLE DESIGN
The samples of this research work were drawn from three categories of
population namely,
(i) Regulated fast food retail outlets of different sizes operating in
Southwestern Nigeria totaling 365 outlets as at the time of study as
shown in Table 3.2. These comprise of 147 small, 127 medium and 91
big fast food outlets.
Table 3.2: Population of Regulated Fast Food Outlets in Southwestern Nigeria.
State
Number of Outlets
Total
Small Medium Big
Lagos 94 69 50 213
Ogun 17 16 11 44
Oyo 10 17 12 39
Ondo 11 12 7 30
Osun 12 9 7 28
Ekiti 3 4 4 11
Total 147 127 91 365
Source: Field survey (2008)
(ii) Respondent staff of these fast food outlets, categorized into 3 namely:
Senior/Managerial staff comprising of the managing directors,
general managers, accountants, sales/marketing managers



145

customer relation officers, production/operation managers, store
managers, chefs and other officers above level 09.
Supervisory staff comprising of the supervisors, administrative
officers, store keepers and other officers between level 06-09.
J unior staff comprising of the sales clerks, attendants, cleaners,
cooks, drivers, security men/women and other working staff below
level 06.
(iii) Respondents customers of these fast food outlets, categorized
according to their income levels and status namely:
Lower income earners, with monthly income less than N15,000.00.
Middle income earners, with monthly income ranging between
N15,000 and N50,000.
High income earners, with monthly income above N50,000.
Since the sample was intended to cover all the regulated fast food firms
operating in the six states of the S.W. Nigeria, the quota sampling technique
was applied in drawing samples out of these different categories of population
under study. This was considered appropriate in order to ensure fairness and
proportionality of the study. Therefore, as shown in Table 3.3 below and
Appendix 1, the total sample of 59 outlets, finally drawn out, is about 16% of
the study population. This sample reflects the high concentration of fast food
business in Lagos State and its low concentration in Ekiti State. It was
believed that this sample size would be enough to arrive at the precision and
accuracy, required of this study.



146





147

Table 3.3: Distribution of Selected Sample of Fast Food Outlets in
Southwestern Nigeria.

State
Number of Selected
Outlets
Total
Sample
Small Medium Big
Lagos 14 10 7 31
Ogun 3 3 2 8
Oyo 2 3 2 7
Ondo 2 2 1 5
Osun 2 2 1 5
Ekiti 1 1 1 3
Total 24 21 14 59
Source: Field Survey(2008).
In drawing samples of the respondent staff, also all categories of staff,
i.e junior, supervisory and managerial levels were considered, using quota
sampling technique. This was in conformity with the situations in these outlets
as observed during the pilot study. Therefore, questionnaires were
administered on equal numbers of staff in each of these categories in
proportion to the sizes of the selected outlets i.e 1 member of staff each for all
the categories in outlets considered as small, 2 members each for the medium
outlets, and 3 members of staff each selected for all the categories in the big
outlets. Thus, as shown in Tables 3.4 and 3.5 below, the total number of 324
staff questionnaires, which were administered equally on all the categories of
staff, also reflected the proportional representation of all sizes of these
selected outlets in all the states. These samples of members of staff were
randomly selected from the staff registers of the selected firms.




148

Table 3.4: Distribution of Respondent Staff by Category.

Category of
staff
Small Medium Big
Total
Sample No of
Outlets
No of
Staff
Total
No of
Outlets
No of
Staff
Total
No of
Outlets
No of
Staff
Total
Junior 24 1 24 21 2 42 14 3 42 108
Supervisory 24 1 24 21 2 42 14 3 42 108
Managerial 24 1 24 21 2 42 14 3 42 108
Total 72 126 126 324
Source: Field survey (2008).
Table 3.5: Distribution of Respondent Staff of Fast Food Outlets in the Six
States of Southwestern Nigeria.

State
Small Medium Big
Total
Sample No of
Outlets
No of
Staff
Total
No of
Outlets
No of
Staff
Total
No of
Outlets
No of
Staff
Total
Lagos 14 3 42 10 6 60 7 9 63 165
Ogun 3 3 9 3 6 18 2 9 18 45
Oyo 2 3 6 3 6 18 2 9 18 42
Ondo 2 3 6 2 6 12 1 9 9 27
Osun 2 3 6 2 6 12 1 9 9 27
Ekiti 1 3 3 1 6 6 1 9 9 18
Total 72 126 126 324
Source: Field survey(2008).
On the part of respondent customers, the samples were also drawn
randomly and systematically, using quota sampling technique, in order to
reflect the pattern of patronage of the different categories of customers in all



149

the categories of the selected fast food outlets across all the six states of the
southwestern Nigeria. This was in consonance with the observation recorded
during the pretest that customers patronize these categories of outlets in
accordance with the level of their income, i.e. Few low income earners usually
patronize big fast food outlets and vice versa. Thus the Table 3.6 below, apart
from showing the proportional distribution of 50 respondent customers
selected randomly in each of the selected outlets, also presents the pattern of
patronage among the various fast food customers.
Table 3.6: Sizes and Proportion of Respondent Customers of Fast Food
Outlets in Southwestern Nigeria.
Source: Field survey (2008).
Thus, as shown in Tables 3.7 and 3.8 presented below, a total of 2,950
questionnaires were distributed to the different categories of customers of 59
fast food outlets of various sizes, spread across the six states of South
Western Nigeria. This was considered sufficient enough in arriving at a
Category
of
Customers
Small Medium Big
No of
Customers
Proportion
No of
Customers
Proportion
No of
Customers
Proportion
Low
Income
25 0.50 10 0.20 5 0.10
Middle
Income
15 0.30 25 0.50 10 0.20
High
Income
10 0.20 15 0.30 35 0.70
Total 50 50 50



150

reasonable conclusion, taking into consideration certain financial and time
constraints involved in the study.
Table 3.7: Distribution of Respondent Customers by Income.
Source: Field survey (2008).
Table 3.8: Distribution of Respondent Customers of Fast Food Outlets in the
Six States of Southwestern Nigeria.

Category
of
Customer
Small Medium Big
Total
Sample
No
of
Outlet
No of
Customer

Total No
of
Outlet
No of
Customer

Total No
of
Outlet
No of
Customer

Total
Low
Income
24 25
600
21 10
210
14 5
70 880
Middle
Income
24 15
360
21 25
525
14 10
140 1025
High
Income
24 10
240
21 15
315
14 35
490 1045
Total 1200 1050 700 2950
State
Small Medium Big
Total
Sample

No
of
Outlet
No of
Customer

Total No
of
Outlet
No of
Customer

Total No
of
Outlet
No of
Customer

Total
Lagos 14 50 700 10 50 500 7 50 350 1550
Ogun 3 50 150 3 50 150 2 50 100 400
Oyo 2 50 100 3 50 150 2 50 100 350
Ondo 2 50 100 2 50 100 1 50 50 250
Osun 2 50 100 2 50 100 1 50 50 250
Ekiti 1 50 50 1 50 50 1 50 50 150
Total 1200 1050 700 2950



151

Source: Field survey(2008).




152

As shown above, Table 3.7 presents the proportion of the total sample
of 2,950 customers distributed according to their income strata, while Table
3.8 shows its distribution in all the states covered by the study.
3.6: METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION
Primary data were collected from the firms management, staff and
customers, in order to elicit information about their perception of quality
practices in the outlets and about their rating and assessment of outlets
performances in terms of achieving sales target and continuous patronage.
The instruments used in collecting the primary data included both
questionnaires and oral interviews.
3.6.1: RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
The questionnaires are in two categories (see Appendix 2). The
category A, administered on the members of staff and management of
sampled fast food outlets and the category B, administered on their
customers. Each questionnaire consists of two sections. Section A is
concerned with personal profiles and data of the respondents, while Section B
consists of a list of quality issues. Section B of the questionnaire was
designed in such a way that respondents easily indicate their levels of concern
and weight of importance attached to the quality issues raised. This reduced
variability in responses and at the same time ensured easy comparability of
responses. These are staff questions 1-23 and customer questions 1-12.
Apart from these, section B of each questionnaire also contains
questions relating to performance such as the capacity of the firms to attract



153

customers, maintain continuous patronage and achieve sales targets. These
are staff questions 24-29 and customer questions 13-17.
Thus, section A of the staff questionnaires consists of nine items of
personal data of the staff respondent. On the other hand, section B of the staff
questionnaire is divided into 2 parts. The first part consists of the checklist of
the twenty-three (23) quality issues and of various concerns and weight of
importance attached to the issues, while the second part consists of seven (7)
performance related and assessment questions, staff were expected to
respond to.
On the other hand, section A of the customer questionnaires also
consists of nine items of personal data of the customer respondents. The first
part of its section B also contains a checklist of twelve (12) quality issues, the
existence of which the customers were expected to perceive in various
degrees in the outlets. The second part contains five (5) questions relating to
customers rating and assessment of quality services, continuous patronage
and satisfaction in these outlets.
The questionnaires were administered personally on the respondents
by the research assistants, specially employed for these purpose. This goes a
long way in ensuring high response rate, completeness and accuracy.
Although these questionnaires were returned through the research assistants,
the researcher also made different on-the-spot assessment visits to some of
the locations, especially difficult terrains and zones, to solicit for respondents
supports and cooperations.



154

3.6.2: MEASUREMENT SCALES
Measurement consists of rules for assigning numbers to objects in such
a way as to represent quantities of attributes. Measurements scales were
adopted in this research in order to move from the level of operationalization
to the level of quantifications. The various perceptions, feelings and opinions
of the respondents were captured and appropriately rated to achieve
meaningful analysis and conclusion. The instrument that is most appropriate
in such related cases is the Likert scale, since it measures the intensity or
degree of agreement by the respondent to a statement that describes such
phenomenon. (Asika, 1991).
The Likert scales was therefore considered appropriate and used in this
study. It was used in assigning values to both the quality and performance
data collected from all the categories of respondents.
A five-point Likert scale was used to score the responses as defined
below:
Point 1 very low
2 low
3 average
4 high
5 very high
3.6.3: RESEARCH VARIABLES
Section B of both the staff and customers questionnaires consists of 23
variables considered as management issues forming the existence of quality
control and improvement practices and 12 variables considered as perceived



155

quality issues respectively in the fast food industry. The management issues
were categorized, according to basic TQM principles, into major determinants
which are considered vital to quality service delivery in the fast food industry.
These are outlined as continuous improvement strategy, customer-focused
strategy and employee participation, involvement and empowerment strategy.
The study therefore considered all these broad strategies as a pivot upon
which all other quality indicators in the fast food industry rotate.
Based on the above explanation, the research variables are therefore
outlined in Table 3.9.
Table 3.9: Description of Variables.
VARIABLES TYPE RESPONDENTS SCALE
SCALE
VALUES
Sales
Patronage.
Dependent -

Interval 1-5
Continuous
Quality
Improvement
Strategy.
Independent/
Determinant
Mgt/Staff Interval 1-5
Customer-
focus Strategy.
Independent/
Determinant
Mgt/Staff Interval 1-5
Employee
Empowerment,
Participation
and
Involvement
Strategy
Independent/
Determinant
Mgt/Staff Interval 1-5
Perceived
Quality Issues.
Independent/
Determinant
Customers Interval 1-5
Source: Researchers Initiative (2008).



156

1. Sales Patronage.
This variable indicates the extent to which the various fast food retail
outlets are achieving their desired sales targets. The main issue in this respect
is to determine how often customers are influenced by service quality
perception to visit an outlet as against others within a particular period. This
shows the ability of an outlet to attract, maintain and retain customer, hence
its overall performance and survival.
In this study, sales patronage is measured by the following:
(i) Years of patronage and experience,
(ii) Frequency of patronage, and
(iii) Patronage of other firms.
2. Continuous Quality Improvement Strategy. (staff questions 1-9).
These continuous quality improvement efforts to which members of staff
and management must respond to in the research are itemized as Variables 1
9 as follows:
1. Quality commitments.
2. Work measurement and standards.
3. Systematic inspection.
4. Marketing efforts.
5. Quality circles.
6. Statistical control and applications.
7. Competitive benchmarking.
8. Environmental audit.
9. Tangibles.
3. Customer - Focus Strategy. ( Staff Questions 10 -15).



157

The operational variables are itemized as:
10. Customer relations.
11. Recognition.
12. Empathy.
13. Responsiveness.
14. Quality assurance.
15. Compliance.

4. Employee Empowerment Strategy. (Staff Questions 16-23).
The variables used in the study include:
16. Teamwork and synergy.
17. Mobilization.
18. Welfare programmes.
19. Feedback and Communication.
20. Recruitment procedures.
21. Staff resources.
22. Training and development.
23. Motivation.
5. Perceived Quality Issues (Customers Questions 1-12).
These are quality issues and practices whose existence or non-
existence determines the feelings and opinions of the customers regarding the
service and operations of an organization. It is usually regarded as a yardstick
in determining standards and product specifications. In this study, it is used as



158

a measure of the extent to which the selected firms perform to customers
expectations and requirements.
The perceived quality variables adopted in this study are itemized as:
1. Quality commitment and compliance.
2. Assurance.
3. Recognition.
4. Empathy/ Relationship.
5. Responsiveness.
6. Tangibles/Technology.
7. Supporting services.
8. Competitiveness.
9. Environmental factors.
10. Professionalism.
11. Availability.
12. Accessibility.
3.7: METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS
The guiding principle regarding the analytical procedures and methods
employed in this study was based on the attributes of the data to be used in
providing answers to our research questions and achieving our specific
objectives of the study.
As shown in Table 3.10, the matrix of analytical procedures employed
for the demographic data and each of the six objectives of study were both
descriptive and inferential in nature.



159





160

Table 3.10: Analytical Procedures Matrix.
ITEM
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
Descriptive Inferenti al
Demographic
Data
Percentages, Frequency
counts, Cross tabulations.
Chi- Square
Objective 1 Percentages, Frequency
counts.
Chi-Square, Stepwise multiple
regression, ANOVA.
Objective 2 Mean Chi-Square, ANOVA, Duncan
Test.
Objective 3 Percentages, Frequency
counts.
Chi-Square, Correlation analysis,
ANOVA.
Objective 4 Mean Correlation analysis, ANOVA.
Objective 5 - Stepwise multiple regression,
Factor analysis, KMO Test,
Bartletts Test.
Objective 6 Frequency counts Stepwise multiple regression,
Correlation analysis.
Source: Researchers Initiatives (2009).
The descriptive statistical tools used to interprete some of the data in
the study are percentages, frequency counts, means and cross tabulations.
In addition, inferential statistical methods such as the chi square,
correlation analysis, stepwise multiple regression, analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and factor analysis were used for confirming associations of
variables earlier stated in Section 1.4 and Section 3.4 respectively.



161

Also, cross-tabulations of major dependent and independent variables,
including socio-demographic data were conducted, to identify the differences
in opinions and responses across the various categories.
Furthermore, the researcher applied the chi-square and the analysis of
variance (ANOVA) in order to trace out and test the significance of these
relationships and differences in opinions among the already identified
categories of respondents. These assisted the researcher in reaching a
cogent conclusion of whether the relationships/differences between the
frequency of patronage and quality practice could not be attributed to any
chance effects.
The stepwise multiple regression and the factor analysis were
also used to identify the group of inter-related variables among the major
quality factors. The aim was to identify the dominant factors influencing quality
practices in the formal fast food retail industry in Southwestern Nigeria. While
the stepwise multiple regression model relies on specifying the dependent
variables, the factor analysis procedure does not assume any specified
dependent variable. It simply summarises the entire information contained in
the data by a smaller number of factors that are considered as very vital to the
observed phenomenon.
In the end, the 23 experimental quality attributes and 12 perceived
quality issues influencing customers patronage and performance in the fast
food industry, when subjected to stepwise regression and factor analysis



162

respectively were reduced to eight (8) predictors and four (4) dominant factors
respectively.
Furthermore, while the correlation analysis conducted helped in
confirming relationships among the independent quality control variables, the
stepwise regression model was also used to formulate predictive models for
the dependent variables. It further helped in estimating the levels of patronage
that can be attributed to quality practice / variables existing in the various
outlets. In other words, the stepwise multiple regression analysis assist in
predicting the extent to which each of the dominant quality variables affect
customer patronage and performance of the industry under investigation.
In mathematical form, the regression model is simply stated as:
Y = a
0
+b
i
x
i
.., + b
n
x
n
+ e
i

where
Y =the dependent variable i.e. customers frequency of patronage.
x
i
, ., x
n
=independent variables, e.g. specified values of quality control
attributes.
a
0
= regression constant
b
i
., b
n
= regression coefficient.
e
i
=error term or residuals.
3.8: PILOT STUDY
A pilot study was conducted to pretest the questionnaire for the purpose
of determining its suitability and adaptability for the final survey.



163

It goes a long way in revealing some special unique areas of concern,
which deserved special attention of the study. The pretest was also useful in
collecting alternative measures of sales figures and other information,
especially in unquoted fast food outlets. Apart from this, it provided more
insight about the accuracy of the independent variables values in predicting
the dependent variables. This involves pre-observing several cautions needed
in the analysis, such as the check for any omitted variables, presence of
multicollinearity and undue environmental influence in the collection of data.
Thus, the tentative findings as shown in Table 3.11 revealed the
correlation of each variable with every other variables in the analysis. In
summary,
(i) A generally modest correlation exists among the variables, which shows
that the variables are truly independent of each other.
(ii) The sales performance is positively related to the continuous quality
improvement efforts (0.551).
(iii) There is a negative relationship between employee empowerment and
involvement in decision-making and sales performance (-0.384).
(iv) Weak relationships exist among customer focus services, perceived
quality issues and sales performance.
Table 3.11: Correlation Matrix for Quality Variables in the Fast Food Industry.

Sales/Continuous
Patronage
F1
Continuous
Quality
Improvement
F2
Customer-
focus
Services/
Processes
F3
Employee
Empowerment
and
Participation
F4
Customer
Perceived
Quality
Issues F5
F1 Correlation
N
1
30
0.551
30
0.261
30
-0.384
30
0.401
30
F2 Correlation
N
0.551

1
30
-0.124
30
0.021
30
0.280
30



164

30
F3 Correlation
N
0.261
30
-0.024
30
1
30
-0.257
30
0.312
30
F4 Correlation
N
-0.384
30
0.021
30
-0.257
30
1
30
0.169
30
F5 Correlation
N
0.401
30
0.280
30
0.312
30
0.169
30
1
30
Source: Pilot Study (2007).
These findings imply that the variables are enough for our analysis to
explain the various level of their influence on the dependent variable. They
therefore serve as distinct factors upon which all other attributes of quality
control practices could be evaluated in the fast food industry.
3.9: LIMITATIONS
The administration of the questionnaire was not spared from the usual
and familiar bottlenecks associated with research works of this nature. Such
limitations include limited financial resources, time constraints, bureaucracy
and insufficient cooperation from respondents.
However, efforts were made by the researcher and assistants to
achieve the best within these limits and prevailing circumstances. It was
therefore believed that these limitations would not in any way affect the major
conclusion of the study.



165

CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on the analysis of the critical variables relating to
quality control and improvement practices in the fast food industry as
hypothesized in the previous chapters. Thus, apart from, providing general
information about respondents, an attempt is also made in this chapter to
address the main objectives of this study as well as accepting or rejecting the
hypotheses upon which the study is based.
Thus, this chapter is divided into five sections; general information
about respondents characteristics, cross tabulations and analysis of
demographic variables, analysis of data relating to the research objectives,
tests of hypotheses, and discussion of results.
4.2 GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT RESPONDENTS
4.2.1 Response Rate / Background Informati on
Data for the analysis was collected in a wide survey of the six states of
southwestern Nigeria. Respondents include both the staff and customers of
selected fast food retail outlets operating in the geo-political zone of the
country.




166

A total of 3274 questionnaires were distributed to staff & customers of
59 outlets spread across the six states, out of which 2830 were found usable,
representing a total response rate of 86.4%.
The 59 outlets comprised of 24 small (i.e. 40.7%), 21 medium (i.e.
35.6%) and 14 big outlets (i.e. 23.7%).
Table 4.1 and 4.2 below reveal a widespread response across all the
categories of respondents used in the study. Also see Appendices 4 and 5.

Table 4.1: Distribution of Total Response Rate of Staff and Customers.

RESPONDENT
No. Distributed No. Returned % Response
TOTAL
100%
Small
24
Medium
21
Big
14
Total
59
Small
24
Medium
21
Big
14
Total
59
Small
100.0

Medium
100.0

Big
100.0

S
T
A
F
F

J unior
Supervisory
Managerial
24
24
24
42
42
42
42
42
42
108
108
108
24
24
24
42
42
42
42
42
42
108
108
108
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total 72 126 126 324 72 126 126 324 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R

Low income
Middle
income
High income
600
360
240
210
525
315
70
140
490
880
1025
1045
559
304
172
189
441
257
63
112
409
811
857
838
93.2
84.4
71.7
90.0
84.0
81.6
90.0
80.0
83.5
92.2
83.6
80.2
Total 1200 1050 700 2950 1035 887 584 2506 86.3 84.5 83.4 84.9
Total 1272 1176 826 3274 1107 1013 710 2830 87.0 86.1 84.9 86.4

Source: Field Survey (2008)



167

Table 4.2: Distribution of Total Response Rate by State Location.

RESPONDENT
No. Distributed No. Returned % Response
TOTAL
100%
Small
24
Medium
21
Big
14
Total
59
Small
24
Medium
21
Big
14
Total
59
Small
100.0

Medium
100.0

Big
100.0

S
T
A
F
F

Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
3
6
6
6
9
42
6
12
12
18
18
60
9
9
9
18
18
63
18
27
27
42
45
165
3
6
6
6
9
42
6
12
12
18
18
60
9
9
9
18
18
63
18
27
27
42
45
165
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total 72 126 126 324 72 126 126 324 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R

Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
50
100
100
100
150
700
50
100
100
150
150
500
50
50
50
100
100
350
150
250
250
350
400
1550
46
96
89
85
130
589
47
94
88
126
125
407
46
47
45
87
82
277
139
237
222
298
337
1273
92.0
96.0
89.0
85.0
86.7
84.1
94.0
94.0
88.0
84.0
83.3
81.4
92.0
94.0
90.0
87.0
82.0
79.1
92.7
94.8
88.8
85.1
84.3
82.1
Total 1200 1050 700 2950 1035 887 584 2506 86.3 84.5 83.4 84.9
Total 1272 1176 826 3274 1107 1013 710 2830 87.0 86.1 84.9 86.4
Source: Field Survey (2008).

The high response rates, as shown in the tables above, were achieved
and made possible through the high level of commitment demonstrated by the
research team.

4.2.2 Frequency Distribution by State Location, Outlet Size, Income
Level and Staff Status
Table 4.3 presents a summary of the major classifications of the
respondents. The study involved 324 staff and 2506 customers.
On the part of respondent staff, the response cuts across all the
categories of states & outlets. This actually reflects the actual spread of fast
food business in the zone. Equal numbers of junior, supervisory and



168

managerial members of staff were also targeted for the study (i.e. 108 each).
This sample, apart from providing equal representation necessary for our
analysis, also provided for a broad view of opinions and unbiased assessment
of issues under study from the various categories of members of staff.
Likewise, the pattern of respondent customers cuts across all the six
states and outlet categories. This proportional representation also indicates a
true reflection of the business in the zone. Out of the 2506 customers
interviewed, 811 are low income earners (i.e. 32.4%), 857 are middle income
earners (i.e. 34.2%), while 838 are high income earners (i.e. 33.4%).
All these major characteristics and classifications showing in the Table
4.3 clearly indicate the researchers intention to make the study as robust as
possible. Also see Appendices 4 and 5.




169





Table 4.3: Respondents Distribution by State, Outlets, Income and Staff Status.

DISTRIBUTION BY STATE DISTRIBUTION BY OUTLET DISTRIBUTION BY INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY STAFF
STATUS
ITEM
Category A Category B
ITEM
Category A Category B
ITEM
Category A Category B
ITEM
Category
A
Category B
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
18
27
27
42
45
165
5.6
8.3
8.3
13.0
13.9
50.9
139
237
222
298
337
1273
5.5
9.5
8.9
11.9
13.4
50.8
Small
Medium
Big
72
126
126
22.2
38.9
38.9
1035
887
584
41.3
35.4
23.3
Low
Middle
High
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
811
857
838
32.4
34.2
33.4
J unior
Supervisor
Managerial
108
108
108
33.3
33.3
33.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
Total 324 100.0 2506 100.0 Total 324 100.0 2506 100.0 Total N.A N.A 2506 100.0 Total 324 100.0 N.A N.A
Source: Field Survey (2008)



170

4.2.3 Frequency Distribution by Age, Sex, Marital Status, Occupation,
Length of Service and Years of Patronage
Table 4.4 presents a brief summary of the characteristics of both staff
and customer respondents, such as age, sex, marital status, occupation,
length of service and patronage. The respondents cut across all the age
groups identified in the study. However, the lowest response rate of 10.5%
and 7.8% observed for both respondent staff and customers under 20 years
categories is not unexpected. This age group comprises of youths, most of
whom are considered as part of the dependent section of the countrys
population.
Although, respondents of both categories cut across all the sex and
marital boundaries, the higher number of men observed in the distribution,
should not be interpreted to follow the pattern of population distribution, but
may probably be explained that more men, because of their busy schedules,
eat outside their homes than women.
A close examination of the distribution table also shows that 305 out of
the 324 staff respondents, constituting more than 94%, had more than 1 year
working experience. Actually, 128 members of staff representing 39.5%
possessed more than 4 years working experience in the field of this study.
This makes their opinions and views to be more valuable to the outcome of
this research.
Largely, those who were engaged in lucrative jobs such as self-
employed businessmen, bankers and professionals dominated other calibers



171

of occupation such as students, civil servants, and retirees as respondents to
this study. This is a true reflection of social class existing in the industry.
The characteristics of the respondent staff and customers show
diversity and variety of the sample used in this study. This provides rich
background upon which cross tabulation and further analysis were based.
It was also discovered that a larger proportion of customer respondents
used in this study possesses more than 2 years experience of patronage (i.e.
65.5%), made regular visits (i.e. 78.5%) and patronize other similar firms (i.e.
85.1%). All these make them to be more quality conscious, and eligible in
assessing properly the quality of products and services offered by these
outlets. Their opinions and views are therefore considered to be very valuable
and suitable in reaching a logical conclusion. Also see Appendix 4 and 5.





172

Table 4.4: Respondents Distribution by Age, Sex, Marital Status, Occupation and Length Of Service.
DISTRIBUTION BY AGE DISTRIBUTION BY SEX
DISTRIBUTION BY
MARITAL STATUS
DISTRIBUTION BY
OCCUPATION
DISTRIBUTION BY LENGTH
OF SERVICE
ITEM
Category
A
Category
B ITEM

Category
A
Category
B ITEM

Category
A
Category
B

ITEM
Categor
y A
Category
B
ITEM
Category
A
Categor
y B
No
.
% No. % No
.
% No. % No
.
% No. % No. % No. % No
.
% No. %
Below2
0
20-29
30-39
40-49
50abov
e
34
12
2
12
4
44
-
10.5
37.6
38.3
13.6
-
195
324
746
731
510
7.8
12.9
29.8
29.1
20.4
Male
Femal
e
18
2
14
2
56.2
43.8
166
4
842
66.4
33.6
Single
Marrie
d
Others
15
7
15
3
14
48.5
47.2
4.3

804
156
5
136
32.1
62.5
5.4
Student
s
C. Sers.
SEmpl
Profe
Others
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
.
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A.
N.A
260
495
923
706
120
10.4
19.8
36.8
28.2
4.8
Below1yr
1-4yrs
4-8yrs
8yrsabov
e
19
177
104
24
5.9
54.6
32.1
7.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
.

N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A.

Total
32
4
100.
0
250
6
100.
0
Total
32
4
100.
0
250
6
100.
0
Total
32
4
100.
0
250
5
100.
0
Total N.A N.A.
250
4
100.
0
Total 324
100.
0
N.A N.A
Source: Field Survey (2008).



173

4.3 CROSSTABULATION ANALYSIS OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
The crosstabulation presented in this section provides more insights
into the various relationships existing among the various characteristics and
attributes of the respondents. Also the crosstabulation analysis when used
with chi-square test will further investigate whether the observations regarding
the existence of relationship among these major classifications of respondents
are actually due to any chance event or can be explained based on these
demographic variables observed. This is done for the two categories of
respondents i.e. staff and customers, with regards to major classifications
such as state location, size of outlets, customers income and staff status,
against demographic variables such as age, sex, marital status, occupation
and length of service.
The distribution of these variables were earlier presented in Tables 4.3
and 4.4.
4.3.1 Crosstabulation of State-Locations by Staff Demographic variables
The crosstabulation analysis shown in Table 4.5 reveals that
respondents considered as the most active group of the population aged
between 20 to 39 years dominated in all the states. More male respondents
are also noticed in all the states. Majority of members of staff interviewed
across all the states have between 1and 4 years experience on the job.
Actually, 39.5% of them possessed more than 4 years experience on the job,
which put them in a better position to properly assess the issues under
investigation. Also see Appendix 6(i).



174

Table 4.5: Crosstabulation of State-Location by Staff Demographic Variables.
STATE
AGE SEX MARITAL STATUS LENGTH OF SERVICE
B
e
l
o
w

2
0

2
0
-
2
9

3
0
-

3
9

4
0
-
4
9

T
o
t
a
l

M
a
l
e

F
e
m
a
l
e

T
o
t
a
l

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
a
r
r
i
e
d

O
t
h
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

B
e
l
o
w

1
y
r

1
-
4
y
r
s

4
-
8

8
y
r
s

a
b
o
v
e

T
o
t
a
l

Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
0
1
1
6
5
21
10
10
13
12
17
60
7
12
9
18
16
62
1
4
4
6
7
22
18
27
27
42
45
165
12
15
16
25
25
89
6
12
11
17
20
76
18
27
27
42
45
165
8
12
13
23
18
83
10
13
14
16
26
74
0
2
0
3
1
8
18
27
27
42
45
165
1
2
0
3
2
11
12
17
17
24
28
79
4
5
9
11
13
62
1
3
1
4
2
13
18
27
27
42
45
165
Total 34 122 124 44 324 182 142 324 157 153 14 324 19 177 104 24 324
Source: Computer Printout (2008).
However, the results of further investigations conducted using chi-
square test of goodness of fit reveal no significant relationship between the
respondent staff location and each of these demographic variables.
Table 4.6: Chi-Square Table of State Locations and Staff Demographic Variables.
Comparison of State
Location
Vs
d.f. Chi- Square Sig.
Age 15 10.802 0.766
Sex 5 1.447 0.919
Marital Status 10 7.545 0.673
Length of Service 15 11.387 0.725
Source: Computer printout (2008).
* Significant at P < 0.05.
4.3.2 Crosstabulation of Sizes of Outlets by Staff Demographic variables
The crosstabulation analysis shown in Table 4.7 reveals that
respondents usually considered as the most active population group aged
between 20 to 39 years, also contributed more to the research than other age



175

groups across all the three size categories of fast food outlets used for this
study. Also, when other demographic variables are considered, staff
respondents sufficiently cut across all categories of outlets. See Appendix 6(ii).

Table 4.7: Crosstabulation of Size of Outlet by Staff Demographic Variables.
OUTLET
SIZE
AGE SEX MARITAL STATUS LENGTH OF SERVICE
B
e
l
o
w

2
0

2
0
-
2
9

3
0
-

3
9

4
0
-
4
9

T
o
t
a
l

M
a
l
e

F
e
m
a
l
e

T
o
t
a
l

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
a
r
r
i
e
d

O
t
h
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

B
e
l
o
w

1
y
r

1
-
4
y
r
s

4
-
8

8
y
r
s

a
b
o
v
e

T
o
t
a
l

Small
Medium
Big
6
11
17
27
50
45
27
51
46
12
14
18
72
126
126
41
70
71
31
56
55
72
126
126
32
61
64
35
60
58
5
5
4
72
126
126
2
10
7
38
75
64
23
35
46
9
6
9
72
126
126
Total 34 122 124 44 324 182 142 324 157 153 14 324 19 177 104 24 324
Source: Computer printout (2008).

Also, the results of further investigations conducted using chi-square
test of goodness of fit do not reveal any significant relationship between staff
respondents outlets and each of these demographic variables.

Table 4.8: Chi-Square Table of Sizes of Outlets and Staff Demographic Variables.

Comparison of
Sizes of Outlets
Vs
d.f. Chi- Square Sig.
Age 6 3.428 0.754
Sex 2 0.039 0.981
Marital Status 4 2.019 0.732
Length of
Service
6 8.270 0.219
Source: Computer printout (2008).
* Significant at P <0.05.



176


4.3.3 Crosstabulation of Staff Status by Staff Demographic vari abl es
The crosstabulation analysis shown in Table 4.9 below reveals that
respondents usually considered as the most active population group aged
between 20 to 39 years, contributed more to the research than other age
groups across all the three staff status categories used for this study. Also,
when other demographic variables are considered, staff respondents
sufficiently cut across all categories of staff. Also see Appendix 6(iii).

Table 4.9: Crosstabulation of Staff Status by Staff Demographic Variables.
STATE
AGE SEX MARITAL STATUS LENGTH OF SERVICE
B
e
l
o
w

2
0

2
0
-
2
9

3
0
-

3
9

4
0
-
4
9

T
o
t
a
l

M
a
l
e

F
e
m
a
l
e

T
o
t
a
l

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
a
r
r
i
e
d

O
t
h
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

B
e
l
o
w

1
y
r

1
-
4
y
r
s

4
-
8

8
y
r
s

a
b
o
v
e

T
o
t
a
l

Junior
Supervisory
Managerial
34
0
0
52
57
13
16
43
65
6
8
30
108
108
108
32
71
79
76
37
29
108
108
108
84
56
17
19
50
84
5
2
7
108
108
108
12
5
2
80
83
14
16
19
69
0
1
23
108
108
108
Total 34 122 124 44 324 182 142 324 157 153 14 324 19 177 104 24 324

Source: Computer printout (2008).

Expectedly, the chi-square tests of goodness of fit also revealed
significant relationships between all the demographic variables and status of
members of staff used in this study.



177

Table 4.10: Chi-Square Table of Staff Status and Staff Demographic Variables.
Comparison of
Staff Status
Vs
d.f. Chi- Square Sig.
Age 6 149.868 0.0000
Sex 2 47.564 0.0000
Marital Status 4 87.439 0.0000
Length of Service 6 153.260 0.0000

Source: Computer printout (2008)
* Significant at P < 0.05.

4.3.4 Crosstabulation of State-Locations by Customers Demographic
variabl es
The crosstabulation analysis of state location of customer respondents
with demographic variables shown in Table 4.11 below reveals the prevalence
of the most economically viable age and occupation groups in all the six states
captured by the study. More male and married persons are noticed among
customer respondents in all the six states. Also see Appendix 7(i).
Table 4.11: Crosstabulation of State-Location by Customers Demographic Variables.
STATE
AGE SEX MARITAL STATUS OCCUPATION
B
e
l
o
w

2
0

2
0
-
2
9

3
0
-

3
9

4
0
-
4
9

5
0

a
b
o
v
e

T
o
t
a
l

M
a
l
e

F
e
m
a
l
e

T
o
t
a
l

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
a
r
r
i
e
d

O
t
h
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

C
i
v
i
l

S
e
r
v
a
n
t
s

S
e
l
f

E
m
p
l
o
y
e
d

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s

O
t
h
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
10
14
13
20
18
120
21
25
24
41
42
171
45
85
89
85
96
346
39
68
62
94
91
377
24
40
34
58
90
259
139
237
222
298
337
1273
82
163
136
195
213
875
57
74
86
103
124
398
139
237
222
298
337
1273
34
82
82
103
96
407
94
140
124
182
229
796
11
15
16
13
12
69
139
237
222
298
337
1272
16
12
20
24
53
135
30
63
42
78
69
213
54
97
89
85
111
487
38
59
59
105
81
364
1
6
11
6
23
73
139
237
221
298
337
1272
Total 195 324 746 731 510 2506 1664 842 2506 804 1565 136 2505 260 495 923 706 120 2504
Source: Computer printout (2008)



178

The results of further investigations conducted using chi-square test of
goodness of fit as shown in Table 4.12 reveals significant relationships
between customers location and major demographic variables, except marital
status.
Table 4.12: Chi-Square Table of State Locations and Customers Demographic Variables.

Comparison of
State Location
Vs
d.f. Chi- Square Sig.
Age 20 38.682 0.007
Sex 5 11.424 0.044
Marital Status 10 16.865 0.077
Occupation 20 71.506 0.000
Source: Computer printout (2008)
* Significant at P < 0.05.

4.3.5 Crosstabulation of Sizes of Outl ets by Customers Demographic
Variables
The crosstabulation analysis shown in Table 4.13 below reveals that
when these demographic variables were also cross tabulated with size
categories of outlets, similar patterns of customer responses was revealed i.e
the prevalence of the most economically active section of the population,
majority of whom are male and married respondents. Also see Appendix 7(ii).
Table 4.13: Crosstabulation of Size of Outlet by Customers Demographic Variables.
OUTLET
SIZE
AGE SEX MARITAL STATUS OCCUPATION
B
e
l
o
w

2
0

2
0
-
2
9

3
0
-

3
9

4
0
-
4
9

5
0

a
b
o
v
e

T
o
t
a
l

M
a
l
e

F
e
m
a
l
e

T
o
t
a
l

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
a
r
r
i
e
d

O
t
h
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

C
i
v
i
l

S
e
r
v
a
n
t
s

S
e
l
f

E
m
p
l
o
y
e
d

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s

O
t
h
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

Small
Medium
Big
132
51
12
148
117
59
312
253
181
272
281
178
171
186
153
1035
888
583
660
598
406
375
290
171
1035
888
583
386
281
137
595
561
409
54
45
37
1035
887
583
175
57
28
233
172
90
372
319
232
199
294
213
55
45
20
1034
887
583
Total 195 324 746 731 510 2506 1664 842 2506 804 1565 136 2505 260 495 923 706 120 2504
Source: Computer printout (2008)



179


Moreover, the results of further investigations conducted using chi-
square test of goodness of fit as shown in Table 4.14 reveal significant
relationships between all the demographic variables and the different sizes of
fast food outlets captured by this study.

Table 4.14: Chi-Square Table of Sizes of Outlets and Customers Demographic
Variables.

Comparison
of Sizes of
Outlets
Vs
d.f. Chi- Square Sig.
Age 8 90.880 0.000
Sex 2 6.310 0.043
Marital
Status
4 33.092 0.000
Occupation 8 139.307 0.000

Source: Computer printout (2008)
* Significant at P < 0.05.

4.3.6 Crosstabulation of Income Group by Customers Demographic
Variables
The crosstabulation analysis shown in Appendix 7(iii) and Table 4.15
reveals that all income groups who patronize fast food services are allowed to
participate actively in the study. Expectedly, the less economically viable
customers dominated the low income group, while the more economically
buoyant customers dominated the high income group.



180

Table 4.15: Crosstabulation of Income Group by Customers Demographic Variables

INCOME
GROUP
AGE SEX
MARITAL
STATUS
OCCUPATION
B
e
l
o
w

2
0

2
0
-
2
9

3
0
-

3
9

4
0
-
4
9

5
0

a
b
o
v
e

T
o
t
a
l

M
a
l
e

F
e
m
a
l
e

T
o
t
a
l

S
i
n
g
l
e

M
a
r
r
i
e
d

O
t
h
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

C
i
v
i
l

S
e
r
v
a
n
t
s

S
e
l
f

E
m
p
l
o
y
e
d

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s

O
t
h
e
r
s

T
o
t
a
l

Low
Middle
High
137
45
13
131
107
86
217
255
274
206
254
271
119
198
193
810
859
837
538
575
551
272
284
286
810
859
837
342
250
212
437
557
571
31
51
54
810
858
837
190
44
26
174
195
126
257
314
352
148
253
305
41
51
28
810
857
837
Total 195 324 746 731 510 2506 1664 842 2506 804 1565 136 2505 260 495 923 706 120 2504
Source: Computer printout (2008)
Furthermore, when chi-square test of goodness of fit was conducted, all
the major demographic variables show significant relationships with
customers income group, except the sex category.

Table 4.16: Chi-Square Table of Income Groups and Customers Demographic Variables.

Comparison of
Income Groups
Vs
d.f. Chi- Square Sig.
Age 8 177.586 0.000
Sex 2 0.233 0.890
Marital Status 4 60.683 0.000
Occupation 8 280.346 0.000
Source: Computer printout (2008)
* Significant at P < 0.05.

In summary, cross tabulation analysis and chi-square tests conducted
revealed varieties and similar patterns of relationship among both categories
of respondents. Expectedly, most of these relationships are significant among
customer respondents and insignificant among staff respondents.



181


4.4 ANALYSIS OF DATA ASSOCIATED WITH QUALITY CONTROL
PRACTICES IN THE INDUSTRY

This section addresses the objectives of the study, earlier presented in
Section 1.3.

4.4.1 Obj ective 1: Level and pattern of fast food patronage.
In determining the present state of customers acceptance and
patronage of fast food businesses in Southwestern Nigeria, frequency
analysis, chi-square test, stepwise regression analysis and analysis of
variance were conducted on the responses of both staff and customers with
regards to existing demographic variables.
The results of the frequency analysis of data show that majority of
customers make regular visits (78.5%), patronize other competing firms
(85.1%) with more than two years experience of patronage (65.5%). This
implies that the level of patronage of the industry is high, with abounding
opportunities for continuous patronage or otherwise of any outlet of choice.
This level and pattern of patronage is observed across all the states, outlet
categories, income groups and other demographic variables used in the study.
The chi-square tests as summarised in Table 4.17 reveal a statistical
significant relationship between respondents state location, income level,
marital status, years of patronage and patronage of other similar outlets on
one side and customers frequency of patronage on the other side. The tests



182

also reveal that the size of an outlet, customers age, sex and occupation are
not significant to customers patronage. Also see Appendix 8.

Table 4.17: Chi-Square Table of Frequency of Patronage And Customers
Demographic Variables.

Comparison of
Frequency of
Patronage
Vs
d.f. Chi- Square Sig.
State location 10 42.062 0.000
Size of Outlet 4 3.820 0.431
Income Level 4 21.182 0.000
Age 8 6.010 0.646
Sex 2 2.473 0.290
Marital status 4 9.536 0.049
Occupation 8 5.255 0.730
Years of Patronage 8 181.536 0.000
Patronage of other
similar firms
2 71.721 0.000
Source: Computer printout (2009)
* Significant at P < 0.05.

Also, the result of stepwise multiple regression analysis when
demographic variables were regressed with frequency of patronage confirmed
four of these significant demographic variables as chiefly influencing the level
and the pattern of patronage observed in the fast food industry. These are
years of patronage, patronage of similar firms, state location and customers
income level.
As shown in the Appendix 9 and summarized in the Tables 4.18 and
4.19, the first variable that was able to enter into the regression model is years



183

of patronage with the F- statistics (164.155) showing the significance of the
model at 0.01 level. The coefficient of regression (R
2
) is 0.062 indicating that
years of patronage is responsible for 6.2% variation in frequency of patronage
of sampled outlet. Further, when patronage of other similar firms was added to
the first variable and subjected to stepwise multiple regression, the F
statistics (118.788) again shows the significance of the model in explaining the
variation in the frequency of patronage of the sampled outlets, at 0.01 level. At
this point, the coefficient of regression (R
2
) increases to 0.087 indicating that
both years of patronage and patronage of other firms are jointly responsible
for 8.7% variation in patronage of the sampled outlets. Again, when state
location entered into the model, the F- statistics (87.110) continued to show
the significance of the model at 0.01 level, while the coefficient of the
regression is 9.5%. The last demographic data that was able to enter into the
regression model was the income group of customer respondents, with the F-
statistics, although dropping to 66.961, still shows the significance of the
model in explaining the variation in frequency of patronage of the sampled
outlets at 0.01 level. This implies that the result of the regression model is
reliable for prediction at 99% confidence level. This empirical result shows that
the coefficient (R
2
) of the regression of the four demographic variables with
the frequency of patronage is 0.097.This implies that only 9.7% of the
variations in frequency of patronage are jointly explained by the four variables
included in the model.



184

In addition, the significance of each of these four variables as a causal
variable in the variation of the frequency of patronage of the sampled fast food
outlets was supported by their T statistics. A close look at the students t-
values show that income level of customers, although with negative impact, is
significant in the variation of patronage at 0.05 level, while years of patronage,
patronage of other firms and state location of outlets are all significant at 0.01
level in the variation of patronage of our case studies.
This empirical result stated above could also be expressed in equation
form as shown below.
Y = 1.96 + 0.174x
1
+ 0.265x
2
+ 0.03x
3
- 0.033x
4

Where Y = frequency of patronage
X
1
= Years of patronage
X
2
= Patronage of other firms
X
3
= state location of outlets
X
4
= income level
In summary, apart from income level, the patronage experiences
possessed by customers over the years in patronizing an outlet as well as
similar outlets determine how frequently an outlet is patronized by a
consumer. The state of location of an outlet is also shown as significant to
patronage, implying that the level of customer patronage of fast food services
is higher in some states than the others. For example, an outlet located in
Lagos state is likely to be more patronized than that of Osun state.



185

Table 4.18: Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis of Demographic Variables
with Frequency of Patronage.

Step R
2
Adjusted R
2
F Sig.
1 0.062 0.061 164.155 0.000
2 0.087 0.086 118.788 0.000
3 0.095 0.094 87.110 0.000
4 0.097 0.095 66.961 0.000
Source: Computer printout (2009)



Table 4.19: Final Empirical Results of the Regression Analysis of Demographic
Variables with Frequency of Patronage.

Variables
Regression
Coefficient
Std Error
Beta
Coefficient
t-ratio Sig.
Constant 1.960 0.061 32.329 0.000
Years of
Patronage
0.174 0.013 0.248 12.994 0.000
Patronage
of other
firms
0.265 0.031 0.166 8.646 0.000
Location 0.030 0.007 0.088 4.594 0.000
Income -0.033 0.013 -0.047 -2.448 0.014
Source: Computer printout (2009)


Also, the ANOVA test as shown in Appendix 10 and Table 4.20 reveals
that there is no significant difference in the level of patronage existing in all the
states, income levels and outlet groups.




186

Table 4.20: ANOVA Table of Frequency of Patronage.

Source
Sum of
Squares
Df
Mean
Square
F Sig.
State location 12.465 5 2.493 9.475 0.000
Outlet 7.688 2 3.844 14.610 0.000
Income 18.497 2 9.249 35.151 0.000
State/Outlet 3.656 10 0.366 1.389 0.179
State/Income 3.458 10 0.346 1.314 0.217
Outlet/Income 85.547 4 21.387 81.285 0.000
State/Outlet/Income 10.568 20 0.528 2.008 0.005
Error 645.142 2452 0.263
Total 2505
Source: Computer printout (2009)

All the above stated results confirm that a high level and similar patterns
of patronage exist across all classifications of our case study.

4.4.2: Obj ective 2: Adequacy of Quality Control and Improvement
Practices i n the Fast Food Industry
This objective was to assess the adequacy and level of concern for
quality practices among the various categories of fast food outlets operating
within the zone.
In order to achieve this objective, an average of the total concern to all
the quality issues was calculated for each respondent in the two categories.
Also, Chi- Square and ANOVA tests were conducted to assess the concerns
for these quality issues among the various categories existing in the study.



187

The results as shown in Table 4.21 and 4.22 revealed that the practice
among the fast food outlets is generally rated as average. This average rating
is observed across all the states, categories of outlets, income groups and
staff status. As shown in the Table 4.21, the number of respondents in both
categories who rated the practice as average is observed to be more than
those who rated it as either low or high, in all the major demographic
classifications of our case study. Aggregate staff responses showed that
78.7% rated it to be within average, as opposed to 2.8% and 18.5% for low &
high ratings respectively. On the part of customer respondents, 9.2%, 75.5%
and 15.2% ratings were observed for low, average & high levels of quality
practices in the sampled outlets respectively. Also see Appendix 11(i) and (ii).
Comparison of both the staff and customers ratings of quality practice in
the industry along all the major classifications used in this study revealed that
customers generally rated service quality lower than members of staff did.
This difference in the opinions attested to the existence of an identified gap in
the industry between consumers expectations and actual quality of service
delivered, which thus signifies the need for more improvement in the sub-
sector.




188


Table 4.21: Concern for Quality Issues by States, Outlets, Income and Staff Categories.
Average Response by State Location Average Response by Outlets Average Response by Income Average Response by Staff Status
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Low Average High Total
O
u
t
l
e
t

Low Average High Total
I
n
c
o
m
e
Low Average High Total
S
t
a
t
u
s

Low Average High Total
A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B
EK
%
0
0.0
19
13.7
13
72.2
91
65.5
5
27.8
29
20.9
18
100
139
100
Small
8
11.1
184
17.8
62
86.1
828
80.0
2
2.8
23
2.2
72
100
1035
100
Low NA
128
15.8
NA
631
77.9
NA
51
6.3
NA
810
100
Jnr
5
4.6
NA
86
79.6
NA
17
15.7
NA
108
100
NA
OS
%
0
0.0
20
8.4
18
66.7
196
82.7
9
33.3
21
8.9
27
100
237
100
Med
1
0.8
41
4.6
112
88.4
717
80.7
13
10.3
130
14.6
126
100
888
100
Med NA
69
8.0
NA
67.3
78.3
NA
117
13.6
NA
859
100
Sup
2
1.9
NA
88
81.5
NA
18
16.7
NA
108
100
NA
OD
%
2
7.4
23
10.4
23
85.2
182
82.0
2
7.4
17
7.7
27
100
222
100
Big
0
0.0
6
1.0
81
64.3
348
59.7
45
35.7
229
39.3
126
100
583
100
High NA
34
4.1
NA
589
70.4
NA
214
25.6
NA
837
100
Mgr
2
1.9
NA
81
75.0
NA
25
23.1
NA
108
100
NA
OY
%
1
2.4
24
8.1
34
81.0
241
80.9
7
16.7
33
11.1
42
100
298
100

OG
%
0
0.0
14
4.2
38
84.4
271
80.4
7
15.6
52
15.4
45
100
337
100

LA
%
6
3.6
131
10.3
129
78.2
912
71.6
30
18.2
230
18.1
165
100
1273
100

Total
%
9
2.8
231
9.2
255
78.7
1893
75.5
60
18.5
382
15.2
324
100
2506
100
Total
%
9
2.8
231
9.2
255
78.7
1893
75.5
60
18.5
382
15.2
324
100
2506
100
Total
%
NA
NA
231
9.2
NA
NA
1893
75.5
NA
NA
382
15.2
NA
NA
2506
100
Total
%
9
2.8
NA
NA
255
78.7
NA
NA
60
18.5
NA
NA
324
100
NA
NA
Source: Computer printout (2009)


189
The chi - square tests of goodness of fit reveals that customers income
group, location and size of the outlets are all significant in assessing the level
of adequacy of service quality. On the part of staff respondents, the test
shows statistical significance between size of an outlet and service quality
level, with the big fast food retail outlets showing higher concern for quality
practices than the small and medium categories of outlets.

Table 4.22: Chi-Square Table showing Concern for Quality Control Practices.

Concern for
Quality
Issues
Vs
d.f. Chi- Square Sig.
A B A B A B
State location 10 10 51.959 12.136 0.0000 0.276
Size of Outlet 4 4 506.663 63.105 0.0000 0.0000
Income Level 4 - 170.547 - 0.0000 -
Staff Status - 4 - 4.206 - 0.379
Source: Computer printout (2009)

The above observations are supported by the results of ANOVA tests
conducted as shown in Appendix 12(i) and (ii), and summarised in Table 4.23
below. The ANOVA tests revealed that although both customers and staff
expressed different concerns regarding the practice, there is no significant
difference in the general opinion among the respondents, that the practice is
fairly adequate across all the different classifications of our case study.


190
Table 4.23: ANOVA Table of Staff and Customers Assessment of Quality in the Fast
Food Industry.

Source
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Cat.A Cat.B Cat.A Cat.B Cat.A Cat.B Cat.A Cat.B Cat.A Cat.B
State location 0.926 4.969 5 5 0.185 0.994 2.604 7.444 0.025 0.000
Outlet 8.471 32.762 2 2 4.236 16.381 59.560 122.706 0.000 0.000
Income NA 1.357 NA 2 NA 0.679 NA 5.083 NA 0.006
Staff 0.212 NA 2 NA 0.106 NA 1.493 NA 0.227 NA
State/Outlet 0.693 2.783 10 10 0.069 0.278 0.975 2.084 0.465 0.023
State/Income NA 1.104 NA 10 NA 0.110 NA 0.827 NA 0.603
Outlet/Income NA 0.686 NA 4 NA 0.172 NA 1.285 NA 0.273
State/Staff 0.552 NA 10 NA 0.055 NA 0.776 NA 0.652 NA
Outlet/Staff 0.127 NA 4 NA 0.032 NA 0.448 NA 0.774 NA
State/Outlet/Income NA 2.683 NA 20 NA 0.134 NA 1.005 NA 0.452
State/Outlet/Staff 1.039 NA 20 NA 0.052 NA 0.731 NA 0.793 NA
Error 19.201 327.334 270 2452 0.071 0.133
Total 323 2505
Source: Computer printout (2009)

In support of these findings, post-hoc tests were conducted, using
Duncans (1974) Test , to identify possible homogenous subsets among the
groups. The Duncan tests conducted show that the means of customers
responses to these quality issues are not significantly different in all the states,
except in Ondo state. It also reveals that the means of staff responses are not
significantly different in majority of all the six states of our study. Similar
findings are also made in relation to other classifications used in the study.


191
Table 4.24: Duncans Tests between Average Customers Response to Quality
Issues and Patronage
State N
Subset for alpha =
0.05 Outlet N
Subset for alpha =
0.05
Income
Level
N
Subset for alpha =
0.05
1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3
ONDO
OSUN
EKITI
OYO
LAGOS
OGUN
Sig.
222
237
139
298
1273
337

2.93





1.00

3.00
3.01
3.02
3.04
3.06
0.05
Small
Medium
Big
1035
888
583
2.79





1.00

3.08




1.00


3.35



1.00
Low
Middle
High

810
859
837
2.85





1.00

3.03




1.00


3.18



1.00
Source: Computer printout (2009)
Table 4.25: Duncans Tests between Average Staff Response to Quality Issues and
Patronage

State N
Subset for alpha = 0.05
Outlet

N

Subset for alpha = 0.05
Staff
Status
N

Subset for alpha
= 0.05
1

2

3

1

2

3

1

ONDO
OGUN
OYO
LAGOS
OSUN
EKITI
Sig.
27
45
42
165
27
18

3.02
3.10
3.14
3.14


0.09

3.10
3.14
3.14
3.22

0.08




3.22
3.32
0.13
Small
Med
Big
72
126
126
2.82





1.00

3.12




1.00


3.36



1.00
Jnr
Sup
Mgr
108
108
108


3.12
3.13
3.18



0.11
Source: Computer printout (2009)


192

Therefore, the results of average responses of both staff and customer
respondents to quality control and improvement practices in the fast food
outlets, chi-square and ANOVA tests, show that the assessment of the
practice in the industry is fairly adequate and also not due to chance but a true
reflection of its existence in the industry.
4.4.3. Obj ective 3: Empirical relati onship between customers patronage
and percei ved quality
The study seeks to investigate whether quality influences customer
patronage and also to determine if the frequency of customer patronage is
related to perceived quality of fast food products/services. Frequency analysis,
Chi-square test, correlation analysis and ANOVA were used to investigate this
twin objective.
In the first instance, frequency analysis on the opinions of both staff and
customers respondents of the attitudes of fast food firms to quality control and
improvement practice are conducted.
The results of the frequency analysis of data, as also showing in Table
4.40 shows that 77.5% of customer respondents agreed that their patronage
decisions are influenced by quality of the products and services offered by
these outlets, while 22.5% disagreed. Actually, 44.8% of those who agreed to
the influence of quality on their patronage decisions rated it to be above
average. This response was crosschecked with the number of customers who
agreed or strongly agreed to continue patronage in case any shortfall is


193
experienced in the services (26.3%). The implication of these responses is
that most customers, although, generally agreed to the influence of perceived
quality of services, are also quick in expressing their intentions and readiness
to quit in case any shortfall is experienced. On the side of staff respondents,
88.5% agreed that a positive relationship exists between the quality of service
delivery and patronage, while only 11.5% disagreed. Actually, majority of
those who initially agreed to the quality/patronage relationship (85.1%)
described the relationship as either strong or very strong. Cross-checking this
response with the number of staff who agreed to the adoption of systematic
quality control practice in attracting more customers (74.4%), with 49.7% of
them rating its achievement in their organizations to be above average, also
corroborates customers opinion on this issue.
From the results of the frequency analysis shown in Appendices 4 and 5
and Table 4.26, it is discovered that quality of service is a major determinant
of the customer patronage of fast food businesses, and that customer
patronage is significantly influenced by product / service quality delivery.


194
Table 4.26: Showing Customers and Staff Responses to the Influence of Quality on Patronage.
Response
V.14 V.15 V.16 V.24 V.25 V.26 V.27
N %
Cum
%
N %
Cum
%
N %
Cum
%
N %
Cum
%
N %
Cum
%
N %
Cum
%
N %
Cum
%
YES
NO
1942
563
77.5
22.5
77.5
100.0

261
34
88.5
11.5
88.5
100.0

221
76
74.4
25.6
74.4
100.0

V.Good/Strongly
Agreed
417 21.5 21.5 308 12.3 12.3 67 25.7 25.7 35 15.8 15.8
Good/Agreed 452 23.3 44.8 352 14.0 26.3 155 59.4 85.1 75 33.9 49.7
Average/Undecided 449 23.1 67.9 594 23.7 50.0 26 9.9 95.0 55 24.9 74.6
Poor/Disagreed 377 19.4 87.3 663 26.5 76.5 8 3.1 98.1 43 19.5 94.1
V.Poor/S.Disagreed 247 12.7 100.0 589 23.5 100.0 5 1.9 100.0 13 5.9 100.0
TOTAL 2505 100.0 1942 100.0 2506 100.0 295 100.0 261 100.0 297 100.0 221 100.0
Source: Computer printout (2009)


195
Also, the chi -square test does not reveal a statistical significance
between respondents frequency of patronage & perceived quality as shown in
Table 4.27 below.
Table 4.27: Chi-Square of Frequency of Patronage and Perceived Quality
Comparison
d.f. Chi- Square Sig.
Frequency of
Patronage
Vs
Perceived
Quality
8 11.664 0.167
Source: Computer printout (2009)

Also, the correlation analysis conducted, as summarised in the Table
4.28 shows the existence of a low positive relationship (r =0.023) between
customers frequency of patronage and quality of services perceived by these
customers in the various fast food retail outlets. These show the presence of
other extraneous factors influencing the performance of fast food businesses
in Nigeria. Also see Appendix 13.
Table 4.28: Correlation between Frequency of Patronage and Perceived Quality.


Frequency of
Patronage
Perceived
Quality
Frequency of
Patronage
N
1
2506
0.023
2505
Perceived Quality
N
0.023
2505
1
2505
Source: Computer printout (2009)
The ANOVA tests also confirmed that this relationship is not by chance
as shown in Tables 4.29. It reveals that there is no significant difference in the


196
general opinion expressed regarding both issues across almost all the
different classifications of our case study. Also see Appendix 10 and 12 (ii).
Table 4.29: ANOVA Table of Customers Frequency of Patronage and Perceived Quality
Source
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Freq.
of
Patron.
Perc.
Quality
Freq.
of
Patron.
Perc.
Quality

Freq.
of
Patron.
Perc.
Quality
Freq.
of
Patron.
Perc.
Quality

Freq.
of
Patron.
Perc.
Quality

State location 12.465 4.969 5 5 2.493 0.994 9.475 7.444 0.000 0.000
Outlet 7.688 32.762 2 2 3.844 16.381 14.610 122.706 0.000 0.000
Income 18.497 1.357 2 2 9.249 0.679 35.151 5.083 0.000 0.006
State/Outlet 3.656 2.783 10 10 0.366 0.278 1.389 2.084 0.179 0.023
State/Income 3.458 1.104 10 10 0.346 0.110 1.314 0.827 0.217 0.603
Outlet/Income 85.547 0.686 4 4 21.387 0.172 81.285 1.285 0.000 0.273
State/Outlet/Income 10.568 2.683 20 20 0.528 0.134 2.008 1.005 0.005 0.452
Error 645.142 327.334 2452 2452 0.263 0.133
Total 2505 2505
Source: Computer printout (2009)
Therefore, the results of chi- square analysis, correlation analysis and
ANOVA tests show that customers do not seem to attribute their current level
of patronage of the industry to the level of quality practices currently existing in
the industry.
Overall, it can be concluded that although staff and customers recog
nize the significance of quality, the current level of patronage cannot be
linked to the existence of quality service delivery in the industry.
4.4.4 Obj ective 4: Empirical Rel ationship among TQM Factors
Objective four seeks to investigate the empirical relationship existing
among the basic TQM factors identified in this study as strategies whose


197
practices are considered vital to quality service delivery in the fast food
industry. These are outlined as continuous improvement strategy, customer-
focused strategy and employee participation, involvement and empowerment
strategy.
Analysis of the average response of staff respondents to each of these
strategies as shown in Appendix 14 and Table 4.30 reflected a similar pattern
across all the states, sizes of outlets and staff strata that the fast food industry
is more customer-focused in its quality improvement practice and TQM
implementation. Generally, the total mean of 2.80 for employee participation
variables is adjudged the lowest as opposed to that of 3.27 and 3.36
calculated respectively for continuous improvement and customer-focused
strategies.
Table 4.30: Mean Responses to TQM Strategic Issues in the Fast Food Industry
Mean &
Frequency


TQM
Factors
Continuous Improvement
Strategy

Customer-focused Strategy
Employee Empowerment
Strategy
State
location
Outlet size
Staff
status
State
location
Outlet size
Staff
status
State
location
Outlet size Staff status
Mean
N
EK
3.55
18
Small

2.98
72
Jnr
3.21
108
EK
3.53
18
Small

3.10
72
Jnr
3.32
108
EK
2.87
18
Small

2.36
72
Jnr
2.83
108
Mean
N
OS
3.54
27
Med
3.22
126
Sup
3.25
108
OS
3.22
27
Med
3.32
126
Sup
3.35
108
OS
2.82
27
Med
2.82
126
Sup
2.79
108
Mean
N
OD
2.99
27
Big
3.49
126
Mgr
3.35
108
OD
3.34
27
Big
3.55
126
Mgr
3.41
108
OD
2.80
27
Big
3.03
126
Mgr
2.78
108
Mean
N
OY
3.23
42
OY
3.39
42
OY
2.84
42

Mean
N
OG
3.17
45
OG
3.27
45
OG
2.84
45

Mean
N
LA
3.28
165
LA
3.39
165
LA
2.77
165

Total
Mean
N
3.27
324
3.36
324
2.80
324
Source: Computer printout (2009)



198
In addition, the correlation analysis conducted as presented in Appendix
15 and Table 4.31 below corroborates the tentative findings recorded for the
pilot study in Section 3.9 that generally, modest and weak relationships exist
among these quality strategies in the fast food industry. These findings imply
that the TQM variables used for the study are truly independent of each other.

Table 4.31: Correlations of Major TQM Variables.

Continuous
Improvement
Strategy

Customer-
focused
Strategy
Employee
Empowerment
Strategy
Correlation
N
1
324
0.183*
324
0.178*
324
Correlation
N
0.183*
324
1
324
0.161*
324
Correlation
N
0.178*
324
0.161*
324
1
324
Source: Computer printout (2009)
* Significant at P < 0.01
Other observations regarding the correlation analysis conducted to
investigate and measure the strength of the relationship among the TQM
variables in the fast food industry are:
Existence of weak positive correlation among the major quality
strategies (0.183, 0.178 and 0.161). Notwithstanding, an
improvement in one factor will lead to a corresponding improvement
in the other factors.
The correlation coefficients are all significant at 0.01 level.


199
Also the, ANOVA tests as shown in Appendix 14 and Table 4.31, reveal
that there is no significant difference in the mean opinions to TQM issues in all
the states except for continuous improvement strategies. It also reveals no
significant difference is noticeable among the staff status categories
responses, although, expectedly, significant differences in opinions are
noticed among the three categories of outlets used in the study. To a large
extent, this implies that the different opinions regarding the TQM strategies
expressed by staff respondents, showing interrelationship among these
strategies are not by chance, but a true reflection of the operations of the
sampled fast food outlets.
All these findings regarding the empirical relationship among these
major quality strategies confirm that their adoptions contributed significantly in
influencing positively, the level of patronage observed in the fast food industry.


200
Table 4.32: ANOVA Table on Mean Responses to TQM issues in the Fast Food Industry.
Mean Responses


Sumof Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
State
Location
Outlet
Size
Staff
Status
State
Location
Outlet
Size
Staff
Status
State
Location
Outlet
Size
Staff
Status
State
Location
Outlet
Size
Staff
Status
State
Location
Outlet
Size
Staff
Status
C
o
n
t
i
n
o
u
s





I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

E
f
f
o
r
t
s







Between Groups
WithinGroups
Total
6.008
80.971
86.979
12.150
74.829
86.979
1.040
85.939
86.979
5
318
323
2
321
323
2
321
323
1.202
0.255
6.075
0.233
0.520
0.268
4.709 26.061 1.944 0.000 0.000 0.145
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

f
o
c
u
s
e
d

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

Between Groups
WithinGroups
Total
1.606
74.001
75.607
9.677
65.930
75.607
0.512
75.095
75.607
5
318
323
2
321
323
2
321
323
0.321
0.233
4.838
0.205
0.256
0.234
1.380 23.557 1.094 0.231 0.000 0.336
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e

E
m
p
o
w
e
r
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
Between Groups
WithinGroups
Total
0.375
69.669
70.045
20.783
49.262
70.045
0.188
69.857
70.045
5
318
323
2
321
323
2
321
323
0.075
0.219
10.391
0.153
0.094
0.218
0.343 67.712 0.431 0.887 0.000 0.650
Source: Computer printout (2009)


201
4.4.5 Obj ective 5: Dominant Factors i n Quality Control Practice i n the
Fast Food Industry

This objective seeks to determine the main issues dominating quality
practices in the fast food industry in the zone. This was achieved using the
stepwise multiple regression model and factor analysis method to analyse
staff and customers data respectively. The staff analysis involved the
regression of identified quality variables within the context of the three broad
TQM strategies with patronage. Also, the factor analysis was conducted
separately using the quality issues perceived by customers in the industry.
The results of stepwise multiple regression analysis when the
continuous improvement variables were regressed with patronage confirmed
only two as dominants. These are competitive benchmarking and systematic
inspection procedures.
As summarized in Tables 4.33 and 4.34, the two variables were able to
enter into the model while the remaining seven variables were dropped. The
first variable to enter into the regression model is competitive benchmarking,
while the second variable is systematic inspection procedures with their F-
statistics (21.787 and 13.110) showing significances of the two respective
models at 0.01 level. Initially, the coefficient of regression (R
2
) was 0.1029
indicating that only competitive benchmarking is responsible for 10.29%
variation in patronage of sampled outlets. The coefficient increases to 0.1218
when systematic inspection procedures entered into the model, indicating that
both were jointly responsible for 12.18% of variation in patronage of the
sampled outlets. In addition, a close look at the t-values shows that both are


202
significant explanatory variables in the variation of the patronage performance
of fast food outlets.

Table 4.33: Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis of Continuous Improvement
Variables and Patronage.

Model R
2
Adjusted R
2
F Sig.
1 0.103 0.098 21.787 0.000
2 0.122 0.113 13.110 0.000
Source: Computer printout (2009)

Table 4.34: Final Empirical Results of the Regression Analysis of Continuous
Improvement Variables and Patronage.

Variables
Regression
Coefficient
Std Error
Beta
Coefficient
t-ratio Sig.
(Constant) 2.217 0.287 7.724 0.000
Competitive
Benchmarking
0.276 0.060 0.316 4.628 0.000
Systematic
Inspection
Procedures
0.121 0.060 0.138 2.020 0.045
Source: Computer printout (2009)
These empirical results stated above could also be expressed as
predictive model as shown below:
Y =2.217 +0.276x
1
+0.121x
2

where Y =patronage
x
1
=competitive benchmarking, and


203
x
2
=systematic inspection procedures.
Also, it was also observed that the ability of an outlet to provide
customer-focused services would allow sustained patronage that will
eventually translate into performance. There were six variables in this
category, but only three were able to enter into the regression analysis model.
These are quality assurance, compliance and customer relations.
As shown in Tables 4.35 and 4.36, the first customer-focused variable
that was able to enter into the regression model is quality assurance with the
F-statistics (12.015) showing the significance of the model at 0.01 level. The
coefficient of regression (R
2
) is 0.049 indicating that quality assurance, as a
customer-focus variable is responsible for 4.9% variation in patronage in the
sampled outlets. Further, when the remaining customer-focus variables were
subjected to stepwise multiple regression, compliance was able to enter into
the model as an explanatory factor of the variation in patronage of the
sampled fast food outlets at 0.01 level of significance, with F-statistics and
coefficient of regression becoming 8.205 and 0.066 respectively. The last
variable that was able to enter into the regression model was customer
relations, although with negative impact. Notwithstanding, the F-statistics
(6.886) continued to show significance of the model at 0.01 level, with the
coefficient of the regression increasing to 0.0821. This implies that 8.21% of
the variations in patronage are jointly explained by the three customer-focused
variables included in the model. The t-values of these variables also show the
significance of each of these three customer-focused variables as a causal


204
variable in the variation of the patronage performance of the sampled fast food
outlets, with that of customer relations showing negative contribution.

Table 4.35: Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis of Customer-focused
Variables and Patronage.

Model R
2
Adjusted R
2
F Sig.
1 0.049 0.045 12.015 0.000
2 0.066 0.058 8.205 0.000
3 0.082 0.070 6.886 0.000
Source: Computer printout (2009)

Table 4.36: Final Empirical Results of the Regression Analysis of Customer-focused
Variables and Patronage.
Variables
Regression
Coefficient
Std Error
Beta
Coefficient
t-ratio Sig.
(Constant) 2.755 0.331 8.323 0.000
Quality assurance 0.179 0.062 0.184 2.862 0.005
Compliance 0.116 0.057 0.129 2.028 0.044
Customer relations -0.111 0.055 -0.128 -2.008 0.046
Source: Computer printout (2009)

The predictive model based on the above results is presented as follows:
Y =2.755 +0.179x
3
+0.116x
4
0.111x
5
where Y =patronage,
X
3
=quality assurance
X
4
=compliance, and


205
X
5
=Customer relations.
Another category of variables that may influence patronage of fast food
outlets are the staff empowerment, involvement and participation variables.
The three dominant variables in this category confirmed by stepwise multiple
repression analysis are teamwork, staff resources and motivation.
The summary of the analysis is shown in Tables 4.37 presented below.

Table 4.37: Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis of Employee Empowerment
Variables and Patronage.

Model R
2
Adjusted R
2
F Sig.
1 0.238 0.230 30.261 0.000
2 0.272 0.257 17.946 0.000
3 0.311 0.289 14.307 0.000
Source: Computer printout (2009)

Table 4.38: Final Empirical Results of the Regression Analysis of Employee
Empowerment Variables and Patronage.
Variables
Regression
Coefficient
Std Error
Beta
Coefficient
t-ratio Sig.
(Constant) 1.752 0.323 5.421 0.000
Teamwork 0.294 0.082 0.354 3.586 0.000
Staff
Resources
0.181 0.072 0.251 2.528 0.000
Motivation 0.215 0.093 0.201 2.321 0.022
Source: Computer printout (2009)
As shown above, teamwork is the first variable in this category that was
able to enter into the regression model with its F-statistics (30.261) showing its
significance at 0.01 level. The regression coefficient (R
2
) is 0.2378 implying


206
that it is singularly responsible for 23.78% variation in patronage of sampled
food outlets. The remaining variables were again put into stepwise regression
with patronage of fast food outlets, and staff resources was able to enter into
the model. It can be seen from the Table 4.37 that the F-statistics of the model
becomes 17.946, showing its significance at 0.01 level, with the regression
coefficient increasing to 0.2721. Finally, when the remaining staff
empowerment, participation and involvement variables were put into stepwise
regression with patronage of fast food outlets, motivation was able to enter
into the model. From step 3 of the stepwise regression in Table 4.37, it was
shown that F-statistics becomes, 14.307 at 0.01 level of significance and R
2

becomes 0.3112. The implication of this result is that all the three staff
empowerment variables; teamwork, staff resources and motivation are jointly
accounted for 31.12% of variations in patronage of sampled fast food outlets
in the zone. The t-values of these 3 variables also showed the significant
contributions of each of these variables to patronage performance in the
sampled outlets.
Also the predictive model derived from the regression analysis is
presented thus:
Y =1.752 +0.294x
6
+0.181x
7
+0.215x
8

where Y =patronage,
X
6
=teamwork,
X
7
=staff resources and,
X
8
=motivation
In all the 8 dominant factors confirmed by the stepwise multiple
regression model as significant explanatory variables in the variation of the
patronage performance of fast food retail outlets are: competitive
benchmarking, systematic inspection, quality assurance, compliance, customer
relations, teamwork, staff resources and motivation. See Appendix 16.


207
In addition, factor analysis was used to identify the dominant quality
issues perceived by customers of fast food in the zone. The factor analysis
conducted, as shown in Appendix 17, was able to summarise the vital
customers perceived quality issues into 4 main factors. The procedure
involves three basic steps. First, was the factor loading i.e. the identification of
the structure of the relationship existing among the factors, using correlation
coefficient matrix. At this stage, the suitability of the available data for the
factor analysis was confirmed through both the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy and the Bartletts test of sphericity conducted.
According to Bowling (2009), for factor analysis to be appropriate in exploring
the dimensions underlying the questionnaire, the KMO measure should
exceed the threshold of 0.60 and Bartletts test should be statistically
significant (p < 0.05). Therefore, both the KMO index of 0.639 and the
Bartletts test showing a chi-square of 659.333, which is significant at 0.01 are
enough to indicate that the factor analysis of the variables is reasonable.
Table 4.39: The results of The KMO and The Bartletts Tests.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy.
0.639
Bartletts Test
of Sphericity.
Approx. Chi-Square
Df
Sig.
659.333
66
0.000
Source: Computer printout (2009)



208
This was followed by initial factor extraction, using the principal
component analysis method, employed for any possible data reduction. In
determining the number of factors to retain during the extraction procedure,
latent rule and Scree test were used to select those factors whose latent roots
(also called Eigenvalues) are greater than 1. The last step involved the factor
rotation of the terminal solution, also employed to further search for any
interpretable factors causing significant variations in the issues under
investigation.
The whole process involved the determination of communality
coefficients and the variance accounted for in the issue under investigation by
the identified dominant factors. Communalities show the proportion of the
variance in a given variable explained by all the factors (extracted) jointly. It
indicates the level of reliability of a factor. A low or zero communality indicates
that the common factors explained few or none of the variances in a variable.
On the other hand, a high value or communality of 1.00 indicates that all the
common factors explain majority or all the variances in a variable.
Therefore, as shown in Table 4.40, only four (4) factors whose
Eigenvalues are greater than one were suggested for the solution, after all the
perceived quality variables had been subjected to initial extraction and
rotations, using Varimax method. The eigenvalue indicates the amount of
variation in the total sample accounted for by each factor.


209
Table 4.40: Summarised Results of the Factor Analysis of Customer Perceived
Quality Variables.
Variable
Initial
Eigenvalue
Communality Factor
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.664
1.150
1.067
1.039
0.984
0.965
0.954
0.910
0.885
0.871
0.789
0.723
0.494
0.416
0.348
0.496
0.350
0.442
0.442
0.488
0.457
0.295
0.382
0.310
1
2
3
4
1.585
1.133
1.109
1.093
13.210
9.440
9.244
9.111
13.210
22.649
31.893
41.004
Source: Computer printout (2009)

Therefore, factor 1 (competitiveness) has a communality of 0.494 and
accounts for 13.21% in the variation of the data. Also factor 2
(empathy/relationship) has a communality of 0.416, and accounts for 9.44% of
the variation in the total sample. Factor 3 (compliance) and factor 4
(environmental factors) have communalities of 0.348 and 0.496, while also
accounting for 9.24% and 9.11% of total variance respectively.
In summary, total variance explained is presented as:
Factor 1 (competitiveness) = 13.21%
Factor 2 (empathy/relationship) = 9.44%
Factor 3 (compliance) = 9.24%
Factor 4 (Environmental factors) = 9.11%
Total variance explained = 41.0%


210
As shown above, four factors are identified by customers as major
determinants of patronage in the fast food industry. The four factors, when
extracted accounted for 41% of customers perceived quality issues in the fast
food industry while the remaining 59% is not explained within the model. They
are accounted for by other variables outside the scope of the study.
In conclusion, from the results of the stepwise multiple regression and
factor analysis, eight factors on the part of staff respondents and four
elements for consumer respondents are identified as dominating quality
control practice in the fast food industry in the zone.
4.4.6 Obj ective 6: Empirical Relationshi p between Quality Control
Practice and Organizati onal Sales Performance
The intention here is to establish any relationship between quality
practice and overall sales performance of a fast food firm.
Frequency analysis of data shows that 72.5% of the staff respondents
were of the opinion that their organizations are either poor or very poor in
attaining the desired sales targets; only 8.7% and 18.8% assessed sales
attainment as average and good or very good respectively. This result is an
indication of their dissatisfaction with current actual sales in their outlets.
Crosschecking this response with their ratings of overall patronage of their
outlets, as presented in Table 4.41, shows that the response was blown out of
proportion. This is because only 14.4% rated patronage as either poor or very
poor, while 34.1% and 51.5% rated it as average and either good or very good
respectively. Nevertheless, this disparity can again be explained on the basis
that there are some other extraneous factors apart from quality practices, like


211
product pricing, advertisement, corporate image etc that can influence the
performance of a fast food outlet. This therefore, calls for more quality
improvement efforts and practices among the retail outlets.

Table 4.41: Showing Assessment of Patronage and Attainment of Sales Target.
Response
V.28 V.29
Frequency %
Cumulative
%
Frequency %
Cumulative
%
V. Poor 11 3.7 3.7 71 23.8 23.8
Poor 32 10.7 14.4 145 48.7 72.5
Average 102 34.1 48.5 26 8.7 81.2
Good 104 34.8 83.3 37 12.4 93.6
Excellent 50 16.7 100.0 19 6.4 100.0
TOTAL 299 100.0 298 100.0
Source: Computer printout (2009)

Also, the results of stepwise multiple regression when all the quality
variables were regressed with the sales performance ratings in the sampled
outlets shows that no major quality control variables was able to enter into the
model, except recruitment procedure, which accounts for only 4.53% of
variations of overall sales attainment of the sampled fast food outlets. See
Appendix 18.
Furthermore, correlation analysis conducted, as shown in Appendix 19
and Table 4.42 below, reveals the existence of a negative, but insignificant
relationship between quality practices and overall sales targets attainment.


212
Table 4.42: Correlation between Quality Practice and Sales Performance.



Sales Target
Attainment
Quality Practice
Sales Target
Attainment
N
1
297
-0.003
297
Quality Practice
N
-0.003
297
1
324
Source: Computer printout (2009)

From the results of the frequency analysis, stepwise multiple
regression and correlation analysis, it is discovered that quality practice is not
really a major determinant of the overall sales performance of fast food
businesses in the zone. This shows that, although quality practices encourage
patronage, it competes with other factors in influencing the overall
performance and survival of any fast food outlet.
4.5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS & POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The research has focused on the evaluation of quality control and
improvement practice in relation to customer patronage and sales
performance of the emerging fast food industry in southwestern Nigeria.
1. The 4 major classifications used in the study are considered adequate
for the robust assessments of the performance of the fast food industry.
These include:


213
(i) Classification of the sampled outlets according to the states of their
location in the southwest zone of Nigeria e.g. Ekiti, Osun, Ondo, Oyo,
Ogun and Lagos States.
(ii) Classification according to the size of these outlets, e.g. small, medium
and big retail outlets.
(iii) Classification according to the income status of their customers e.g.
low, middle and high income earners.
(iv) Classifications according to the level and status of their management
and operating staff; e.g. junior, supervisory and managerial staff.
All these major classifications according to the findings of the study
exhibited various levels of significance and differences in appraising the
operations and performance of the industry.
2. The findings as revealed in this study, also reflected the significant
influence exerted by major demographic variables in the assessment of
the industry. The major demographic variables used in the
crosstabulation analysis of the study are age, sex, marital status,
occupation among others. The patterns of opinions and patronages as
exhibited in the study cut across these demographic variables. Also, the
finding that almost all customer respondents do patronize other similar
firms shows the existence of serious competition in the emerging fast
food industry in Nigeria.
3. The study identified the main content and major ingredients of a
meaningful and effective quality control and improvement practice in the
fast food industry. In this wise, the study discovered eight quality factors


214
and four customer perceived quality elements as very crucial to the
efficient operations of fast food firms.
The 8 dominant quality attributes identified as crucial to an effective
quality control and improvement practice by management and staff of
fast food industry are:
1. Systematic inspection
2. Competitive benchmarking.
3. Customer relations.
4. Assurance
5. Compliance.
6. Staff resources.
7. Teamwork / Synergy.
8. Motivation.
The related 4 customer perceived service quality elements identified as
very crucial to a successful quality programme in the fast food industry
are:
1. Commitment
2. Empathy
3. Competitiveness.
4. Environmental factors.
These findings are similar to Adeoti (2008) discovery of eight quality
factors applicable to health care delivery in Kwara State.
4. Although, an above average rating is observed by the two categories of
respondents, customers rating of quality practices in the fast food
outlets are generally lower than that of the staff ratings. This shows that
there exists an identified performance gap in the operations of these
outlets. It implies that quality practices still fall short of customers


215
expectations. This probably explains the high level of brand switching
practised by fast food customers.
5. The findings revealed that there currently exists a high level of
patronage in the fast food industry, majority of which are not due to
effective quality delivery. Results of the factor analysis conducted show
that the four dominant quality elements identified by customers as
influencing their patronage of the industry account for only 41%. The
implication of this finding is that the current level of patronage enjoyed
by the industry may be short-lived if proper efforts are not made to
distinguish the industry from the plethora of the competing informal
sector.
6. The analysis conducted also reflected a very low positive relationship
between quality practice and patronage decisions. The correlation
coefficient between frequency of patronage and perceived quality is
identified as 0.023. It goes further to indicate a negative relationship
between sales performance and quality practice (0.003). This implies
that the present level of performance exhibited by fast food firms is not
much of a reflection of good quality practice, but of other factors beyond
the scope of this study.
7. The analysis also revealed that present efforts at improving service
quality in the industry are besetted with various operational bottlenecks
sufficient enough to hinder the attainment of desired targets ( Parsa and
Kwansa, 2001). Also, other factors influencing purchase decisions such
as product price, companys image, advertisement etc should not be


216
under-estimated and neglected, but should serve as accomplices in the
maintenance of customers loyalty and confidence in the industry.


217
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONTRIBUTION
TO KNOWLEDGE

5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the summary of the study based on the
research findings, and from it, makes necessary inferences in form of
conclusions and recommendations. It goes further to identify the
contributions of the research and other areas requiring further studies.

5.2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The purpose of the study was to examine quality control and
improvement practices in relation to sales patronage of selected fast food
retail outlets in southwestern Nigeria. Specifically, the research addressed
management and consumers ratings of quality practice and its significance to
the performance of these outlets. Consequently, the study identified the major
quality elements dominating the operations of the three different categories
(small, medium and big) of fast food outlets in the six states of the geo-political
zone.
The summary of the findings include:
1. The research identified the service content and operating procedures of
fast food outlets along three broad strategies of continuous
improvement, customer-focus and employee empowerment in
accordance with the TQM principles proposed by renowned authors


218
such as Ishikawa (1985), Deming (1986), J uran (1988) and Crosby
(1989). The 3 strategies are considered to be the platform upon which a
total quality overhaul of the fast food industry could be based. Their
intercorrelation coefficients are identified as 0.183, 0.178 and 0.161
respectively, showing that an improvement in any one factor will lead to
improvement in the others.
2. The examination of these strategies through stepwise multiple
regression analysis confirmed eight critical quality attributes in the fast
food industry. These major elements are earlier outlined in Section
4.6.4. Moreover, four customer perceived service quality elements are
also confirmed as critical to continuous customers patronage in the
industry. These are also outlined in Section 4.6.4.
3. A generally high level and similar patterns of patronage exist in the
industry, with abounding opportunities for continuous and discontinuous
patronage of choice outlets by customers. This finding therefore
signifies the existence of serious competition in the emerging industry.
The stepwise multiple regression analysis conducted on the
demographic variables shows that the location, income and patronage
experience possessed by customers in an outlets and other similar
ones may also exert more influence on patronage in the industry.
4. The study also revealed that the level of quality practice in the fast food
industry generally falls within average. Aggregate staff responses
showed that majority (78.7%) rated it to be within average. Similarly, it is
75.5% on the part of customer respondents. Specifically, the application


219
of the TQM philosophy in the industry is considered as slightly
adequate. The records of mean responses showed that continuous
improvement strategy is 2.98 in small, 3.22 in medium and 3.49 in big
outlets. For the six states, it was observed as Ekiti, 3.55, Osun, 3.54,
Ondo, 2.99, Oyo, 3.23, Ogun, 3.17 and Lagos, 3.28. Also, the mean
responses for customer-focus strategy is 3.10 in small, 3.32 in medium
and 3.55 for big outlets. For the six states, it was observed as Ekiti,
3.53, Osun, 3.22, Ondo, 3.34, Oyo, 3.39, Ogun, 3.27 and Lagos, 3.39.
For the staff empowerment strategy, the mean responses recorded are
2.36 in small, 2.82 in medium and 3.03 in big outlets. While, 2.87 was
recorded for Ekiti, 2.82 for Osun, 2.80 for Ondo, 2.84 for Oyo, 2.84 also
for Ogun, and 2.77 for Lagos states as mean responses for these
strategies.
5. The study observed slight disparity in the staff and customers
assessment of the adequacy of the practice along all criteria used. This
implies the existence of a performance gap in the fast food industry.
6. The study also confirmed the existence of low but positive relationship
between effective quality control and improvement practice and
customers patronage. Actually, the correlation coefficients between
frequency of patronage and perceived quality is 0.023. Although, the
case is contrary, when achievement of sales targets is correlated with
quality practice, with a negative coefficient of -0.003. The study goes
further to discover that quality practice is not presently the major
determinant of the overall performance of fast food businesses in the


220
zone. There are other extraneous factors beyond the scope of this study
influencing the performance and survival of the industry.
7. The presence of operational bottlenecks such as power shortages, high
cost of fuelling, stringent tax regimes, high tariffs etc.tends to undermine
effective quality management and control in the industry.

5.3. CONCLUSIONS
This is a study of quality control and improvement practices and sales
patronage of selected Nigerian fast food firms. The results of the study bring
out certain conclusions tantamount to its main objectives. The study also
tends to reinforce findings of earlier researches on TQM implementations and
organisational performance.
Overall, it is evident from the study that operators show various degrees
of concern for quality issues, which although generally falls within average,
does not really match customers expectations and not sufficient enough to
influence substantially the overall sales and performance of the individual
firms. This is because the existing level of patronage observed in the industry
is doused by public concern for its lack of uniformed standard operating
procedures and huge presence of unethical practices.
As a corollary to the above, the general operating procedure of the
Nigerian fast food industry is found to be relatively influenced by the adoption
of TQM philosophy and principles. This reinforces the conclusion of Oni
(2004) that the level of TQM practised is directly related to the level of


221
corporate performance. Therefore, the results obtained from this study,
confirmed the applicability and increased relevance of the adoption of effective
service quality delivery to the performance and survival of the formal fast food
industry in Nigeria.
Moreso, the study identified some militating factors and bottlenecks in
the operations of fast food businesses in Nigeria. They strive under high cost
of energy and fuelling, tariffs and stringent tax regimes imposed by various
government agencies.
Finally, the existence of unhealthy and high competitive situations in the
industry is also identified as a serious impediment to the industrys overall
performance. Badmus (2002) also arrived at a similar conclusion regarding
the strategies of multinational enterprises in Nigeria.

5.4 SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
STUDIES
It is obvious that quality is an invaluable element in stimulating demand
and maintaining patronage of fast food services. The study has revealed that
fast food customers are rather insatiable and that the increasing demand
requirements of the industry is not presently matched by satisfactory service
quality delivery systems. In most cases, purchase decisions are dependent on
customers perception of service quality. This aptly suggests that to ensure
survival in this present day Nigeria, practitioners in the industry, should make
regular recourse to the drawing board to continuously fashion out quality
improvement policies and strategies towards offering an unmatched total-


222
solution package in the competitive market. In doing this, greater emphasis
should be laid in collecting relevant data for reassessing customers views,
opinions and perceptions about their services.
In relation to the above, the study therefore strictly recommends the
adoption of TQM philosophy, with special emphasis on the eight critical quality
elements and four customer perceived service quality determinants, in the
industry. Without prejudice, all areas of quality improvement efforts should be
recognized, since presently, quality issues regarding continuous improvement
and customer- focus services/ processes claimed more of the attention of
management than employee empowerment efforts. Quality commitment
should be a collective effort and practitioners should do more in involving all
the rank and files in the running of things and operations of these retail outlets.
This, it is believed, apart from enhancing performance, will go a long way in
lifting up the standard, so much desired in this vantage sub- sector of the
economy.
In view of the various limiting factors and unhealthy rivalries noticeable
in the industry, it is advisable for authorities to extend its current re-branding
programme to the industry. These outlets should not be seen as misfits but
should be brought up to the mainstream of economic activities in the
country, for the purpose of projecting the image of the country, as applicable
in developed countries. The flowers of these emerging fast food retail outlets
should be allowed to blossom before their fruits are being plucked. These
outlets should not be treated as cash cows and revenue targets by
government agencies. Rather, this industry, as part of government efforts in


223
encouraging and attracting investors, needs necessary fiscal and economic
protections to enhance its own potentials and contributions, just as the
nation targets uniform sectoral developments before the year 2020.
In the same vein, NAFDAC, the only regulatory agencies in the food
and allied industry, should be more focused in its attention to the fast food
sector. Current efforts in standardizing the operations of this sub-sector is
not enough and not fully regularized. The agency should come out with
clear-cut quality measures to replace the standard operating procedures
(SOPs) currently being practised by these sprawling outfits. These vestiges
of unhealthy and unethical practices will require the streamlining of
competition, and most importantly the restructuring and repositioning of the
sector. Thus, the reoccurrence in Nigeria, of the health- drive revolution of
the fast food industry similar to the ones recently witnessed in the U.K. and
the U.S. would be a welcome development.
Meanwhile, the pockets of high ethical standards and sophistications
sighted among these outlets, especially the big ones, in some parts of Lagos
state, is encouraging and should be maintained, sustained and extended to
other categories in the different parts of the country. This may involve the
increased use and applications of statistical methods, problem-solving
techniques, state of the art equipment and modern day technology.
Consequently, the industry would be on course in re-creating the right
environment in satisfying the ever-increasing desire of the millennium
customer.


224
Thus, while the influence of stringent quality control and improvement
efforts on overall performance and, particularly on customers patronage, as
confirmed in this study, is not only workable in the fast food industry, its
efficacy in turning business around should not be overlooked and
underestimated by decision makers in every organization.
Nevertheless, this is not to suggest that other factors influencing fast
food purchase decisions should be neglected, but should serve as
accomplices in the maintenance of customers loyalty and confidence in the
industry.
Also, it appears that, although this study overcame some of the
limitation imposed on it, its generalization and its application as a stereotype
in organizations should be done with caution.
`Moreover, in view of the recent emergence of these fast food firms in
the industrial landscape of the country, this study will only serve as a start in
this direction for other researchers, educators and academicians. Finally,
since some of the findings of this study are not in variance with previous
research findings, the study provides an ample opportunity for more in-
depth studies and knowledge to be acquired in the area of study.

5.5 CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE
This research work has developed a robust and explicit approach in
establishing the relevance of product/service quality delivery in the formal food
service retailing industry, a sub-sector considered as relatively new in the
economic environment of Nigeria.


225
Despite the newness of organized fast food operators on the industrial
landscape of the country, the study was able to offer a distinct and clear-cut
outline of the basic operational elements that will ensure their corporate
survival and societal acceptance. Suffice to say that, hardly had any attempt
been made before now to conduct a deep and meaningful investigation on the
operations of this sub-sector of the economy. This study therefore explored
yet to be touched area in the field of business, especially in a developing
nation like ours. Most of the previous studies relating to the adoption of TQM
concentrated on other sectors such as banking and finance, health,
manufacturing and public enterprises.
The study, using the broad strategies of TQM in form of continuous
improvement, customer-focused and employee empowerment strategies as
pivot, was able to discover 8 major quality elements crucial to continuous
patronage in the fast food industry. They are systematic inspection
procedures, competitive benchmarking, costumer relations, assurance,
compliance, staff resources, teamwork and motivation. These elements can
serve as distinct factors upon which all other attributes of quality practices are
evaluated in the industry.
Again, the research is the first attempt at a balanced investigation of the
content of quality practice in the industry. To this effect, extending this
investigation to the consumers of fast food services, apart from exposing the
quality perception gap in the industry, also provided the opportunity for an
additional related discovery of 4 perceived quality determinants, Nigerian fast
food consumers considered as very critical for their patronage of the industry.


226
These perceived quality determinants are commitment of the organization to
quality improvements, empathy, competitiveness and environmental factors.
All these would serve as a panacea for solving the increasing wave of public
health concerns in the industry worldwide.


227
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aaker D. A., Kumar, V., and Day, G. S. (2005). Marketing Research (7
th

Edition). New York, J ohn Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Adam, J r., Everett, E. and Ebert, R. J . (2001). Production and Operations
Management: Concepts, Models and Behaviour. (5
th
Edition). New
Delhi, Prentice-Hall.
Adeoti, J .O. (2008). Application of Total Quality Management to Health Care
Delivery Systems In Kwara State, Nigeria. An Unpublished Ph.D Thesis
submitted to the Department of Business Administration, University of
Ilorin.
Agunbiade, D.B. (1996). The Principles and Practice of TQM. First National
Seminar on TQM organized by Federal Office of Statistics, Lagos.
August.
Akpeiyi, J .K. (1996). Total Quality Management - A Tool for Organisational
Excellence. Management in Nigeria. J an March: pp.5-12.
Allen, D. (1991). Management of Quality. Management Accounting. October,
pp.19.
Alo,O. (1995). Application of TQM to Human Resources Management
Function. A Consultant Viewpoint Nigerian J ournal of Personnel
Management. 8: 5-12.
Aluko, M., Odugbesan, O., Gbadamosi, G. and Osuagwu, L. (2007). Business
Policy and Strategy. Lagos. Longman.
Appleby, R.C. (1994). Modern Business Administration. Sixth Edition. London,
Pitman Books Limited.


228
Arora, K. C. (2006). Total Quality Management. New Delhi. Katson Books.
Asika, N. (1991). Research Methodology in the Behavioural Science. Lagos.
Longman.
Badmus, A. L. (2002). Marketing Integration Strategies of Asian Multinational
Enterprises in Nigeria. An Unpublished Ph.D Thesis submitted to the
Department of Business Administration, University of Ilorin.
Bauer, J .E., Duffy, G.L. and Westcott, R.T. (2002). The Quality Improvement
Handbook. Milwankee, WI. ASQ Quality Press. 108-109.
Bounds, G.M. and Dobbins (1994). Total Quality Management: Towards the
Emerging Paradigm. N.Y. McGrawhill.
Bowling, A. (2009). Research Methods in Health: Investigating Health and
Health Services. 3
rd
Edition. London. McGrawhill.
Broh, R.A. (1982). Managing Quality for Higher Profit. A Guide for Business
Executives and Managers. New York. McGrawhill Book Coy.
Buch, K. and Rivers, E. (2001). TQM: The Role of Leadership and Culture.
Leadership and Organisation Development J ournal 22(8): 365-71.
Chase, R. B. and Stewart, D.M. (1994). Make Your Service Fail Safe.
Sloan Management Review. 35(3): 35 - 44.
Charles, D.S. (1987). Marketing Research and Methodology. New York.
McGrawHill.
Choppin, J . (1995). Total Quality Management: What isnt it? Management
Service Quality. 5(1): 47- 49.
Cole, G. A. (1994), Strategic Management: Theory and Practice. London, DP
Publications Ltd.
Collard, R. (1989). Total Quality Success Through People. London. IPM.


229
Cronin, J .J . and Taylor, S.A. (1994). SERVPERF Versus SERVQUAL:
Reconciling Performance-Based and Perceptions-Minus-Expectations
Measurements of Service Quality. J ournal of Marketing. 58: 125-131.
Crosby, P.B. (1989). Lets Talk Quality. New York. McGrawHill.
Crosby, P.B. (1979). Quality is Free. New York. McGrawHill.
Deming, W.E, (1986). Out of Crisis. New York. MIT Press.
Dervitsiotis, K. N. (1981). Operations Management. Tokyo. McGrawHill Inc.
Drucker, P.F. (1969). Consumerism in Marketing. The Marketing News.
McDonalds. October.
Dubois, H. F. W. (2002). Harmonization of the European Vaccination Policy
and the Role TQM and Reengineering could play. Quality Management
in Health Care 10 (2): 47-57.
Duncan, A. J . (1974). Quality Control and Industrial Statistics. 4
th
Ed. Illinois.
Richard D. Irwin Inc.
Evans, J .R. and Lindsay, W.M. (2005). The Management and Control of
Quality. 6
th
Edition. Ohio. South-Western - Thomson Learning.
Fakokunde, T.O. (2002). An Appraisal of Total Quality Management on the
Effective Marketing of Banking Services in Nigeria. An Unpublished
M.Sc.Thesis submitted to the Department of Business Administration,
University of Ilorin.
Fatunla, G.T. (1996). Statistical Methods for Business and Technology. Akure.
Truevine Nig Ltd.
Feigenbaum. A.V. (1991). Total Quality Control. Third Edition. New York.
McGrawhill.
Follette, M. P. (1941). Dynamic Administration. London. Pitman Books Ltd.


230
Francis, A. (1998). Business Mathematics and Statistics. Fifth Edition.
London. Letts Educational.
Garvin, D.A. (1984). What Does Product Quality Really Mean? Sloan
Management Review 26(1):25-43.
Garvin, D. A. (1988). Managing Quality: The Strategic and Competitive Edge.
N.Y. The Free Press.
Gitlow, H., Gitlow, S., Oppenheim, A. and Oppenheim, R. (1989). Tools and
Methods for the Improvement of Quality. Illinois. Irwin.
Goetsch, D.L. and Stanley, B. D. (2002). Understanding and Implementing
ISO 9000: 2000. New J ersey. Prentice-Hall
Groocock, J . M.(1986). The Chain of Quality: Market Dominance Through
Product Superiority. New York. Wiley.
Heizer, J ., and Render, B. (1993). Production and Operations Management.
Strategies and Tactics. 3
rd
Edition. Boston. Allyn & Bacon.
Ichniowski, C., Kochan, T.A., Levine, D.I., Olson, C. and Strauss, G. (2000).
The American Workplace: Skills, Compensation, and Employee
Involvement. Cambridge University Press.
Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is Total Quality Control? The J apanese Way. N.J .
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The Key to J apans Competitive Success. London.
Randomhouse.
J uran, J .M. (1988). Quality Control Handbook. New York. McGrawhill.
J uran, J .M. (1989). J uran on Leadership for Quality: An Executive Handbook.
New York, The Free Press (Macmillan).


231
J uran, J .M, Gryna, F.M. (1970). Quality Planning and Analysis: From
Productive Development through Usage. New York. McGrawhill.
Kerlinger, F.M. (1986). Foundations of Behavioural Research. 3
rd
Edition.
N.Y. Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Kim,Y. (1994). ISO 9000 - Making Companies Competitive, Quality in
Manufacturing. Nov/Dec., 26.
Kotler, J . Philip. (1997). Marketing Management. Analysis, Planning and
Control. 9
th
Ed. N.J . Prentice Hall Inc.
Khurram, H. (2006). Introduction and Implementation of TQM.
www.isixsigma.com.
Kumar, S.A. and Suresh, N. (2008). Production and Operations Management.
2
nd
Ed. New Delhi. New Age Ind. Publishers.
Lawton, R.L. (1991). Creating A Customer-Centred Cultured. Quality Forum.
17(1): 5-9.
MacDonald, J . and Piggot, J . (1990). Global Quality: The New Management
Culture. London. Mercury Books.
Marchington, M. (2001). Employee Involvement at Work, in J . Storey (ed.)
Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. 2
nd
edition. London.
Thomson Learning.
Martilla, J .A. and J ames, J .C. (1977). Importance - Performance Analysis.
J ournal of Management. 41: 77-79.
Mefford, R.N. (1993). Improving Service Quality: Learning from
Manufacturing. International J ournal of Production Economics 30(31):
399-413.
Mohanty, R.P. and Lahke, R.R. (2000). Handbook of TQM. Mumbai.J aico
Books.


232
Monks, J G. (1996). Schaums Outline of Theory and Problems of Operations
Management. 2
nd
Edition. New York. McGrawhill.
Montgomery, D.C. (2000). Introduction to Statistical Quality Control. 4
th

Edition. New York. J ohn Wiley & Sons.
Nworgu, B.G. (1991). Educational Research: Basic Issues and Methodology.
Ibadan. Wisdom Publishers Limited.
Oakland, J .S. (1989). Total Quality Management. London. Heinemann.
Oakland, J .S. (1993). Total Quality Management. London. Butterworth,
Heinemann.
Okolie, E. (1996). TQM as An Instrument of Change. First National Seminar
on TQM organized by Federal Office of Statistics, Lagos. August.
Oladunni, S. A. (1998). Issues in Corporate and Human Resources Management
in the Oil Industry. Lagos. Publishing Resources Nigeria Ltd.
Oni, E.O. (2004). Total Quality Management and Corporate Financial
Performance in Selected Banks in Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis
submitted to the Department of Business Administration, Unilorin.
Owen, F., J ones, R. (1990). Statistics. 3
rd
Edition. U.K. Pitman Publishing.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L. (1985).A Conceptual Model
of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. J ournal of
Marketing. Fall, pp 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L. (1991). Refinement and
Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale. J ournal of Retailing. 67(4):
420-450.
Parsa, H.P. and Kwansa, F.A. (2001). Quick Service Restaurant, Francishing,
And Multi-Unit Chain Management. N. Y., Haworth Press.


233
Peccei, R. and Rosenthal, P. (2001). Delivering Customer-Oriented
Behaviour through Empowerment : An Empirical Test of HRM
assumptions, J ournal of Management Studies 38(6): 831-857.
Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from
Americas Best- Run Companies. New York. Harper and Row.
Price, A.J . (2004). Human Resource Management in a Business Context. 2nd
Edition. London. Thomson Learning.
Rich, A. B. (1997). Continuous Improvement: The Key to Success. Quality
Progress. 30(6).
Rosander, A.C. (1985). Applications of Quality Control in the Service
Industries. New York. Marcel Dekker and ASQ Quality Press.
Rousseau, D.M. and Parks, J .M. (1993). The Contracts of Individuals and
Organisations, in L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds) Research in
Organisational Behaviour, Volume 15, J AI Press.
Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (1998). Consumer Behaviour. 6
th
Edition.
New Delhi, Prentice-Hall .
Schlosser, E. (2002). Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side Of The All-American
Meal. N.Y.,Perenial Press.
Sitkin, S.B., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Schroeder, R.G. (1994). Distinguishing
Control from Learning in Total Quality Management: A Contingency
Perspective. Academy of Management Review 19(3):537-564.
Smith, Malcolm. (1990). Management Accounting for Total Quality
Management. Management Accounting. J une, pp.44 - 46.
Smith, Steve (1994). The Quality Revolution: Best Practice from the Worlds
Leading Companies. Oxon, U.K. Management Books 2000.


234
Sureshchandar, G.S. (2001). A Conceptual Model for Total Quality
Management in Service Organisation. Total Quality Management.
12(3): 341-363.
The Daily Vanguard: Nigerian Fast Food IndustryMay 13, 2009.
Thirkettle, G. L. (1968). Wheldons Business Statistics and Statistical
Methods. ELBS 6
th
Edition. London, MacDonald and Evans.
Tull, D. S and Hawkins, D. (2005). Marketing Research: Measurement and
Method. 6
th
Edition. New Delhi, Prentice-Hall.
Wadsworth, H.M., Stephens, K. S. and Godfrey, A.B. (2002). Modern Methods
for Quality Control and Improvement. 2
nd
Edition. New York. J ohn Wiley
& Sons.
Whitney, E. N. and Rolfes, S.R. (2002). Understanding Nutrition. 9
th
Edition.
London. Thomson Learning.
Zairi, M. (1992). TQM-Based Performance Measurement, TQM Practitioner
Series, Technical Communication (Publishing), Letchworth (UK).
Zairi, M. (1994). Measuring Performance for Business Results, Chapman and
Hall, London.
Zairi, M., Letza, S.R. and Oakland, J . S. (1994). Does TQM Impacts on
Bottom-Line Results. The TQM Magazine. 6(1): 38 43.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Quality_Management
www.factssheet.com
www.nafdacnigeria.org
www.isixsigma.com
www.questia.com.bk.
http:/books.google.com.
http:/www.iso.ch.


235
LIST OF SAMPLED OUTLETS.




1. Frendilies, Adebayo Rd, Ado Ekiti.
2. Danke Fast Food, Ado Ekiti.
3. Mr. Biggs, Fajuyi, Ado Ekiti
4. Ripples, Igbona, Osogbo
5. Fries N Grills, Ede.
6. Spices, Okefia, Osogbo.
7. Mr. Biggs, Lagere, Ile Ife
24. Captain Cook, Ilesha
25. Sizzlers Fast Food, Ore.
26. Top Shelf. Ododibo, Ondo.
27. Tantalizer, Campus, Ondo
28. Chicken Republic, Akure.
29. Mr. Biggs, Akure.
30. Chicken Palace, Oyo.
31. Rintz N Bites, Ojaigbo,
Ogbomoso.
32. Mr. Biggs,Poly Rd, Ibadan.
33. Amazing Delicacy, Camp,
Ogbomoso
34. Tantalizer, U.I. Ibadan.
35. Western Fried Chicken, Gate,
Ibadan.
36. Chicken Republic, Iwo Rd., Ibadan.
37. Planet Africana, Ota.
38. Rich Tastee, Ifo.
39. Kings Burger, Abeokuta.
40. Spices, Abeokuta.
41. Mr. Biggs, Idiroko Rd, Sango Ota.
42. Mr. Biggs, Folagbade Ijebuode .
43. Mama Cass, Abeokuta.
44. Sweet Sensation, Abeokuta.
45. Classics, Ikorodu.
46. Chicken Groovy, Ikeja.
47. Bluefields, Ipaja Rd, Agege.
48. Delicacies, Mushin
49. Food Signature, Ikeja.
50. Chicken Lovers, Abule Egba.
51. Friends Fast Food, Egbeda.
52. Chicken Palace, Ikeja.
53. Mr. Biggs, Badagry Expressway.
54. Honeymeal, Ikorodu.
55. Chicken Grotto, Ikeja.
56. Lick & Chop, Idimu.
57. Chicken Lovers, Agege.
58. Sweet Sensation, Yaba.
59. Tantalizer, Ikorodu.
60. Mr. Biggs, Ikorodu.
61. Tastee Fried Chicken, Agege.
62. Hunger Busters, Ikoyi.
63. Sweet Sensation, Adeola Odeku. V. I.
64. Chicken Republic, Apapa.
65. Mr. Biggs, Gbagada Expressway.
66. Mr. Biggs, Festac Town.
67. Chicken Republic, Itire.
68. Tantalizer, Festac Town.
69. Tastee Fried Chicken, Ikorodu.
70. Mr. Biggs, Yaba.
71. Chicken Republic, Opebi.
72. Tantalizer, Ojo Alaba..
73. Mr. Biggs, Oregun.
74. Tantalizer, Okota.
75. Sweet Sensation, Opebi.


236
FACULTY OF BUSINESS & SOCIAL SCIENCES
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN, ILORIN, NIGERIA.

Dear Respondent,
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE (CATEGORY A: MGT. & STAFF)
This questionnaire is designed to assess the impact of effective
product/service quality practices on patronage/sales of fast food services and, on the
general performance of the industry. Information gathered is purely for research
purpose and will be treated with strict confidence.
PERSONAL PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS (STAFF)
1. Age
2. Sex ....
3. Marital Status.
4. Name of Employer .
5. Category of staff (a) J unior(b) Supervisory (c) Managerial
6. Units/ Department i.e personnel, sales etc.
7. Length of service (a) Below 1yr(b) 1-4yrs (c) 4-8yrs(d) 8yrs above
8. Educational Qualifications.
CHECKLIST OF QUALITY ISSUES
Please, study the items listed below carefully and respond to each by answering the
related questions systematically ONE at a time, beginning with No.1.
QUESTION 1: Is each of the underlisted issues part of quality practices in your
company?
Answer YES or NO in column A.



237
QUESTION 2: Also indicate the weight of importance attached to each of those
items you have marked YES in column A to reflect the level with which your
company is concerned with the practices of those issues. Therefore, select and
record on one of the following codes against each item in column B.
1. . VERY LOW
2. LOW
3. AVERAGE
4. HIGH
5. VERY HIGH

Strategic Quality Issues
COLUMN
A
COLUMN B
YES N
O
1 2 3 4 5
List of Strategy 1:
1. Regular review of operations, systems
and structures.

2. Instituting standards and measures to
improve product and service quality.

3. Conducting a stage by stage inspection
of materials and products.

4. Developing and applying marketing
techniques which brings in an enduring
market to achieve profitability.

5. Setting up of quality circles.
6.Applying statistical methods and
problem-solving techniques in quality
control.

7. Using competitive benchmarking as a
quality improvement strategy.

8. Conducting regular audit and analysis
of organization environment.

9.Using state of the art equipment in
operations and customer service
delivery.

List of Strategy 2:
10.Instituting occasional dialogues with
customers to ensure better staff-
customers relationship.

11.Recognizing the sovereignty of


238
customers.
12.Giving attention to customers
complaints.

13.Assessing and considering responses
of customers to ensure quick and
prompt service delivery.

14.Ensuring that product reliability and
satisfaction are crucial in building
customer loyalty, trust and confidence.

15.Applying appropriate methods and
mechanisms to determine and meet
customers specifications.

List of Strategy 3:
16.Existence of teamwork and synergy in
quality improvement programmes.

17.Developing staff awareness and
seeking commitments of members
towards achieving organizational
objectives.

18.Integrating individual members needs
and plans with the company plan.

19.Obtaining information on members
satisfaction with the running of things
and operations.

20.Applying standard employment
procedures and regulations.

21.Possession of better-qualified and
experienced staff.

22.Developing training and career
development programs for all levels of
employees.

23.Rewarding the sales force.

Also, tick as appropriate.
24. Do you agree that a positive relationship exists between the quality of service
delivery and customer patronage in your company?
(1) YES (2) NO
25. How would you describe the relationship?
(1) Very weak (2) Weak (3) Average (4) Strong (5) Very strong


239
26. Do you agree that the adoption of a systematic quality control practice can
help the organization in attracting more customers and therefore ensure
continuous patronage?
(1) YES (2) NO
27. To what extent is this achieved in your organization?
(1) Very poor (2) Poor (3) Average (4) Good (5) Excellent
28. How would you generally rate the overall patronage of your outlet?
(1) Very poor (2) Poor (3) Average (4) Good (5) Excellent
29. How would you assess your organization in terms of attaining sales target?
(1) Very poor (2) Poor (3) Average (4) Good (5) Excellent
30. What major problem(s) does your firm/outlet encounter in customers
service delivery?

240
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE (CATEGORY B: CUSTOMERS)
This questionnaire is designed to assess the impact of quality control and
improvement practices on the sales of fast food services and, on the general
performance of the industry. Information gathered from this is purely for research
purpose and will be treated with strict confidence.

PERSONAL PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS (CUSTOMER)

1. Age ..
2. Sex.
3. Marital Status .
4. Occupation .
5. Income per month
(a) Less than N15,000
(b) N15,000 N50, 000
(c) N50,000 and above
6. When did you start patronizing the product of the firm?
Year. Period
7. How often
(a) seldom
(b) not regularly/not frequently
(c) regularly/frequently
8. Do you patronise other firms? (a) Yes (b) No

CHECKLIST OF QUALITY ISSUES
Please, study the items listed below carefully and respond to each by answering the
following questions systematically ONE at a time, beginning with No1.
QUESTION 1: Is each of the underlisted issues part of service quality delivery in this
fast food outlet? Answer YES or NO in column A.


241
QUESTION 2: Also indicate the weight of importance attached to each of those
items you have marked YES in column A to reflect the level at which the company
is concerned in its activities with the practices of those issues. Select and record
one of the following codes against each item in column B.
1. .. VERY LOW
2. .. LOW
3. .. AVERAGE
4. .. HIGH
5. .. VERY HIGH

List of Perceived Quality Issues
COLUMN
A
COLUMN B
YES NO 1 2 3 4 5
1.Regular application of appropriate
measures in determining and meeting
customers needs and specifications..

2.Ensuring continuous customers
satisfaction as crucial in building
product loyalty, trust, and reliability.

3. Recognition of customers sovereignty,
4. Attending to complaints and occasional
dialogues with customers leading to
better customer staff relationship.

5. Existence of prompt and quick service
delivery.

6. Use of state of the art equipment in
service delivery.

7. Provision of additional social benefits
like childrens corner, parking space,
free calendars etc.

8. Service/product quality comparable
with those of competitors.

9. Conducive and secure environment.



242
10.Availability of qualified and
experienced staff.

11.Suitable operation period.

12.Proper sitting and location of business.


Also, tick as appropriate.
13. How would you generally assess the quality of the companys products
and services?
(1) Very poor (2) Poor (3) Average (4) Good (5) Excellent
14. Do you agree that your patronage decisions are influenced by quality of the
products and services?
(1) YES (2) NO
15. To what extent is this achieved by the company?
(1) Very poor (2) Poor (3) Average (4) Good (5) Excellent
16. I will continue to patronize despite variations in product items.
(1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Undecided (4) Agree (5) Strongly agree

17. What major problem(s) do you usually encounter in patronizing the firms
products and services?

243
APPENDIX 4

Frequencies
















state location of respondent
18 5.6 5.6 5.6
27 8.3 8.3 13.9
27 8.3 8.3 22.2
42 13.0 13.0 35.2
45 13.9 13.9 49.1
165 50.9 50.9 100.0
324 100.0 100.0
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Sex of respondent
182 56.2 56.2 56.2
142 43.8 43.8 100.0
324 100.0 100.0
male
female
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Marital Status of respondent
157 48.5 48.5 48.5
153 47.2 47.2 95.7
14 4.3 4.3 100.0
324 100.0 100.0
single
married
others
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Category of outl et
72 22.2 22.2 22.2
126 38.9 38.9 61.1
126 38.9 38.9 100.0
324 100.0 100.0
small
medium
big
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Unit/department
95 29.3 29.3 29.3
154 47.5 47.5 76.9
75 23.1 23.1 100.0
324 100.0 100.0
Personnel/Admin
Sales/Accounts
Operation/Production
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Educational qualification
15 4.6 4.6 4.6
82 25.3 25.3 29.9
126 38.9 38.9 68.8
95 29.3 29.3 98.1
6 1.9 1.9 100.0
324 100.0 100.0
None
Pry/Sec
Cert./Diplomas/ND/NCE
HND/B.Sc.,PGD/M.Sc.,
MBA
others
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Age of respondent last birthday
34 10.5 10.5 10.5
122 37.7 37.7 48.1
124 38.3 38.3 86.4
44 13.6 13.6 100.0
324 100.0 100.0
less than20 years
20 years - 29 years
30 years - 39 years
40 years and above
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
St aff category
108 33.3 33.3 33.3
108 33.3 33.3 66.7
108 33.3 33.3 100.0
324 100.0 100.0
J unior
Supervisory
Managerial
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Length of service
19 5.9 5.9 5.9
177 54.6 54.6 60.5
104 32.1 32.1 92.6
24 7.4 7.4 100.0
324 100.0 100.0
below 1 year
1 year - 4 years
4 years - 8 years
8 years and above
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
244






Regul ar revi ew of operati ons, systems and structures v1
21 6.5 6.8 6.8
63 19.4 20.3 27.0
47 14.5 15.1 42.1
115 35.5 37.0 79.1
65 20.1 20.9 100.0
311 96.0 100.0
13 4.0
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Del p. appropri ate standards and correcti ve measures to i mprove servi ve
qual i ty v2
27 8.3 8.5 8.5
54 16.7 17.1 25.6
53 16.4 16.8 42.4
103 31.8 32.6 75.0
79 24.4 25.0 100.0
316 97.5 100.0
8 2.5
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
conducti ng a stage by stage i nspecti on of materi al and product v3
19 5.9 6.0 6.0
51 15.7 16.1 22.1
50 15.4 15.8 37.9
128 39.5 40.4 78.2
69 21.3 21.8 100.0
317 97.8 100.0
7 2.2
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
245







setti ng up of qual i ty ci rcl es v5
26 8.0 8.9 8.9
82 25.3 28.0 36.9
73 22.5 24.9 61.8
77 23.8 26.3 88.1
35 10.8 11.9 100.0
293 90.4 100.0
31 9.6
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
appl i cati on of stati sti cal methods and probl em sol vi ng v6
55 17.0 17.9 17.9
96 29.6 31.3 49.2
57 17.6 18.6 67.8
63 19.4 20.5 88.3
36 11.1 11.7 100.0
307 94.8 100.0
17 5.2
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
i nsti tuti ng occati onal di al oques wi th customers to .. v10
57 17.6 18.2 18.2
110 34.0 35.1 53.4
74 22.8 23.6 77.0
43 13.3 13.7 90.7
29 9.0 9.3 100.0
313 96.6 100.0
11 3.4
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
usi ng competi ti ve benchmaki ng as a qual i ty i mprovement strategy v7
29 9.0 9.5 9.5
83 25.6 27.2 36.7
59 18.2 19.3 56.1
100 30.9 32.8 88.9
34 10.5 11.1 100.0
305 94.1 100.0
19 5.9
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
246







gi vi ng attenti on to cust compl ai nts v12
11 3.4 3.5 3.5
30 9.3 9.6 13.1
34 10.5 10.9 24.0
122 37.7 39.1 63.1
115 35.5 36.9 100.0
312 96.3 100.0
12 3.7
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
recorgni si ng cust. sati sfacti on as cruci al .. v14
10 3.1 3.2 3.2
21 6.5 6.8 10.0
25 7.7 8.1 18.1
123 38.0 39.8 57.9
130 40.1 42.1 100.0
309 95.4 100.0
15 4.6
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
conducti ng marketi ng research to determi ne.. v15
68 21.0 21.9 21.9
107 33.0 34.4 56.3
79 24.4 25.4 81.7
40 12.3 12.9 94.5
17 5.2 5.5 100.0
311 96.0 100.0
13 4.0
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
247









devel opi ng and seeki ng com... v17
9 2.8 3.0 3.0
13 4.0 4.3 7.2
42 13.0 13.8 21.0
151 46.6 49.5 70.5
90 27.8 29.5 100.0
305 94.1 100.0
19 5.9
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
possessi on of better qual i fi ed ... v20
18 5.6 6.0 6.0
39 12.0 13.0 19.1
112 34.6 37.5 56.5
88 27.2 29.4 86.0
42 13.0 14.0 100.0
299 92.3 100.0
25 7.7
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
usi ng of empl oyment procedures .. v21
59 18.2 19.7 19.7
102 31.5 34.0 53.7
33 10.2 11.0 64.7
69 21.3 23.0 87.7
37 11.4 12.3 100.0
300 92.6 100.0
24 7.4
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
devel opi ng trai nni ng programmes... v22
96 29.6 49.5 49.5
77 23.8 39.7 89.2
14 4.3 7.2 96.4
7 2.2 3.6 100.0
194 59.9 100.0
130 40.1
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
248










rewardi ng the sal es force v23
70 21.6 28.1 28.1
110 34.0 44.2 72.3
42 13.0 16.9 89.2
25 7.7 10.0 99.2
2 .6 .8 100.0
249 76.9 100.0
75 23.1
324 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
To what exten i s thi s achi eved i n your organi sati on. v27
17 5.2 7.1 7.1
47 14.5 19.7 26.9
64 19.8 26.9 53.8
75 23.1 31.5 85.3
35 10.8 14.7 100.0
238 73.5 100.0
86 26.5
324 100.0
very poor
poor
average
good
excellent
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Do you agrre that a posit ive relationship exists between the quality of ... v24
34 10.5 11.5 11.5
261 80.6 88.5 100.0
295 91.1 100.0
29 8.9
324 100.0
No
Yes
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Do you agree that the adopt ion of .. v26
76 23.5 25.6 25.6
221 68.2 74.4 100.0
297 91.7 100.0
27 8.3
324 100.0
No
Yes
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
How would you describe the relationship v25
5 1.9 1.9 1.9
8 3.1 3.1 5.0
26 10.0 10.0 14.9
155 59.4 59.4 74.3
67 25.7 25.7 100.0
261 100.0 100.0
strongly dissagree
dissagree
undecided
agree
strongly agree
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
How would you generall describe.. v28
13 5.9 5.9 5.9
43 19.5 19.5 25.3
55 24.9 24.9 50.2
75 33.9 33.9 84.2
35 15.8 15.8 100.0
221 100.0 100.0
very poor
poor
average
good
excellent
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
249
APPENDIX 5
Frequency Table















Location of respondent
139 5.5 5.5 5.5
237 9.5 9.5 15.0
337 13.4 13.4 28.5
222 8.9 8.9 37.3
298 11.9 11.9 49.2
1273 50.8 50.8 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Sex of respondent
1664 66.4 66.4 66.4
842 33.6 33.6 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
male
female
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Marital Status of respondent
804 32.1 32.1 32.1
1565 62.5 62.5 94.6
136 5.4 5.4 100.0
2505 100.0 100.0
1 .0
2506 100.0
single
married
others
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Years of Patronage
243 9.7 9.7 9.7
621 24.8 24.8 34.5
1379 55.0 55.0 89.5
242 9.7 9.7 99.2
21 .8 .8 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years and above
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Income group of respondent
811 32.3 32.3 32.3
857 34.3 34.3 66.6
838 33.4 33.4 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
low income
Middle income
High income
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Cat egory of out let
1035 41.3 41.3 41.3
887 35.4 35.4 76.7
584 23.3 23.3 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
small
medium
big
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
250























Application of appropriate measures (v1)
320 12.8 12.8 12.8
560 22.3 22.3 35.1
870 34.7 34.7 69.8
406 16.2 16.2 86.0
350 14.0 14.0 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Responding and meeting customers'... (v2)
329 13.1 13.1 13.1
531 21.2 21.2 34.3
838 33.4 33.5 67.8
414 16.5 16.5 84.3
393 15.7 15.7 100.0
2505 100.0 100.0
1 .0
2506 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Recogni ti on of customers' soverei gnty (v3)
347 13.8 13.8 13.8
493 19.7 19.7 33.5
760 30.3 30.3 63.8
467 18.6 18.6 82.5
439 17.5 17.5 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Occational dialogues with customers... (v4)
407 16.2 16.2 16.2
590 23.5 23.6 39.8
690 27.5 27.5 67.3
425 17.0 17.0 84.3
393 15.7 15.7 100.0
2505 100.0 100.0
1 .0
2506 100.0
verylow
low
average
high
veryhigh
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Existence of promt and quick service delivery (v5)
183 7.3 7.3 7.3
330 13.2 13.2 20.5
568 22.7 22.7 43.2
731 29.2 29.2 72.3
693 27.7 27.7 100.0
2505 100.0 100.0
1 .0
2506 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Use of state of the art equi pment... (v6)
782 31.2 31.2 31.2
684 27.3 27.3 58.5
498 19.9 19.9 78.4
317 12.6 12.6 91.0
225 9.0 9.0 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Provi si on of addi ti onal soci al benefi ts... (v7)
291 11.6 11.6 11.6
470 18.8 18.8 30.4
751 30.0 30.0 60.3
548 21.9 21.9 82.2
446 17.8 17.8 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Servi ce/product qual i ty... (v8)
547 21.8 21.8 21.8
491 19.6 19.6 41.4
601 24.0 24.0 65.4
451 18.0 18.0 83.4
416 16.6 16.6 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Conduci ve and secure envi ronment (v9)
303 12.1 12.1 12.1
458 18.3 18.3 30.4
757 30.2 30.2 60.6
566 22.6 22.6 83.2
422 16.8 16.8 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
251







Proper si ti ng and l ocati on of busi ness (v12)
263 10.5 10.5 10.5
410 16.4 16.4 26.9
657 26.2 26.2 53.1
647 25.8 25.8 78.9
529 21.1 21.1 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
very low
low
average
high
very high
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Patronage deci si ons are i nfl uenced by... (v14)
563 22.5 22.5 22.5
1942 77.5 77.5 100.0
2505 100.0 100.0
1 .0
2506 100.0
No
Yes
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
I will continue to patronise despite... (v16)
589 23.5 23.5 23.5
663 26.5 26.5 50.0
594 23.7 23.7 73.7
352 14.0 14.0 87.7
308 12.3 12.3 100.0
2506 100.0 100.0
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Undecided
Agree
Strongly agree
Total
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Assess the quality of the coy product (v13)
282 11.3 11.3 11.3
420 16.8 16.
8
28.0
627 25.0 25.0 53.1
693 27.7 27.7 80.7
483 19.3 19.3 100.0
2505 100.0 100.0
1 .0
2506 100.0
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
Total
Valid
System Missing
Total
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Achi vement by the company (v15)
247 12.7 12.7 12.7
377 19.4 19.4 32.1
449 23.1 23.1 55.2
452 23.3 23.3 78.5
417 21.5 21.5 100.

194 100.
0
100.
0
Very poor
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
Tota
l
Valid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
252
APPENDIX 6(i)

Crosstabs

[DataSet2] C:\Users\Step-B M &
E\Documents\Fakokunde\AnalysisAFinally\Original(staff)NonfactoredData\FakokundeOriginal(staff)Da
ta3(2).sav



state location of respondent * Age of respondent last birthday



state location of respondent * Sex of respondent

Case Processing Summary
324 100.0% 0 .0% 324 100.0%
324 100.0% 0 .0% 324 100.0%
324 100.0% 0 .0% 324 100.0%
324 100.0% 0 .0% 324 100.0%
state locationof
respondent * Age of
respondent last birthday
state locationof
respondent * Sexof
respondent
state locationof
respondent * Marital
Status of respondent
state locationof
respondent * Staf
category
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Valid Missing Total
Cases
Crosstab
0 10 7 1 18
.0% 55.6% 38.9% 5.6% 100.0%
1 10 12 4 27
3.7% 37.0% 44.4% 14.8% 100.0%
1 13 9 4 27
3.7% 48.1% 33.3% 14.8% 100.0%
6 12 18 6 42
14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% 100.0%
5 17 16 7 45
11.1% 37.8% 35.6% 15.6% 100.0%
21 60 62 22 165
12.7% 36.4% 37.6% 13.3% 100.0%
34 122 124 44 324
10.5% 37.7% 38.3% 13.6% 100.0%
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
state location
of respondent
Total
less than
20 years
20 years -
29 years
30 years -
39 years
40 years
and above
Age of respondent last birthday
Total
Chi-Square Tests
1.447
a
5 .919
1.468 5 .917
.938 1 .333
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 7.89.
a.
Chi-Square Tests
10.802
a
15 .766
13.428 15 .569
.529 1 .467
324
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
8 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimumexpected count is 1.89.
a.
253

state location of respondent * Marital Status of respondent


state location of respondent * Staf category













Crosstab
8 10 0 18
44.4% 55.6% .0% 100.0%
12 13 2 27
44.4% 48.1% 7.4% 100.0%
13 14 0 27
48.1% 51.9% .0% 100.0%
23 16 3 42
54.8% 38.1% 7.1% 100.0%
18 26 1 45
40.0% 57.8% 2.2% 100.0%
83 74 8 165
50.3% 44.8% 4.8% 100.0%
157 153 14 324
48.5% 47.2% 4.3% 100.0%
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
state location
of respondent
Total
single married others
Marital Status of respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
7.545
a
10 .673
9.349 10 .499
.060 1 .806
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
5 cells (27.8%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is .78.
a.
Chi-Square Tests
.000
a
10 1.000
.000 10 1.000
.000 1 1.000
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 6.00.
a.
state location of respondent * Lenth of service Crosstabulation
1 12 4 1 18
5.6% 66.7% 22.2% 5.6% 100.0%
2 17 5 3 27
7.4% 63.0% 18.5% 11.1% 100.0%
0 17 9 1 27
.0% 63.0% 33.3% 3.7% 100.0%
3 24 11 4 42
7.1% 57.1% 26.2% 9.5% 100.0%
2 28 13 2 45
4.4% 62.2% 28.9% 4.4% 100.0%
11 79 62 13 165
6.7% 47.9% 37.6% 7.9% 100.0%
19 177 104 24 324
5.9% 54.6% 32.1% 7.4% 100.0%
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
state location
of respondent
Total
below 1 year
1 year - 4
years
4 years -
8 years
8 years
and above
Lenth of service
Total
Crosstab
6 6 6 18
33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%
9 9 9 27
33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%
9 9 9 27
33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%
14 14 14 42
33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%
15 15 15 45
33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%
55 55 55 165
33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%
108 108 108 324
33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Count
% withinstate location
of respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
state location
of respondent
Total
J unior Supervisory Managerial
Staf category
Total


254
APPENDIX 6(ii)

Crosstabs

[DataSet2] C:\Users\Step-B M &
E\Documents\Fakokunde\AnalysisAFinally\Original(staff)NonfactoredData\FakokundeOriginal(staff)Da
ta3(2).sav



Category of outlet * Age of respondent last birthday



Category of outlet * Sex of respondent



Category of outlet * Marital Status of respondent

Case Processing Summary
324 100.0% 0 .0% 324 100.0%
324 100.0% 0 .0% 324 100.0%
324 100.0% 0 .0% 324 100.0%
324 100.0% 0 .0% 324 100.0%
Category of outlet * Age of
respondent last birthday
Category of outlet * Sexof
respondent
Category of outlet * Marital
Status of respondent
Category of outlet * Staf
category
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Valid Missing Total
Cases
Crosstab
6 27 27 12 72
8.3% 37.5% 37.5% 16.7% 100.0%
11 50 51 14 126
8.7% 39.7% 40.5% 11.1% 100.0%
17 45 46 18 126
13.5% 35.7% 36.5% 14.3% 100.0%
34 122 124 44 324
10.5% 37.7% 38.3% 13.6% 100.0%
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Category
of outlet
Total
less than
20 years
20 years -
29 years
30 years -
39 years
40 years
and above
Age of respondent last birthday
Total
Chi-Square Tests
3.428
a
6 .754
3.386 6 .759
.676 1 .411
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 7.56.
a.
Crosstab
41 31 72
56.9% 43.1% 100.0%
70 56 126
55.6% 44.4% 100.0%
71 55 126
56.3% 43.7% 100.0%
182 142 324
56.2% 43.8% 100.0%
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Category
of outlet
Total
male female
Sexof respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
.039
a
2 .981
.039 2 .981
.002 1 .961
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 31.56.
a.


255


Category of outlet * Staf category







Crosstab
32 35 5 72
44.4% 48.6% 6.9% 100.0%
61 60 5 126
48.4% 47.6% 4.0% 100.0%
64 58 4 126
50.8% 46.0% 3.2% 100.0%
157 153 14 324
48.5% 47.2% 4.3% 100.0%
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Category
of outlet
Total
single married others
Marital Status of respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
2.019
a
4 .732
1.884 4 .757
1.331 1 .249
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
1 cells (11.1%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 3.11.
a.
Crosstab
24 24 24 72
33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%
42 43 41 126
33.3% 34.1% 32.5% 100.0%
42 41 43 126
33.3% 32.5% 34.1% 100.0%
108 108 108 324
33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Category
of outlet
Total
J unior Supervisory Managerial
Staf category
Total
Chi-Square Tests
.095
a
4 .999
.095 4 .999
.008 1 .929
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 24.00.
a.
Category of outlet * Lenth of service Crosstabulation
2 38 23 9 72
2.8% 52.8% 31.9% 12.5% 100.0%
10 75 35 6 126
7.9% 59.5% 27.8% 4.8% 100.0%
7 64 46 9 126
5.6% 50.8% 36.5% 7.1% 100.0%
19 177 104 24 324
5.9% 54.6% 32.1% 7.4% 100.0%
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Category
of outlet
Total
below1 year
1 year - 4
years
4 years -
8 years
8 years
and above
Lenthof service
Total
Chi-Square Tests
8.270
a
6 .219
8.197 6 .224
.180 1 .671
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 4.22.
a.


256
APPENDIX 6(iii)

Crosstabs



Staff category * Age of respondent l ast birthday





Staff category * Sex of respondent



Staff category * Marital Status of respondent

Case Processing Summary
324 100.0% 0 .0% 324 100.0%
324 100.0% 0 .0% 324 100.0%
324 100.0% 0 .0% 324 100.0%
Staf category * Age of
respondent last birthday
Staf category * Sexof
respondent
Staf category * Marital
Status of respondent
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Valid Missing Total
Cases
Crosstab
34 52 16 6 108
31.5% 48.1% 14.8% 5.6% 100.0%
0 57 43 8 108
.0% 52.8% 39.8% 7.4% 100.0%
0 13 65 30 108
.0% 12.0% 60.2% 27.8% 100.0%
34 122 124 44 324
10.5% 37.7% 38.3% 13.6% 100.0%
Count
% within Staf category
Count
% within Staf category
Count
% within Staf category
Count
% within Staf category
J unior
Supervisory
Managerial
Staf category
Total
less than
20 years
20 years -
29 years
30 years -
39 years
40 years
and above
Age of respondent last birthday
Total
Chi-Square Tests
149.868
a
6 .000
163.507 6 .000
108.641 1 .000
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 11.33.
a.
Crosstab
32 76 108
29.6% 70.4% 100.0%
71 37 108
65.7% 34.3% 100.0%
79 29 108
73.1% 26.9% 100.0%
182 142 324
56.2% 43.8% 100.0%
Count
% withinStaf category
Count
% withinStaf category
Count
% withinStaf category
Count
% withinStaf category
J unior
Supervisory
Managerial
Staf category
Total
male female
Sexof respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
47.564
a
2 .000
48.450 2 .000
41.412 1 .000
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 47.33.
a.


257





Staff category * Length of service







Crosstab
84 19 5 108
77.8% 17.6% 4.6% 100.0%
56 50 2 108
51.9% 46.3% 1.9% 100.0%
17 84 7 108
15.7% 77.8% 6.5% 100.0%
157 153 14 324
48.5% 47.2% 4.3% 100.0%
Count
% withinStaf category
Count
% withinStaf category
Count
% withinStaf category
Count
% withinStaf category
J unior
Supervisory
Managerial
Staf category
Total
single married others
Marital Status of respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
87.439
a
4 .000
96.156 4 .000
65.991 1 .000
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 4.67.
a.
Crosstab
12 5 2 19
63.2% 26.3% 10.5% 100.0%
80 83 14 177
45.2% 46.9% 7.9% 100.0%
16 19 69 104
15.4% 18.3% 66.3% 100.0%
0 1 23 24
.0% 4.2% 95.8% 100.0%
108 108 108 324
33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%
Count
% withinLenthof service
Count
% withinLenthof service
Count
% withinLenthof service
Count
% withinLenthof service
Count
% withinLenthof service
below1 year
1 year - 4 years
4 years - 8 years
8 years and above
Lenthof
service
Total
J unior Supervisory Managerial
Staf category
Total
Chi-Square Tests
153.260
a
6 .000
165.276 6 .000
108.066 1 .000
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 6.33.
a.


258
APPENDIX 7(i)

Crosstabs

[DataSet1] C:\Users\Step-B M &
E\Documents\Fakokunde\AnalysisAFinally\Original(customer)NonfactoredData\FakokundeOriginal(cu
stomer)Data2.sav



Location of respondent * Age of respondent last birthday





Location of respondent * Sex of respondent

Case Processing Summary
2506 100.0% 0 .0% 2506 100.0%
2506 100.0% 0 .0% 2506 100.0%
2505 100.0% 1 .0% 2506 100.0%
2504 99.9% 2 .1% 2506 100.0%
Locationof respondent *
Age of respondent last
birthday
Locationof respondent *
Sexof respondent
Locationof respondent *
Marital Status of
respondent
Locationof respondent *
Occupationof respondent
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Valid Missing Total
Cases
Crosstab
10 21 45 39 24 139
7.2% 15.1% 32.4% 28.1% 17.3% 100.0%
14 25 85 68 45 237
5.9% 10.5% 35.9% 28.7% 19.0% 100.0%
18 42 96 91 90 337
5.3% 12.5% 28.5% 27.0% 26.7% 100.0%
13 24 89 62 34 222
5.9% 10.8% 40.1% 27.9% 15.3% 100.0%
20 41 85 94 58 298
6.7% 13.8% 28.5% 31.5% 19.5% 100.0%
120 171 346 377 259 1273
9.4% 13.4% 27.2% 29.6% 20.3% 100.0%
195 324 746 731 510 2506
7.8% 12.9% 29.8% 29.2% 20.4% 100.0%
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Locationof
respondent
Total
less than
20 years
20 years -
29 years
30 years -
39 years
40 years -
49 years
50 years
and above
Age of respondent last birthday
Total
Chi-Square Tests
38.682
a
20 .007
37.841 20 .009
1.342 1 .247
2506
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 10.82.
a.


259



Location of respondent * Marital Status of respondent




Location of respondent * Occupation of respondent
Crosstab
82 57 139
59.0% 41.0% 100.0%
163 74 237
68.8% 31.2% 100.0%
213 124 337
63.2% 36.8% 100.0%
136 86 222
61.3% 38.7% 100.0%
195 103 298
65.4% 34.6% 100.0%
875 398 1273
68.7% 31.3% 100.0%
1664 842 2506
66.4% 33.6% 100.0%
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Locationof
respondent
Total
male female
Sexof respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
11.424
a
5 .044
11.281 5 .046
4.922 1 .027
2506
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 46.70.
a.
Crosstab
34 94 11 139
24.5% 67.6% 7.9% 100.0%
82 140 15 237
34.6% 59.1% 6.3% 100.0%
96 229 12 337
28.5% 68.0% 3.6% 100.0%
82 124 16 222
36.9% 55.9% 7.2% 100.0%
103 182 13 298
34.6% 61.1% 4.4% 100.0%
407 796 69 1272
32.0% 62.6% 5.4% 100.0%
804 1565 136 2505
32.1% 62.5% 5.4% 100.0%
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Count
% withinLocation
of respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Locationof
respondent
Total
single married others
Marital Status of respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
16.865
a
10 .077
17.063 10 .073
1.128 1 .288
2505
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 7.55.
a.


260




Crosstab
16 30 54 38 1 139
11.5% 21.6% 38.8% 27.3% .7% 100.0%
12 63 97 59 6 237
5.1% 26.6% 40.9% 24.9% 2.5% 100.0%
53 69 111 81 23 337
15.7% 20.5% 32.9% 24.0% 6.8% 100.0%
20 42 89 59 11 221
9.0% 19.0% 40.3% 26.7% 5.0% 100.0%
24 78 85 105 6 298
8.1% 26.2% 28.5% 35.2% 2.0% 100.0%
135 213 487 364 73 1272
10.6% 16.7% 38.3% 28.6% 5.7% 100.0%
260 495 923 706 120 2504
10.4% 19.8% 36.9% 28.2% 4.8% 100.0%
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Location of
respondent
Total
Student/
Corper and
Co
Teacher/Civil
Servant
Self
employed/
Trader/
Busiman etc
Banker/
Lecturer/
Politician etc
others i.e.
Retiree/
Apprentice/
Unemployed
etc
Occupation of respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
71.506
a
20 .000
75.432 20 .000
7.417 1 .006
2504
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 6.66.
a.


261
APPENDIX 7(ii)


Crosstabs

[DataSet1] C:\Users\Step-B M &
E\Documents\Fakokunde\AnalysisAFinally\Original(customer)NonfactoredData\FakokundeOriginal(cu
stomer)Data2.sav



Category of outlet * Age of respondent last birthday




Category of outlet * Sex of respondent



Case Processing Summary
2506 100.0% 0 .0% 2506 100.0%
2506 100.0% 0 .0% 2506 100.0%
2505 100.0% 1 .0% 2506 100.0%
2504 99.9% 2 .1% 2506 100.0%
Category of outlet * Age of
respondent last birthday
Category of outlet * Sexof
respondent
Category of outlet * Marital
Status of respondent
Category of outlet *
Occupationof respondent
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Valid Missing Total
Cases
Crosstab
132 148 312 272 171 1035
12.8% 14.3% 30.1% 26.3% 16.5% 100.0%
51 117 253 281 186 888
5.7% 13.2% 28.5% 31.6% 20.9% 100.0%
12 59 181 178 153 583
2.1% 10.1% 31.0% 30.5% 26.2% 100.0%
195 324 746 731 510 2506
7.8% 12.9% 29.8% 29.2% 20.4% 100.0%
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Category
of outlet
Total
less than
20 years
20 years -
29 years
30 years -
39 years
40 years -
49 years
50 years
and above
Age of respondent last birthday
Total
Chi-Square Tests
90.880
a
8 .000
96.224 8 .000
70.510 1 .000
2506
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 45.37.
a.
Crosstab
660 375 1035
63.8% 36.2% 100.0%
598 290 888
67.3% 32.7% 100.0%
406 177 583
69.6% 30.4% 100.0%
1664 842 2506
66.4% 33.6% 100.0%
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Category
of outlet
Total
male female
Sexof respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
6.310
a
2 .043
6.319 2 .042
6.206 1 .013
2506
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 195.88.
a.


262

Category of outlet * Marital Status of respondent



Category of outlet * Occupation of respondent






Crosstab
386 595 54 1035
37.3% 57.5% 5.2% 100.0%
281 561 45 887
31.7% 63.2% 5.1% 100.0%
137 409 37 583
23.5% 70.2% 6.3% 100.0%
804 1565 136 2505
32.1% 62.5% 5.4% 100.0%
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Category
of outlet
Total
single married others
Marital Status of respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
33.092
a
4 .000
33.907 4 .000
26.578 1 .000
2505
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 31.65.
a.
Crosstab
175 233 372 199 55 1034
16.9% 22.5% 36.0% 19.2% 5.3% 100.0%
57 172 319 294 45 887
6.4% 19.4% 36.0% 33.1% 5.1% 100.0%
28 90 232 213 20 583
4.8% 15.4% 39.8% 36.5% 3.4% 100.0%
260 495 923 706 120 2504
10.4% 19.8% 36.9% 28.2% 4.8% 100.0%
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Category
of outlet
Total
Student/
Corper and
Co
Teacher/Civil
Servant
Self
employed/
Trader/
Busimanetc
Banker/
Lecturer/
Politicianetc
others i.e.
Retiree/
Apprentice/
Unemployed
etc
Occupationof respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
139.307
a
8 .000
141.495 8 .000
81.425 1 .000
2504
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 27.94.
a.


263
APPENDIX 7(iii)

Crosstabs

[DataSet1] C:\Users\Step-B M &
E\Documents\Fakokunde\AnalysisAFinally\Original(customer)NonfactoredData\FakokundeOriginal(cu
stomer)Data2.sav



Income group of respondent * Age of respondent last birthday





Income group of respondent * Sex of respondent

Case Processing Summary
2506 100.0% 0 .0% 2506 100.0%
2506 100.0% 0 .0% 2506 100.0%
2505 100.0% 1 .0% 2506 100.0%
2504 99.9% 2 .1% 2506 100.0%
Income group of
respondent * Age of
respondent last birthday
Income group of
respondent * Sexof
respondent
Income group of
respondent * Marital
Status of respondent
Income group of
respondent * Occupation
of respondent
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Valid Missing Total
Cases
Crosstab
137 131 217 206 119 810
16.9% 16.2% 26.8% 25.4% 14.7% 100.0%
45 107 255 254 198 859
5.2% 12.5% 29.7% 29.6% 23.1% 100.0%
13 86 274 271 193 837
1.6% 10.3% 32.7% 32.4% 23.1% 100.0%
195 324 746 731 510 2506
7.8% 12.9% 29.8% 29.2% 20.4% 100.0%
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
lowincome
Middle income
Highincome
Income group
of respondent
Total
less than
20 years
20 years -
29 years
30 years -
39 years
40 years -
49 years
50 years
and above
Age of respondent last birthday
Total
Chi-Square Tests
177.586
a
8 .000
178.202 8 .000
108.093 1 .000
2506
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 63.03.
a.


264


Income group of respondent * Marital Status of respondent



Income group of respondent * Occupation of respondent



Crosstab
538 272 810
66.4% 33.6% 100.0%
575 284 859
66.9% 33.1% 100.0%
551 286 837
65.8% 34.2% 100.0%
1664 842 2506
66.4% 33.6% 100.0%
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
lowincome
Middle income
Highincome
Income group
of respondent
Total
male female
Sexof respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
.233
a
2 .890
.233 2 .890
.066 1 .797
2506
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 272.15.
a.
Crosstab
342 437 31 810
42.2% 54.0% 3.8% 100.0%
250 557 51 858
29.1% 64.9% 5.9% 100.0%
212 571 54 837
25.3% 68.2% 6.5% 100.0%
804 1565 136 2505
32.1% 62.5% 5.4% 100.0%
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
lowincome
Middle income
Highincome
Income group
of respondent
Total
single married others
Marital Status of respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
60.683
a
4 .000
60.000 4 .000
51.223 1 .000
2505
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 43.98.
a.
Crosstab
190 174 257 148 41 810
23.5% 21.5% 31.7% 18.3% 5.1% 100.0%
44 195 314 253 51 857
5.1% 22.8% 36.6% 29.5% 6.0% 100.0%
26 126 352 305 28 837
3.1% 15.1% 42.1% 36.4% 3.3% 100.0%
260 495 923 706 120 2504
10.4% 19.8% 36.9% 28.2% 4.8% 100.0%
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
lowincome
Middle income
Highincome
Income group
of respondent
Total
Student/
Corper and
Co
Teacher/Civil
Servant
Self
employed/
Trader/
Busimanetc
Banker/
Lecturer/
Politicianetc
others i.e.
Retiree/
Apprentice/
Unemployed
etc
Occupationof respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
280.346
a
8 .000
269.796 8 .000
144.115 1 .000
2504
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 38.82.
a.
265
APPENDIX 8

Crosstabs & Chi-square of Customer Q8 with Demo

Location of respondent * Frequency of Patronage





Category of outlet * Frequency of Patronage



Crosstab
10 21 108 139
7.2% 15.1% 77.7% 100.0%
19 33 185 237
8.0% 13.9% 78.1% 100.0%
27 57 253 337
8.0% 16.9% 75.1% 100.0%
20 43 159 222
9.0% 19.4% 71.6% 100.0%
24 67 207 298
8.1% 22.5% 69.5% 100.0%
55 162 1056 1273
4.3% 12.7% 83.0% 100.0%
155 383 1968 2506
6.2% 15.3% 78.5% 100.0%
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Count
% within Location
of respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Location of
respondent
Total
Seldom
Not
regularly/not
frequently
Regularly/
Frequently
Frequency of Patronage
Total
Symmetric Measures
.128 .000
2506
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. b.
Crosstab
73 151 811 1035
7.1% 14.6% 78.4% 100.0%
50 147 691 888
5.6% 16.6% 77.8% 100.0%
32 85 466 583
5.5% 14.6% 79.9% 100.0%
155 383 1968 2506
6.2% 15.3% 78.5% 100.0%
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Category
of outlet
Total
Seldom
Not
regularly/not
frequently
Regularly/
Frequently
Frequency of Patronage
Total
266





Income group of respondent * Frequency of Patronage
















Chi-Square Tests
3.820
a
4 .431
3.779 4 .437
1.063 1 .302
2506
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 36.06.
a.
Symmetric Measures
.039 .431
2506
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. b.
Crosstab
55 129 626 810
6.8% 15.9% 77.3% 100.0%
37 105 717 859
4.3% 12.2% 83.5% 100.0%
63 149 625 837
7.5% 17.8% 74.7% 100.0%
155 383 1968 2506
6.2% 15.3% 78.5% 100.0%
Count
% within Income
group of respondent
Count
% within Income
group of respondent
Count
% within Income
group of respondent
Count
% within Income
group of respondent
lowincome
Middle income
High income
Income group
of respondent
Total
Seldom
Not
regularly/not
frequently
Regularly/
Frequently
Frequency of Patronage
Total
Symmetric Measures
.092 .000
2506
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
b.


267
Age of respondent l ast birthday * Frequency of Patronage





Sex of respondent * Frequency of Patronage



Crosstab
13 34 148 195
6.7% 17.4% 75.9% 100.0%
26 53 245 324
8.0% 16.4% 75.6% 100.0%
47 120 579 746
6.3% 16.1% 77.6% 100.0%
39 104 588 731
5.3% 14.2% 80.4% 100.0%
30 72 408 510
5.9% 14.1% 80.0% 100.0%
155 383 1968 2506
6.2% 15.3% 78.5% 100.0%
Count
% withinAge of
respondent last birthday
Count
% withinAge of
respondent last birthday
Count
% withinAge of
respondent last birthday
Count
% withinAge of
respondent last birthday
Count
% withinAge of
respondent last birthday
Count
% withinAge of
respondent last birthday
less than20 years
20 years - 29 years
30 years - 39 years
40 years - 49 years
50 years and above
Age of
respondent
last birthday
Total
Seldom
Not
regularly/not
frequently
Regularly/
Frequently
Frequency of Patronage
Total
Chi-Square Tests
6.010
a
8 .646
5.888 8 .660
3.875 1 .049
2506
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 12.06.
a.
Symmetric Measures
.049 .646
2506
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. b.
Crosstab
96 247 1321 1664
5.8% 14.8% 79.4% 100.0%
59 136 647 842
7.0% 16.2% 76.8% 100.0%
155 383 1968 2506
6.2% 15.3% 78.5% 100.0%
Count
% withinSex
of respondent
Count
% withinSex
of respondent
Count
% withinSex
of respondent
male
female
Sexof respondent
Total
Seldom
Not
regularly/not
frequently
Regularly/
Frequently
Frequency of Patronage
Total
Chi-Square Tests
2.473
a
2 .290
2.441 2 .295
2.472 1 .116
2506
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 52.08.
a.
Symmetric Measures
.031 .290
2506
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. b.
268

Marital Status of respondent * Frequency of Patronage





Occupation of respondent * Frequency of Patronage


Crosstab
45 145 614 804
5.6% 18.0% 76.4% 100.0%
104 223 1238 1565
6.6% 14.2% 79.1% 100.0%
6 15 115 136
4.4% 11.0% 84.6% 100.0%
155 383 1967 2505
6.2% 15.3% 78.5% 100.0%
Count
% within Marital
Status of respondent
Count
% within Marital
Status of respondent
Count
% within Marital
Status of respondent
Count
% within Marital
Status of respondent
single
married
others
Marital Status
of respondent
Total
Seldom
Not
regularly/not
frequently
Regularly/
Frequently
Frequency of Patronage
Total
Chi-Square Tests
9.536
a
4 .049
9.588 4 .048
2.181 1 .140
2505
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 8.42.
a.
Chi-Square Tests
5.255
a
8 .730
5.014 8 .756
.407 1 .524
2504
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 7.43.
a.
269


Years of Patronage * Frequency of Patronage





Do you patronise other firms? * Frequency of Patronage


Symmetric Measures
.046 .730
2504
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. b.
Crosstab
49 54 140 243
20.2% 22.2% 57.6% 100.0%
57 133 431 621
9.2% 21.4% 69.4% 100.0%
46 165 1168 1379
3.3% 12.0% 84.7% 100.0%
3 31 208 242
1.2% 12.8% 86.0% 100.0%
0 0 21 21
.0% .0% 100.0% 100.0%
155 383 1968 2506
6.2% 15.3% 78.5% 100.0%
Count
% withinYears
of Patronage
Count
% withinYears
of Patronage
Count
% withinYears
of Patronage
Count
% withinYears
of Patronage
Count
% withinYears
of Patronage
Count
% withinYears
of Patronage
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years and above
Years of
Patronage
Total
Seldom
Not
regularly/not
frequently
Regularly/
Frequently
Frequency of Patronage
Total
Chi-Square Tests
181.536
a
8 .000
163.913 8 .000
153.612 1 .000
2506
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
2 cells (13.3%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 1.30.
a.
Crosstab
51 87 235 373
13.7% 23.3% 63.0% 100.0%
104 296 1733 2133
4.9% 13.9% 81.2% 100.0%
155 383 1968 2506
6.2% 15.3% 78.5% 100.0%
Count
% within Do you
patronise other firms?
Count
% within Do you
patronise other firms?
Count
% within Do you
patronise other firms?
No
Yes
Do you patronise
other firms?
Total
Seldom
Not
regularly/not
frequently
Regularly/
Frequently
Frequency of Patronage
Total
270







Assess the qual ity of Companys products (v13) * Frequency of Patronage




Crosstab
12
7.7%
.5%
Count
%within
%ofTotal
Count
%within
%ofTotal
Count
%within
%ofTotal

%within
%ofTotal
Count

Count
%within
%ofTotal
Verypoor

Average
Good
Excellent
Assess the quality
Of.(v13)
Total
Seldom
Not
regularly/not
frequently
Regularly/
Frequently
Frequencyof Patronage
Total
32
20.6%
1.3%
20
12.9%
.8%
155
100.0%
6.2%
45
29.0%
1.8%
46
29.7%
1.8%
46
12.0%
1.8%
71
18.5%
2.8%
89
23.2%
3.6%
95
24.8%
3.8%
82
21.4%
3.3%
383
100.0%
15.3%
224
11.4%
8.9%
317
16.1%
12.7%
493
25.1%
19.7%
552
28.1%
22.0%
381
19.4%
15.2%
1967
100.0%
78.5%
282
11.3%
11.3%
420
16.8%
16.8%
627
25.0%
25.0%
693
27.7%
27.7%
483
19.3%
19.3%
2505
100.0%
100.0%
Chi -Square Test s
11.664
a
8 .167
12.159 8 .144
.731 1 .393
2505
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 17.45.
a.


271
APPENDIX 9

Regression

[DataSet3] C:\Users\Step-B M &
E\Documents\Fakokunde\AnalysisAFinal(2)\Original(customer)NonfactoredData\FakokundeOriginal(c
ustomer)Data2.sav







Variables Entered/Removed
a
Years of Patronage .
Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=.050,
Probability-of-F-to-remove >=.100).
Do youpatronise
other firms?
.
Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=.050,
Probability-of-F-to-remove >=.100).
Locationof
respondent
.
Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=.050,
Probability-of-F-to-remove >=.100).
Income group of
respondent
.
Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=.050,
Probability-of-F-to-remove >=.100).
Model
1
2
3
4
Variables Entered
Variables
Removed Method
Dependent Variable: Frequency of Patronage a.
Model Summary
e
.248
a
.062 .061 .551 .062 164.155 1 2502 .000
.295
b
.087 .086 .544 .025 68.962 1 2501 .000
.308
c
.095 .094 .542 .008 21.780 1 2500 .000
.311
d
.097 .095 .541 .002 5.994 1 2499 .014
Model
1
2
3
4
R R Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
Change Statistics
Predictors: (Constant), Years of Patronage a.
Predictors: (Constant), Years of Patronage, Do you patronise other firms? b.
Predictors: (Constant), Years of Patronage, Do you patronise other firms?, Location of respondent c.
Predictors: (Constant), Years of Patronage, Do you patronise other firms?, Location of respondent, Income group of
respondent
d.
Dependent Variable: Frequency of Patronage e.
ANOVA
e
49.919 1 49.919 164.155 .000
a
760.842 2502 .304
810.760 2503
70.335 2 35.167 118.788 .000
b
740.426 2501 .296
810.760 2503
76.730 3 25.577 87.110 .000
c
734.031 2500 .294
810.760 2503
78.486 4 19.622 66.961 .000
d
732.274 2499 .293
810.760 2503
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Model
1
2
3
4
Sumof
Squares df MeanSquare F Sig.
Predictors: (Constant), Years of Patronage a.
Predictors: (Constant), Years of Patronage, Do youpatronise other firms? b.
Predictors: (Constant), Years of Patronage, Do youpatronise other firms?, Location
of respondent
c.
Predictors: (Constant), Years of Patronage, Do youpatronise other firms?, Location
of respondent, Income group of respondent
d.
Dependent Variable: Frequency of Patronage e.


272





Coefficients
a
2.259 .038 59.553 .000
.174 .014 .248 12.812 .000
2.056 .045 45.985 .000
.169 .013 .241 12.611 .000
.254 .031 .159 8.304 .000
1.900 .056 34.201 .000
.174 .013 .247 12.960 .000
.256 .030 .160 8.395 .000
.031 .007 .089 4.667 .000
1.960 .061 32.329 .000
.174 .013 .248 12.994 .000
.265 .031 .166 8.646 .000
.030 .007 .088 4.594 .000
-.033 .013 -.047 -2.448 .014
(Constant)
Years of Patronage
(Constant)
Years of Patronage
Do youpatronise other
firms?
(Constant)
Years of Patronage
Do youpatronise other
firms?
Locationof respondent
(Constant)
Years of Patronage
Do youpatronise other
firms?
Locationof respondent
Income group of
respondent
Model
1
2
3
4
B Std. Error
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Beta
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Dependent Variable: Frequency of Patronage a.
Excluded Variables
e
.087
a
4.503 .000 .090 .995
-.003
a
-.157 .875 -.003 .991
-.029
a
-1.485 .138 -.030 1.000
.029
a
1.519 .129 .030 .998
-.025
a
-1.287 .198 -.026 .999
.019
a
.987 .324 .020 .998
.010
a
.505 .614 .010 1.000
.159
a
8.304 .000 .164 .998
.089
b
4.667 .000 .093 .995
-.011
b
-.590 .555 -.012 .989
-.050
b
-2.580 .010 -.052 .984
.023
b
1.201 .230 .024 .997
-.018
b
-.924 .356 -.018 .997
.013
b
.666 .506 .013 .997
.010
b
.536 .592 .011 1.000
-.007
c
-.358 .721 -.007 .986
-.047
c
-2.448 .014 -.049 .983
.025
c
1.301 .193 .026 .996
-.014
c
-.713 .476 -.014 .995
.014
c
.754 .451 .015 .996
.005
c
.281 .779 .006 .997
.019
d
.881 .379 .018 .773
.036
d
1.840 .066 .037 .955
-.013
d
-.689 .491 -.014 .995
.021
d
1.103 .270 .022 .977
.018
d
.907 .365 .018 .937
Locationof respondent
Category of outlet
Income group of
respondent
Age of respondent last
birthday
Sexof respondent
Marital Status of
respondent
Occupationof respondent
Do youpatronise other
firms?
Locationof respondent
Category of outlet
Income group of
respondent
Age of respondent last
birthday
Sexof respondent
Marital Status of
respondent
Occupationof respondent
Category of outlet
Income group of
respondent
Age of respondent last
birthday
Sexof respondent
Marital Status of
respondent
Occupationof respondent
Category of outlet
Age of respondent last
birthday
Sexof respondent
Marital Status of
respondent
Occupationof respondent
Model
1
2
3
4
Beta In t Sig.
Partial
Correlation Tolerance
Collinearity
Statistics
Predictors inthe Model: (Constant), Years of Patronage a.
Predictors inthe Model: (Constant), Years of Patronage, Do youpatronise other firms? b.
Predictors inthe Model: (Constant), Years of Patronage, Do youpatronise other firms?, Locationof
respondent
c.
Predictors inthe Model: (Constant), Years of Patronage, Do youpatronise other firms?, Locationof
respondent, Income group of respondent
d.
Dependent Variable: Frequency of Patronage e.
Residuals Statistics
a
2.07 3.24 2.72 .177 2506
-2.035 .875 .000 .541 2506
-3.718 2.927 .000 1.000 2506
-3.760 1.616 .000 .999 2506
Predicted Value
Residual
Std. Predicted Value
Std. Residual
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Dependent Variable: Frequency of Patronage a.
273
APPENDIX 10

Univariate Analysis of Variance




Post Hoc Tests
Location of respondent

Between-Subjects Factors
Ekiti 139
Osun 237
Ogun 337
Ondo 222
Oyo 298
Lagos 1273
small 1035
medium 888
big 583
lowincome 810
Middle
income
859
High
income
837
1
2
3
4
5
6
Locationof
respondent
1
2
3
Category of
outlet
1
2
3
Income group
of respondent
Value Label N
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Frequencyof Patronage
.00 .055 .933 -.10 .11
.03 .052 .506 -.07 .14
.08 .055 .155 -.03 .19
.09 .053 .084 -.01 .19
-.08 .046 .076 -.17 .01
.00 .055 .933 -.11 .10
.03 .043 .493 -.06 .12
.07 .048 .121 -.02 .17
.09 .045 .053 .00 .17
-.09* .036 .018 -.16 -.01
-.03 .052 .506 -.14 .07
-.03 .043 .493 -.12 .06
.04 .044 .316 -.04 .13
.06 .041 .166 -.02 .14
-.12* .031 .000 -.18 -.05
-.08 .055 .155 -.19 .03
-.07 .048 .121 -.17 .02
-.04 .044 .316 -.13 .04
.01 .045 .791 -.08 .10
-.16* .037 .000 -.23 -.09
-.09 .053 .084 -.19 .01
-.09 .045 .053 -.17 .00
-.06 .041 .166 -.14 .02
-.01 .045 .791 -.10 .08
-.17* .033 .000 -.24 -.11
.08 .046 .076 -.01 .17
.09* .036 .018 .01 .16
.12* .031 .000 .05 .18
.16* .037 .000 .09 .23
.17* .033 .000 .11 .24
(J ) Locationof
respondent
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Ekiti
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Oyo
Lagos
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Lagos
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
(I) Locationof respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
LSD
Mean
Difference
(I-J ) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Based onobserved means.
The meandifference is significant at the .05 level. *.


274

Homogeneous Subsets



Category of outlet



Homogeneous Subsets



Income group of respondent

Frequency of Patronage
298 2.61
222 2.63
337 2.67
237 2.70 2.70
139 2.71 2.71
1273 2.79
.071 .070
Locationof respondent
Oyo
Ondo
Ogun
Osun
Ekiti
Lagos
Sig.
Duncan
a,b,c
N 1 2
Subset
Means for groups inhomogeneous subsets are displayed.
Based onType III Sumof Squares
The error termis MeanSquare(Error) =.263.
Uses Harmonic MeanSample Size =260.566. a.
The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic meanof the group sizes
is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
b.
Alpha =.05. c.
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Frequency of Patronage
-.01 .023 .708 -.05 .04
-.03 .027 .238 -.08 .02
.01 .023 .708 -.04 .05
-.02 .027 .409 -.08 .03
.03 .027 .238 -.02 .08
.02 .027 .409 -.03 .08
(J ) Category of outlet
medium
big
small
big
small
medium
(I) Category of outlet
small
medium
big
LSD
Mean
Difference
(I-J ) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Based onobserved means.
Frequency of Patronage
1035 2.71
888 2.72
583 2.74
.255
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Sig.
Duncan
a,b,c
N 1
Subset
Means for groups inhomogeneous subsets are displayed.
Based onType III Sumof Squares
The error termis MeanSquare(Error) =.263.
Uses Harmonic MeanSample Size =787.903. a.
The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean
of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are
not guaranteed.
b.
Alpha =.05. c.


275


Homogeneous Subsets




Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Frequency of Patronage
-.09* .025 .001 -.14 -.04
.03 .025 .185 -.02 .08
.09* .025 .001 .04 .14
.12* .025 .000 .07 .17
-.03 .025 .185 -.08 .02
-.12* .025 .000 -.17 -.07
(J ) Income group
of respondent
Middle income
Highincome
lowincome
Highincome
lowincome
Middle income
(I) Income group
of respondent
lowincome
Middle income
Highincome
LSD
Mean
Difference
(I-J ) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Based onobserved means.
The meandifference is significant at the .05 level. *.
Frequency of Patronage
837 2.67
810 2.70
859 2.79
.182 1.000
Income group
of respondent
Highincome
lowincome
Middle income
Sig.
Duncan
a,b,c
N 1 2
Subset
Means for groups inhomogeneous subsets are displayed.
Based onType III Sumof Squares
The error termis MeanSquare(Error) =.263.
Uses Harmonic MeanSample Size =834.851. a.
The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic meanof the
group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
b.
Alpha =.05. c.
276
APPENDIX 11(i)


Crosstabs & Chi-square of staff average with demo

state location of respondent * codes for Average of all respondents question(1-23)








Age of respondent last birthday * codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-23)

Crosstab
0 13 5 18
.0% 72.2% 27.8% 100.0%
0 18 9 27
.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
2 23 2 27
7.4% 85.2% 7.4% 100.0%
1 34 7 42
2.4% 81.0% 16.7% 100.0%
0 38 7 45
.0% 84.4% 15.6% 100.0%
6 129 30 165
3.6% 78.2% 18.2% 100.0%
9 255 60 324
2.8% 78.7% 18.5% 100.0%
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Count
% within state location
of respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
state location
of respondent
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-23)
Total
Chi-Squar e Tests
12.138
a
10 .276
13.780 10 .183
1.600 1 .206
324
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
7 cells (38.9%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimumexpected count is .50.
a.
277







Sex of respondent * codes for Average of all respondents question(1-23)







Crosstab
1 26 7 34
2.9% 76.5% 20.6% 100.0%
3 98 21 122
2.5% 80.3% 17.2% 100.0%
3 99 22 124
2.4% 79.8% 17.7% 100.0%
2 32 10 44
4.5% 72.7% 22.7% 100.0%
9 255 60 324
2.8% 78.7% 18.5% 100.0%
Count
% within Age of
respondent last birthday
Count
% within Age of
respondent last birthday
Count
% within Age of
respondent last birthday
Count
% within Age of
respondent last birthday
Count
% within Age of
respondent last birthday
less than 20 years
20 years - 29 years
30 years - 39 years
40 years and above
Age of respondent
last birthday
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-23)
Total
Symmetric Measures
.069 .957
324
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. b.
Crosstab
2 140 40 182
1.1% 76.9% 22.0% 100.0%
7 115 20 142
4.9% 81.0% 14.1% 100.0%
9 255 60 324
2.8% 78.7% 18.5% 100.0%
Count
% withinSex
of respondent
Count
% withinSex
of respondent
Count
% withinSex
of respondent
male
female
Sexof respondent
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-23)
Total
Chi-Square Tests
7.065
a
2 .029
7.242 2 .027
5.808 1 .016
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 3.94.
a.


278




Marital Status of respondent * codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-23)





Category of outlet * codes for Average of all respondents question(1-23)



Symmetric Measures
.146 .029
324
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. b.
Crosstab
5 128 24 157
3.2% 81.5% 15.3% 100.0%
3 117 33 153
2.0% 76.5% 21.6% 100.0%
1 10 3 14
7.1% 71.4% 21.4% 100.0%
9 255 60 324
2.8% 78.7% 18.5% 100.0%
Count
% withinMarital
Status of respondent
Count
% withinMarital
Status of respondent
Count
% withinMarital
Status of respondent
Count
% withinMarital
Status of respondent
single
married
others
Marital Status
of respondent
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-23)
Total
Chi-Square Tests
3.490
a
4 .479
3.251 4 .517
1.490 1 .222
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
4 cells (44.4%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is .39.
a.
Symmetric Measures
.103 .479
324
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. b.
Crosstab
8 62 2 72
11.1% 86.1% 2.8% 100.0%
1 112 13 126
.8% 88.9% 10.3% 100.0%
0 81 45 126
.0% 64.3% 35.7% 100.0%
9 255 60 324
2.8% 78.7% 18.5% 100.0%
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
Count
% within
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Category
of outlet
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-23)
Total


279





Staff category * codes for Average of all respondents question(1-23)





Unit/department * codes for Average of al l respondents question(1-23)



Chi-Square Tests
63.105
a
4 .000
61.621 4 .000
50.628 1 .000
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 2.00.
a.
Symmetric Measures
.404 .000
324
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. b.
Crosstab
5 86 17 108
4.6% 79.6% 15.7% 100.0%
2 88 18 108
1.9% 81.5% 16.7% 100.0%
2 81 25 108
1.9% 75.0% 23.1% 100.0%
9 255 60 324
2.8% 78.7% 18.5% 100.0%
Count
% withinStaf category
Count
% withinStaf category
Count
% withinStaf category
Count
% withinStaf category
J unior
Supervisory
Managerial
Staf category
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-23)
Total
Chi-Square Tests
4.206
a
4 .379
4.011 4 .405
2.968 1 .085
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 3.00.
a.
Symmetric Measures
.113 .379
324
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. b.
Crosstab
2 75 18 95
2.1% 78.9% 18.9% 100.0%
5 123 26 154
3.2% 79.9% 16.9% 100.0%
2 57 16 75
2.7% 76.0% 21.3% 100.0%
9 255 60 324
2.8% 78.7% 18.5% 100.0%
Count
% within Unit/department
Count
% within Unit/department
Count
% within Unit/department
Count
% within Unit/department
Personnel/Admin
Sales/Accounts
Operation/Production
Unit/department
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-23)
Total


280





Length of service * codes for Average of all respondents question(1-23)








Educational qualification * codes for Average of all respondents question(1-23)
Chi-Square Tests
.930
a
4 .920
.930 4 .920
.041 1 .839
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 2.08.
a.
Symmetric Measures
.053 .920
324
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. b.
Crosstab
2 15 2 19
10.5% 78.9% 10.5% 100.0%
3 145 29 177
1.7% 81.9% 16.4% 100.0%
3 76 25 104
2.9% 73.1% 24.0% 100.0%
1 19 4 24
4.2% 79.2% 16.7% 100.0%
9 255 60 324
2.8% 78.7% 18.5% 100.0%
Count
% within Lenth of service
Count
% within Lenth of service
Count
% within Lenth of service
Count
% within Lenth of service
Count
% within Lenth of service
below1 year
1 year - 4 years
4 years - 8 years
8 years and above
Lenth of
service
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-23)
Total
Chi-Square Tests
8.523
a
6 .202
6.901 6 .330
1.608 1 .205
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is .53.
a.
Symmetric Measures
.160 .202
324
Contingency Coefficient Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis. a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. b.
281



Crosstab
1 11 3 15
6.7% 73.3% 20.0% 100.0%
4 67 11 82
4.9% 81.7% 13.4% 100.0%
2 96 28 126
1.6% 76.2% 22.2% 100.0%
2 77 16 95
2.1% 81.1% 16.8% 100.0%
0 4 2 6
.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
9 255 60 324
2.8% 78.7% 18.5% 100.0%
Count
% within Educational
qualification
Count
% within Educational
qualification
Count
% within Educational
qualification
Count
% within Educational
qualification
Count
% within Educational
qualification
Count
% within Educational
qualification
None
Pry/Sec
Cert./Diplomas/ND/NCE
HND/B.Sc.,PGD/M.Sc.,
MBA
others
Educational
qualification
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-23)
Total
Chi-Square Tests
6.470
a
8 .595
6.235 8 .621
1.231 1 .267
324
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
8 cells (53.3%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is .17.
a.
282
APPENDIX 11 (ii)

Crosstabs & Chi- square of average customer responses to demo



codes for Average of all respondents question(1-12) * Location of respondent



codes for Average of all respondents question(1-12) * Category of outlet


Case Processing Summary
2506 100.0% 0 .0% 2506 100.0%
2506 100.0% 0 .0% 2506 100.0%
2506 100.0% 0 .0% 2506 100.0%
codes for Average of all
respondents
question(1-12) *
Locationof respondent
codes for Average of all
respondents
question(1-12) *
Category of outlet
codes for Average of all
respondents
question(1-12) * Income
group of respondent
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Valid Missing Total
Cases
Crosstab
19 20 14 23 24 131 231
13.7% 8.4% 4.2% 10.4% 8.1% 10.3% 9.2%
.8% .8% .6% .9% 1.0% 5.2% 9.2%
91 196 271 182 241 912 1893
65.5% 82.7% 80.4% 82.0% 80.9% 71.6% 75.5%
3.6% 7.8% 10.8% 7.3% 9.6% 36.4% 75.5%
29 21 52 17 33 230 382
20.9% 8.9% 15.4% 7.7% 11.1% 18.1% 15.2%
1.2% .8% 2.1% .7% 1.3% 9.2% 15.2%
139 237 337 222 298 1273 2506
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
5.5% 9.5% 13.4% 8.9% 11.9% 50.8% 100.0%
Count
% within Location
of respondent
% of Total
Count
% within Location
of respondent
% of Total
Count
% within Location
of respondent
% of Total
Count
% within Location
of respondent
% of Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4 (average)
3.5 - 4.4 (high)
codes for Average
of all respondents
question(1-12)
Total
Ekiti Osun Ogun Ondo Oyo Lagos
Location of respondent
Total
Crosstab
184 41 6 231
17.8% 4.6% 1.0% 9.2%
7.3% 1.6% .2% 9.2%
828 717 348 1893
80.0% 80.7% 59.7% 75.5%
33.0% 28.6% 13.9% 75.5%
23 130 229 382
2.2% 14.6% 39.3% 15.2%
.9% 5.2% 9.1% 15.2%
1035 888 583 2506
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
41.3% 35.4% 23.3% 100.0%
Count
% within
Category of outlet
% of Total
Count
% within
Category of outlet
% of Total
Count
% within
Category of outlet
% of Total
Count
% within
Category of outlet
% of Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4 (average)
3.5 - 4.4 (high)
codes for Average
of all respondents
question(1-12)
Total
small medium big
Category of outlet
Total
283



codes for Average of all respondents question(1-12) * Income
group of respondent









Chi-Square Tests
506.663
a
4 .000
519.828 4 .000
456.560 1 .000
2506
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 53.74.
a.
Crosstab
128 69 34 231
15.8% 8.0% 4.1% 9.2%
5.1% 2.8% 1.4% 9.2%
631 673 589 1893
77.9% 78.3% 70.4% 75.5%
25.2% 26.9% 23.5% 75.5%
51 117 214 382
6.3% 13.6% 25.6% 15.2%
2.0% 4.7% 8.5% 15.2%
810 859 837 2506
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
32.3% 34.3% 33.4% 100.0%
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
% of Total
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
% of Total
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
% of Total
Count
% withinIncome
group of respondent
% of Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4 (average)
3.5 - 4.4 (high)
codes for Average
of all respondents
question(1-12)
Total
lowincome
Middle
income Highincome
Income group of respondent
Total
Chi-Square Tests
170.547
a
4 .000
172.603 4 .000
164.276 1 .000
2506
PearsonChi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The
minimumexpected count is 74.66.
a.
Sex of respondent * codes for Average of all respondents question(1-12)
Crosstabulation
Count
159 1246 259 1664
72 647 123 842
231 1893 382 2506
male
female
Sexof respondent
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-12)
Total


284









Marital Status of respondent * codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-12) Crosstabulation
Count
84 611 109 804
129 1184 252 1565
18 97 21 136
231 1892 382 2505
single
married
others
Marital Status
of respondent
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-12)
Total
Occupation of respondent * codes for Average of all respondents question(1-12) Crosstabulation
Count
27 204 29 260
43 394 58 495
94 688 141 923
48 524 134 706
19 81 20 120
231 1891 382 2504
Student/Corper and Co
Teacher/Civil Servant
Self
employed/Trader/
Busimanetc
Banker/Lecturer/Politician
etc
others i.e.
Retiree/Apprentice/
Unemployed etc
Occupationof
respondent
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-12)
Total
Years of Patronage * codes for Average of all respondents question(1-12)
Crosstabulation
Count
24 188 31 243
67 468 86 621
119 1045 215 1379
18 179 45 242
3 13 5 21
231 1893 382 2506
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years and above
Years of
Patronage
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-12)
Total
Frequency of Patronage * codes for Average of all respondents question(1-12)
Crosstabulation
Count
12 126 17 155
35 286 62 383
184 1481 303 1968
231 1893 382 2506
Seldom
Not regularly/not
frequently
Regularly/Frequently
Frequency of
Patronage
Total
1.5 - 2.4 (low)
2.5 - 3.4
(average)
3.5 - 4.4
(high)
codes for Average of all respondents
question(1-12)
Total
285
APPENDIX 12(i)

Univariate Analysis of Variance

[DataSet1] C:\Users\Step-B M &
E\Documents\Fakokunde\AnalysisAFinal(2)\Original(staff)NonfactoredData\FakokundeOriginal(staff)D
ata3.sav





Post Hoc Tests

state location of respondent

Between-Subjects Factors
Ekiti 18
Osun 27
Ondo 27
Oyo 42
Ogun 45
Lagos 165
small 72
medium 126
big 126
J unior 108
Supervisory 108
Managerial 108
1
2
3
4
5
6
state location
of respondent
1
2
3
Category of
outlet
1
2
3
Staf category
Value Label N


286


Homogeneous Subsets



Category of outlet



Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Average of all respondents question(1-23)
.1000 .08115 .219 -.0598 .2598
.3000* .08115 .000 .1402 .4598
.1794* .07513 .018 .0315 .3273
.2244* .07437 .003 .0780 .3709
.1780* .06620 .008 .0477 .3083
-.1000 .08115 .219 -.2598 .0598
.2000* .07258 .006 .0571 .3429
.0794 .06578 .229 -.0501 .2089
.1244 .06492 .056 -.0034 .2523
.0780 .05536 .160 -.0310 .1870
-.3000* .08115 .000 -.4598 -.1402
-.2000* .07258 .006 -.3429 -.0571
-.1206 .06578 .068 -.2501 .0089
-.0756 .06492 .246 -.2034 .0523
-.1220* .05536 .028 -.2310 -.0130
-.1794* .07513 .018 -.3273 -.0315
-.0794 .06578 .229 -.2089 .0501
.1206 .06578 .068 -.0089 .2501
.0451 .05721 .431 -.0676 .1577
-.0014 .04609 .976 -.0921 .0894
-.2244* .07437 .003 -.3709 -.0780
-.1244 .06492 .056 -.2523 .0034
.0756 .06492 .246 -.0523 .2034
-.0451 .05721 .431 -.1577 .0676
-.0465 .04485 .301 -.1348 .0418
-.1780* .06620 .008 -.3083 -.0477
-.0780 .05536 .160 -.1870 .0310
.1220* .05536 .028 .0130 .2310
.0014 .04609 .976 -.0894 .0921
.0465 .04485 .301 -.0418 .1348
(J ) state location
of respondent
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
Ekiti
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
Ekiti
Osun
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Ogun
Lagos
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
(I) state location
of respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
LSD
Mean
Difference
(I-J ) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Based onobserved means.
The meandifference is significant at the .05 level. *.
Average of all respondents question(1-23)
27 3.0222
45 3.0978 3.0978
42 3.1429 3.1429
165 3.1442 3.1442
27 3.2222 3.2222
18 3.3222
.091 .084 .129
state location
of respondent
Ondo
Ogun
Oyo
Lagos
Osun
Ekiti
Sig.
Duncan
a,b,c
N 1 2 3
Subset
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
Based on Type III Sumof Squares
The error termis Mean Square(Error) =.071.
Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =33.017. a.
The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is
used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
b.
Alpha =.05. c.
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Average of all respondents question(1-23)
-.2942* .03940 .000 -.3718 -.2167
-.5363* .03940 .000 -.6139 -.4587
.2942* .03940 .000 .2167 .3718
-.2421* .03360 .000 -.3082 -.1759
.5363* .03940 .000 .4587 .6139
.2421* .03360 .000 .1759 .3082
(J ) Category of outlet
medium
big
small
big
small
medium
(I) Category of outlet
small
medium
big
LSD
Mean
Difference
(I-J ) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Based onobserved means.
The meandifference is significant at the .05 level. *.
287
Homogeneous Subsets



Staff category



Homogeneous Subsets





Average of all respondents question(1-23)
72 2.8208
126 3.1151
126 3.3571
1.000 1.000 1.000
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Sig.
Duncan
a,b,c
N 1 2 3
Subset
Means for groups inhomogeneous subsets are displayed.
Based onType III Sumof Squares
The error termis MeanSquare(Error) =.071.
Uses Harmonic MeanSample Size =100.800. a.
The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic meanof the group sizes is
used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
b.
Alpha =.05. c.
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Average of all respondents question(1-23)
-.0167 .03629 .646 -.0881 .0548
-.0620 .03629 .089 -.1335 .0094
.0167 .03629 .646 -.0548 .0881
-.0454 .03629 .212 -.1168 .0261
.0620 .03629 .089 -.0094 .1335
.0454 .03629 .212 -.0261 .1168
(J ) Staf category
Supervisory
Managerial
J unior
Managerial
J unior
Supervisory
(I) Staf category
J unior
Supervisory
Managerial
LSD
Mean
Difference
(I-J ) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Based on observed means.


288
APPENDIX 12(ii)

Univariate Analysis of Variance

[DataSet3] C:\Users\Step-B M &
E\Documents\Fakokunde\AnalysisAFinal(2)\Original(customer)NonfactoredData\FakokundeOriginal(c
ustomer)Data2.sav





Post Hoc Tests

Location of respondent

Between-Subjects Factors
Ekiti 139
Osun 237
Ogun 337
Ondo 222
Oyo 298
Lagos 1273
small 1035
medium 888
big 583
lowincome 810
Middle
income
859
High
income
837
1
2
3
4
5
6
Locationof
respondent
1
2
3
Category of
outlet
1
2
3
Income group
of respondent
Value Label N
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Average response for (v1 - v12)
137.356
a
53 2.592 19.413 .000
9384.044 1 9384.044 70294.085 .000
4.969 5 .994 7.444 .000
32.762 2 16.381 122.706 .000
1.357 2 .679 5.083 .006
2.783 10 .278 2.084 .023
1.104 10 .110 .827 .603
.686 4 .172 1.285 .273
2.683 20 .134 1.005 .452
327.334 2452 .133
23358.360 2506
464.691 2505
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
State
Outlets
IncomeGp
State * Outlets
State * IncomeGp
Outlets * IncomeGp
State * Outlets *
IncomeGp
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sum
of Squares df MeanSquare F Sig.
R Squared =.296 (Adjusted R Squared =.280) a.


289


Homogeneous Subsets



Category of outlet


Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Average response for (v1 - v12)
.011 .0390 .782 -.066 .087
-.059 .0368 .112 -.131 .014
.074 .0395 .062 -.004 .151
-.012 .0375 .749 -.086 .062
-.030 .0326 .366 -.094 .034
-.011 .0390 .782 -.087 .066
-.069* .0310 .025 -.130 -.009
.063 .0341 .065 -.004 .130
-.023 .0318 .473 -.085 .040
-.040 .0258 .119 -.091 .010
.059 .0368 .112 -.014 .131
.069* .0310 .025 .009 .130
.132* .0316 .000 .070 .194
.047 .0291 .109 -.010 .104
.029 .0224 .193 -.015 .073
-.074 .0395 .062 -.151 .004
-.063 .0341 .065 -.130 .004
-.132* .0316 .000 -.194 -.070
-.086* .0324 .008 -.149 -.022
-.103* .0266 .000 -.155 -.051
.012 .0375 .749 -.062 .086
.023 .0318 .473 -.040 .085
-.047 .0291 .109 -.104 .010
.086* .0324 .008 .022 .149
-.017 .0235 .457 -.064 .029
.030 .0326 .366 -.034 .094
.040 .0258 .119 -.010 .091
-.029 .0224 .193 -.073 .015
.103* .0266 .000 .051 .155
.017 .0235 .457 -.029 .064
(J ) Locationof
respondent
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Ekiti
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Oyo
Lagos
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Lagos
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
(I) Locationof respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ogun
Ondo
Oyo
Lagos
LSD
Mean
Difference
(I-J ) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Based onobserved means.
The meandifference is significant at the .05 level. *.
Average response for (v1 - v12)
222 2.932
237 2.995
139 3.006
298 3.018
1273 3.035
337 3.064
1.000 .052
Locationof respondent
Ondo
Osun
Ekiti
Oyo
Lagos
Ogun
Sig.
Duncan
a,b,c
N 1 2
Subset
Means for groups inhomogeneous subsets are displayed.
Based onType III Sumof Squares
The error termis MeanSquare(Error) =.133.
Uses Harmonic MeanSample Size =260.566. a.
The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic meanof the group sizes
is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
b.
Alpha =.05. c.
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Average response for (v1 - v12)
-.297* .0167 .000 -.330 -.264
-.559* .0189 .000 -.596 -.522
.297* .0167 .000 .264 .330
-.262* .0195 .000 -.300 -.224
.559* .0189 .000 .522 .596
.262* .0195 .000 .224 .300
(J ) Category of outlet
medium
big
small
big
small
medium
(I) Category of outlet
small
medium
big
LSD
Mean
Difference
(I-J ) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Based onobserved means.
The meandifference is significant at the .05 level. *.


290

Homogeneous Subsets



Income group of respondent



Homogeneous Subsets




Average response for (v1 - v12)
1035 2.787
888 3.084
583 3.346
1.000 1.000 1.000
Category of outlet
small
medium
big
Sig.
Duncan
a,b,c
N 1 2 3
Subset
Means for groups inhomogeneous subsets are displayed.
Based onType III Sumof Squares
The error termis MeanSquare(Error) =.133.
Uses Harmonic MeanSample Size =787.903. a.
The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic meanof the group sizes is
used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
b.
Alpha =.05. c.
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Average response for (v1 - v12)
-.175* .0179 .000 -.210 -.140
-.326* .0180 .000 -.361 -.291
.175* .0179 .000 .140 .210
-.151* .0177 .000 -.185 -.116
.326* .0180 .000 .291 .361
.151* .0177 .000 .116 .185
(J ) Income group
of respondent
Middle income
Highincome
lowincome
Highincome
lowincome
Middle income
(I) Income group
of respondent
lowincome
Middle income
Highincome
LSD
Mean
Difference
(I-J ) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
95% Confidence Interval
Based onobserved means.
The meandifference is significant at the .05 level. *.
Average response for (v1 - v12)
810 2.854
859 3.029
837 3.179
1.000 1.000 1.000
Income group
of respondent
lowincome
Middle income
Highincome
Sig.
Duncan
a,b,c
N 1 2 3
Subset
Means for groups inhomogeneous subsets are displayed.
Based onType III Sumof Squares
The error termis MeanSquare(Error) =.133.
Uses Harmonic MeanSample Size =834.851. a.
The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic meanof the group sizes is
used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
b.
Alpha =.05. c.


291
APPENDIX 13

Correlations

[DataSet1] C:\Users\Step-B M &
E\Documents\Fakokunde\AnalysisAFinal(2)\Original(customer)NonfactoredData\FakokundeOriginal(c
ustomer)Data2.sav







Correlations
1 .023
.251
811.360 16.337
.324 .007
2506 2505
.023 1
.251
16.337 623.914
.007 .249
2505 2505
PearsonCorrelation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sumof Squares and
Cross-products
Covariance
N
PearsonCorrelation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sumof Squares and
Cross-products
Covariance
N
Frequency of Patronage
Rate the quality of
company's products (v13)
Frequency of
Patronage
Rate the
quality of
company's
products (v13)
292
APPENDIX 14

Means

Average of all respondents question(1-9) Average of all respondents question(10-15)
Average of all respondents question(16-23) * state location of respondent







Average of all respondents question(1-9) Average of all respondents question(10-15)
Average of all respondents question(16-23) * Category of outlet

Measures of Association
.263 .069
.146 .021
.073 .005
Average of all
respondents
question(1-9) * state
locationof respondent
Average of all
respondents
question(10-15) * state
locationof respondent
Average of all
respondents
question(16-23) * state
locationof respondent
Eta Eta Squared
Report
3.5522 3.5278 2.8689
18 18 18
.41306 .48430 .48957
3.5433 3.2156 2.8152
27 27 27
.49460 .50252 .46168
2.9944 3.3437 2.7970
27 27 27
.49464 .54755 .47611
3.2269 3.3910 2.8383
42 42 42
.52843 .50757 .43388
3.1729 3.2671 2.8427
45 45 45
.49056 .48537 .43007
3.2755 3.3846 2.7708
165 165 165
.51390 .46015 .48327
3.2692 3.3596 2.8009
324 324 324
.51893 .48382 .46568
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
state location
of respondent
Ekiti
Osun
Ondo
Oyo
Ogun
Lagos
Total
Average of all
respondents
question(1-9)
Average of all
respondents
question(10-15)
Average of all respondents
question(16-23)
293






Average of all respondents question(1-9) Average of all respondents question(10-15)
Average of all respondents question(16-23) * Staff category



ANOVA Table
12.150 2 6.075 26.061 .000
74.829 321 .233
86.979 323
9.677 2 4.838 23.557 .000
65.930 321 .205
75.607 323
20.783 2 10.391 67.712 .000
49.262 321 .153
70.045 323
(Combined) BetweenGroups
WithinGroups
Total
(Combined) BetweenGroups
WithinGroups
Total
(Combined) BetweenGroups
WithinGroups
Total
Average of all respondents
question(1-9) * Category of
outlet
Average of all respondents
question(10-15) * Category
of outlet
Average of all respondents
question(16-23) * Category
of outlet
Sumof
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Measures of Association
.374 .140
.358 .128
.545 .297
Average of all
respondents
question(1-9) *
Category of outlet
Average of all
respondents
question(10-15) *
Category of outlet
Average of all
respondents
question(16-23) *
Category of outlet
Eta Eta Squared
Report
3.2087 3.3151 2.8341
108 108 108
.52677 .51121 .50501
3.2540 3.3520 2.7909
108 108 108
.51070 .47030 .45036
3.3450 3.4116 2.7777
108 108 108
.51464 .46831 .44160
3.2692 3.3596 2.8009
324 324 324
.51893 .48382 .46568
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Staf category
J unior
Supervisory
Managerial
Total
Average of all
respondents
question(1-9)
Average of all
respondents
question(10-15)
Average of all respondents
question(16-23)


294




ANOVA Table
1.041 2 .520 1.944 .145
85.939 321 .268
86.979 323
.512 2 .256 1.094 .336
75.095 321 .234
75.607 323
.188 2 .094 .431 .650
69.857 321 .218
70.045 323
(Combined) BetweenGroups
WithinGroups
Total
(Combined) BetweenGroups
WithinGroups
Total
(Combined) BetweenGroups
WithinGroups
Total
Average of all respondents
question(1-9) * Staf category
Average of all respondents
question(10-15) * Staf category
Average of all respondents
question(16-23) * Staf category
Sumof
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Measures of Association
.109 .012
.082 .007
.052 .003
Average of all
respondents
question(1-9) *
Staf category
Average of all
respondents
question(10-15) *
Staf category
Average of all
respondents
question(16-23) *
Staf category
Eta Eta Squared


295
APPENDIX 15

Correlations


Correlations
1 .183** .178** .200**
.001 .001 .001
324 324 324 299
.183** 1 .161** .155**
.001 .004 .007
324 324 324 299
.178** .161** 1 .212**
.001 .004 .000
324 324 324 299
.200** .155** .212** 1
.001 .007 .000
299 299 299 299
PearsonCorrelation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
PearsonCorrelation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
PearsonCorrelation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
PearsonCorrelation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Average of all
respondents
question(1-9)
Average of all
respondents
question(10-15)
Average of all
respondents
question(16-23)
Howwould you
generall describe.. v28
Average of all
respondents
question(1-9)
Average of all
respondents
question(10-1
5)
Average of all
respondents
question(16-2
3)
Howwould
yougenerall
describe.. v28
Correlationis significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). **.


296
APPENDIX 16

Regression





Vari abl es Entered/Removed
a
V7 .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
V3 .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
Model
1
2
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
Dependent Variable: V28 a.
Model Summary
c
.321
a
.103 .098 .9570 .103 21.787 1 190 .000
.349
b
.122 .113 .9493 .019 4.079 1 189 .045 1.623
Model
1
2
R R Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
Change Statistics
Durbin-W
atson
Predictors: (Constant), V7 a.
Predictors: (Constant), V7, V3 b.
Dependent Variable: V28 c.
ANOVA
c
19.953 1 19.953 21.787 .000
a
174.000 190 .916
193.953 191
23.628 2 11.814 13.110 .000
b
170.325 189 .901
193.953 191
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Model
1
2
Sumof
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Predictors: (Constant), V7 a.
Predictors: (Constant), V7, V3
b.
Dependent Variable: V28
c.
Coeffi ci ents
a
2.634 .201 13.097 .000
.281 .060 .321 4.668 .000
2.217 .287 7.724 .000
.276 .060 .316 4.628 .000
.121 .060 .138 2.020 .045
(Constant)
V7
(Constant)
V7
V3
Model
1
2
B Std. Error
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Beta
Standardi
zed
Coefficien
ts
t Sig.
Dependent Variable: V28 a.
297



Regression



Excluded Variables
c
.050
a
.727 .468 .053 1.000
.054
a
.785 .434 .057 .995
.138
a
2.020 .045 .145 .999
-.028
a
-.411 .682 -.030 .985
.040
a
.550 .583 .040 .911
.064
a
.900 .369 .065 .947
.050
a
.721 .472 .052 .996
.033
a
.461 .646 .033 .913
.034
b
.496 .620 .036 .986
.036
b
.518 .605 .038 .976
-.084
b
-1.158 .248 -.084 .875
.056
b
.781 .436 .057 .900
.059
b
.835 .405 .061 .946
.056
b
.814 .417 .059 .994
.017
b
.236 .814 .017 .901
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V8
V9
V1
V2
V4
V5
V6
V8
V9
Model
1
2
Beta In t Sig.
Partial
Correlation Tolerance
Collinearit
y
Statistics
Predictors inthe Model: (Constant), V7 a.
Predictors inthe Model: (Constant), V7, V3 b.
Dependent Variable: V28 c.
Variables Entered/Removed
a
V14 .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
V15 .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
V10 .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
Model
1
2
3
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
Dependent Variable: V28 a.
Model Summary
d
.221
a
.049 .045 .9950 .049 12.015 1 233 .001
.257
b
.066 .058 .9882 .017 4.230 1 232 .041
.287
c
.082 .070 .9818 .016 4.032 1 231 .046 1.681
Model
1
2
3
R R Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
Change Statistics
Durbin-W
atson
Predictors: (Constant), V14 a.
Predictors: (Constant), V14, V15 b.
Predictors: (Constant), V14, V15, V10 c.
Dependent Variable: V28 d.
298













ANOVA
d
11.895 1 11.895 12.015 .001
a
230.675 233 .990
242.570 234
16.025 2 8.013 8.205 .000
b
226.545 232 .976
242.570 234
19.911 3 6.637 6.886 .000
c
222.659 231 .964
242.570 234
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Model
1
2
3
Sumof
Squares df MeanSquare F Sig.
Predictors: (Constant), V14 a.
Predictors: (Constant), V14, V15 b.
Predictors: (Constant), V14, V15, V10 c.
Dependent Variable: V28
d.
Coefficients
a
2.601 .259 10.025 .000
.215 .062 .221 3.466 .001
2.388 .278 8.595 .000
.197 .062 .203 3.166 .002
.119 .058 .132 2.057 .041
2.755 .331 8.323 .000
.179 .062 .184 2.862 .005
.116 .057 .129 2.028 .044
-.111 .055 -.128 -2.008 .046
(Constant)
V14
(Constant)
V14
V15
(Constant)
V14
V15
V10
Model
1
2
3
B Std. Error
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Beta
Standardi
zed
Coefficien
ts
t Sig.
Dependent Variable: V28 a.
Residuals Statistics
a
2.4964 4.0090 3.4784 .2918 264
-2.7138 1.9928 1.783E-02 .9630 264
-3.346 1.840 .021 1.000 264
-2.764 2.030 .018 .981 264
Predicted Value
Residual
Std. Predicted Value
Std. Residual
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Dependent Variable: V28 a.
299
Regression





Variables Entered/Removed
a
V16 .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
V21 .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
V23 .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
Model
1
2
3
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
Dependent Variable: V28 a.
Model Summary
d
.488
a
.238 .230 .8579 .238 30.261 1 97 .000
.522
b
.272 .257 .8427 .034 4.530 1 96 .036
.558
c
.311 .289 .8240 .039 5.389 1 95 .022 2.132
Model
1
2
3
R R Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
Change Statistics
Durbin-W
atson
Predictors: (Constant), V16 a.
Predictors: (Constant), V16, V21 b.
Predictors: (Constant), V16, V21, V23 c.
Dependent Variable: V28 d.
ANOVA
d
22.270 1 22.270 30.261 .000
a
71.386 97 .736
93.657 98
25.487 2 12.744 17.946 .000
b
68.170 96 .710
93.657 98
29.146 3 9.715 14.307 .000
c
64.510 95 .679
93.657 98
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Model
1
2
3
Sumof
Squares df MeanSquare F Sig.
Predictors: (Constant), V16 a.
Predictors: (Constant), V16, V21 b.
Predictors: (Constant), V16, V21, V23 c.
Dependent Variable: V28 d.


300




Excluded Variables
d
-.054
a
-.601 .549 -.061 .986
-.042
a
-.464 .643 -.047 .990
-.044
a
-.496 .621 -.051 .994
.191
a
2.118 .037 .211 .934
.214
a
2.128 .036 .212 .753
.103
a
1.161 .248 .118 .999
.165
a
1.881 .063 .189 .998
-.062
b
-.699 .486 -.072 .985
-.046
b
-.526 .600 -.054 .989
.004
b
.039 .969 .004 .929
.154
b
1.670 .098 .169 .880
.099
b
1.135 .259 .116 .999
.201
b
2.321 .022 .232 .971
-.027
c
-.312 .756 -.032 .954
-.028
c
-.318 .751 -.033 .980
.025
c
.276 .783 .028 .919
.152
c
1.693 .094 .172 .880
.088
c
1.035 .303 .106 .996
V17
V18
V19
V20
V21
V22
V23
V17
V18
V19
V20
V22
V23
V17
V18
V19
V20
V22
Model
1
2
3
Beta In t Sig.
Partial
Correlation Tolerance
Collinearit
y
Statistics
Predictors inthe Model: (Constant), V16 a.
Predictors inthe Model: (Constant), V16, V21 b.
Predictors inthe Model: (Constant), V16, V21, V23 c.
Dependent Variable: V28 d.
Casewise Diagnostics
a
-3.261 1.00 3.6872 -2.6872
Case Number
96
Std. Residual V28
Predicted
Value Residual
Dependent Variable: V28
a.
Residuals Statistics
a
2.4424 4.8079 3.6573 .5387 203
-2.6872 2.2636 -9.57E-02 .9055 203
-2.263 2.074 -.036 .988 203
-3.261 2.747 -.116 1.099 203
Predicted Value
Residual
Std. Predicted Value
Std. Residual
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Dependent Variable: V28 a.
301
APPENDIX 17


Factor Analysis

[DataSet1] C:\Users\Step-B M &
E\Documents\Fakokunde\AnalysisAFinal\Original(customer)NonfactoredData\Fakokunde2OriginalDat
a2.sav









Communalities
1.000 .494
1.000 .416
1.000 .348
1.000 .496
1.000 .350
1.000 .442
1.000 .442
1.000 .488
1.000 .457
1.000 .295
1.000 .382
1.000 .310
Applicationof appropriate
measures (v1)
Responding and meeting
customers'... (v2)
Recognitionof customers'
sovereignty (v3)
Occational dialogues with
customers... (v4)
Existence of promt and
quick service delivery (v5)
Use of state of the art
equipment... (v6)
Provisionof additional
social benefits... (v7)
Service/product quality...
(v8)
Conducive and secure
environment (v9)
Availability of Qualified
and experienced staff
(v10)
Suitable operationperiod
(v11)
Proper siting and location
of business (v12)
Initial Extraction
ExtractionMethod: Principal Component Analysis.
302






303



Component Matri x
a
.091 .466 -.374 .359
.189 .296 -.256 .477
.389 .356 .255 .077
-.155 .565 .320 -.225
-.083 -.370 .345 .295
.518 -.390 -.105 -.102
.106 -.189 -.622 -.093
.688 .033 -.057 -.103
.261 -.096 .202 .582
.420 .105 .254 -.207
.492 .157 -.097 -.325
.445 -.172 .246 .147
Application of appropriate
measures (v1)
Responding and meeting
customers'... (v2)
Recognition of customers'
sovereignty (v3)
Occational dialogues with
customers... (v4)
Existence of promt and
quick service delivery (v5)
Use of state of the art
equipment... (v6)
Provision of additional
social benefits... (v7)
Service/product quality...
(v8)
Conducive and secure
environment (v9)
Availability of Qualified
and experienced staff
(v10)
Suitable operation period
(v11)
Proper siting and location
of business (v12)
1 2 3 4
Component
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
4 components extracted. a.


304




Rotated Component Matrix
a
-.023 -.020 .691 -.129
.028 .042 .634 .110
.417 -.335 .220 .119
.037 -.654 .005 -.258
-.164 .012 -.200 .532
.454 .444 -.136 .144
.017 .579 .137 -.296
.669 .156 .122 .024
.081 .012 .280 .610
.504 -.172 -.101 .033
.565 .046 .029 -.245
.384 .049 -.026 .399
Application of appropriate
measures (v1)
Responding and meeting
customers'... (v2)
Recognition of customers'
sovereignty (v3)
Occational dialogues with
customers... (v4)
Existence of promt and
quick service delivery (v5)
Use of state of the art
equipment... (v6)
Provision of additional
social benefits... (v7)
Service/product quality...
(v8)
Conducive and secure
environment (v9)
Availability of Qualified
and experienced staff
(v10)
Suitable operation period
(v11)
Proper siting and location
of business (v12)
1 2 3 4
Component
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
a.
Component Transformati on Matri x
.933 .211 .208 .205
.119 -.685 .580 -.425
.141 -.696 -.457 .536
-.309 .055 .642 .700
Component
1
2
3
4
1 2 3 4
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.


305


v8(0.412), v4 (-0.576), v1 (0.628), v9 (0.561) are
sellected.





Component Score Coeffi ci ent Matri x
-.057 -.003 .628 -.107
-.039 .040 .577 .107
.265 -.324 .167 .096
.081 -.576 -.011 -.219
-.127 .001 -.162 .499
.267 .361 -.150 .087
-.015 .526 .127 -.292
.412 .099 .063 -.026
-.009 -.011 .257 .561
.342 -.186 -.132 .001
.376 .015 -.019 -.265
.221 .006 -.046 .341
Application of appropriate
measures (v1)
Responding and meeting
customers'... (v2)
Recognition of customers'
sovereignty (v3)
Occational dialogues with
customers... (v4)
Existence of promt and
quick service delivery (v5)
Use of state of the art
equipment... (v6)
Provision of additional
social benefits... (v7)
Service/product quality...
(v8)
Conducive and secure
environment (v9)
Availability of Qualified
and experienced staff
(v10)
Suitable operation period
(v11)
Proper siting and location
of business (v12)
1 2 3 4
Component
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Component Score Covari ance Matri x
1.000 .000 .000 .000
.000 1.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 1.000 .000
.000 .000 .000 1.000
Component
1
2
3
4
1 2 3 4
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.


306

APPENDIX 18

Regression




Variables Entered/Removed
b
V9, V1, V8,
V3, V5, V2,
V4, V7, V6
a
. Enter
. V9
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V8
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V2
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V3
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V7
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V1
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V4
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V5
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V6
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
All requested variables entered. a.
Dependent Variable: V29 b.


307


Model Summary
.148
a
.022 -.027 1.1727 .022 .446 9 180 .908
.148
b
.022 -.021 1.1694 .000 .002 1 182 .963
.148
c
.022 -.016 1.1662 .000 .004 1 183 .949
.148
d
.022 -.010 1.1631 .000 .005 1 184 .945
.147
e
.022 -.005 1.1599 .000 .018 1 185 .893
.147
f
.021 .000 1.1569 .000 .038 1 186 .845
.134
g
.018 .002 1.1558 -.003 .653 1 187 .420
.117
h
.014 .003 1.1552 -.004 .799 1 188 .372
.074
i
.005 .000 1.1570 -.008 1.579 1 189 .210
.000
j
.000 .000 1.1571 -.005 1.034 1 190 .311
Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
R R Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
Change Statistics
Predictors: (Constant), V9, V1, V8, V3, V5, V2, V4, V7, V6 a.
Predictors: (Constant), V1, V8, V3, V5, V2, V4, V7, V6 b.
Predictors: (Constant), V1, V3, V5, V2, V4, V7, V6 c.
Predictors: (Constant), V1, V3, V5, V4, V7, V6 d.
Predictors: (Constant), V1, V5, V4, V7, V6 e.
Predictors: (Constant), V1, V5, V4, V6
f.
Predictors: (Constant), V5, V4, V6
g.
Predictors: (Constant), V5, V6
h.
Predictors: (Constant), V6
i.
Predictor: (constant)
j.
ANOVA
k
5.525 9 .614 .446 .908
a
247.528 180 1.375
253.053 189
5.522 8 .690 .505 .852
b
247.531 181 1.368
253.053 189
5.516 7 .788 .579 .772
c
247.537 182 1.360
253.053 189
5.510 6 .918 .679 .667
d
247.543 183 1.353
253.053 189
5.485 5 1.097 .815 .540
e
247.567 184 1.345
253.053 189
5.434 4 1.358 1.015 .401
f
247.619 185 1.338
253.053 189
4.559 3 1.520 1.138 .335
g
248.493 186 1.336
253.053 189
3.491 2 1.746 1.308 .273
h
249.561 187 1.335
253.053 189
1.384 1 1.384 1.034 .311
i
251.668 188 1.339
253.053 189
.000 0 .000 . .
j
253.053 189 1.339
253.053 189
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Predictors: (Constant), V9, V1, V8, V3, V5, V2, V4, V7, V6 a.
Predictors: (Constant), V1, V8, V3, V5, V2, V4, V7, V6 b.
Predictors: (Constant), V1, V3, V5, V2, V4, V7, V6
c.
Predictors: (Constant), V1, V3, V5, V4, V7, V6
d.
Predictors: (Constant), V1, V5, V4, V7, V6
e.
Predictors: (Constant), V1, V5, V4, V6 f.
Predictors: (Constant), V5, V4, V6 g.
Predictors: (Constant), V5, V6 h.
Predictors: (Constant), V6
i.
Predictor: (constant)
j.
Dependent Variable: V29
k.


308

Coeffi ci ents
a
2.423 .556 4.355 .000
5.917E-02 .074 .062 .801 .424
-4.22E-03 .071 -.005 -.059 .953
-9.99E-03 .081 -.010 -.123 .902
-7.00E-02 .079 -.072 -.891 .374
9.840E-02 .081 .102 1.212 .227
-8.91E-02 .076 -.101 -1.177 .241
-1.31E-02 .083 -.013 -.158 .875
-4.70E-03 .070 -.005 -.067 .947
-3.63E-03 .077 -.004 -.047 .963
2.417 .542 4.456 .000
5.927E-02 .074 .062 .805 .422
-4.71E-03 .070 -.005 -.067 .947
-1.04E-02 .081 -.010 -.129 .897
-6.97E-02 .078 -.072 -.892 .373
9.812E-02 .081 .102 1.215 .226
-8.96E-02 .075 -.101 -1.201 .231
-1.39E-02 .081 -.014 -.171 .864
-4.47E-03 .070 -.005 -.064 .949
2.407 .516 4.668 .000
5.917E-02 .073 .062 .806 .422
-4.85E-03 .070 -.005 -.069 .945
-9.94E-03 .080 -.010 -.124 .901
-7.03E-02 .077 -.073 -.907 .366
9.786E-02 .080 .102 1.217 .225
-9.02E-02 .074 -.102 -1.223 .223
-1.42E-02 .081 -.014 -.175 .861
2.396 .490 4.894 .000
5.795E-02 .071 .061 .815 .416
-1.06E-02 .079 -.011 -.134 .893
-7.00E-02 .077 -.072 -.907 .365
9.791E-02 .080 .102 1.221 .224
-8.99E-02 .073 -.102 -1.225 .222
-1.46E-02 .081 -.014 -.181 .856
2.372 .454 5.221 .000
5.743E-02 .071 .060 .811 .419
-7.34E-02 .073 -.076 -1.010 .314
9.897E-02 .080 .103 1.243 .215
-8.98E-02 .073 -.102 -1.228 .221
-1.57E-02 .080 -.015 -.196 .845
2.337 .417 5.602 .000
5.708E-02 .071 .060 .808 .420
-7.19E-02 .072 -.074 -.997 .320
9.575E-02 .078 .099 1.233 .219
-9.30E-02 .071 -.105 -1.308 .193
2.523 .348 7.259 .000
-6.38E-02 .071 -.066 -.894 .372
8.689E-02 .077 .090 1.131 .260
-8.99E-02 .071 -.102 -1.267 .207
2.305 .248 9.310 .000
9.569E-02 .076 .099 1.257 .210
-.100 .070 -.113 -1.433 .154
2.496 .196 12.735 .000
-6.54E-02 .064 -.074 -1.017 .311
2.316 .084 27.587 .000
(Constant)
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
(Constant)
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
(Constant)
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
(Constant)
V1
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
(Constant)
V1
V4
V5
V6
V7
(Constant)
V1
V4
V5
V6
(Constant)
V4
V5
V6
(Constant)
V5
V6
(Constant)
V6
(Constant)
Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
B Std. Error
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Beta
Standardi
zed
Coefficien
ts
t Sig.
Dependent Variable: V29 a.


309







Excluded Variables
j
-.004
a
-.047 .963 -.003 .849
-.003
b
-.042 .966 -.003 .853
-.005
b
-.064 .949 -.005 .942
-.004
c
-.052 .958 -.004 .871
-.005
c
-.066 .947 -.005 .943
-.005
c
-.069 .945 -.005 .913
-.005
d
-.070 .945 -.005 .887
-.004
d
-.055 .956 -.004 .950
-.006
d
-.086 .932 -.006 .928
-.011
d
-.134 .893 -.010 .866
-.008
e
-.111 .912 -.008 .932
-.005
e
-.064 .949 -.005 .952
-.008
e
-.102 .919 -.008 .935
-.012
e
-.153 .879 -.011 .874
-.015
e
-.196 .845 -.014 .852
-.007
f
-.096 .924 -.007 .932
-.003
f
-.044 .965 -.003 .952
.007
f
.098 .922 .007 .994
-.008
f
-.107 .915 -.008 .877
-.014
f
-.175 .861 -.013 .852
.060
f
.808 .420 .059 .956
-.003
g
-.042 .966 -.003 .935
-.009
g
-.117 .907 -.009 .959
.005
g
.075 .941 .005 .995
-.029
g
-.394 .694 -.029 .983
-.006
g
-.079 .937 -.006 .862
.050
g
.676 .500 .049 .975
-.066
g
-.894 .372 -.065 .969
.007
h
.094 .925 .007 .946
-.004
h
-.047 .962 -.003 .962
.002
h
.023 .982 .002 .997
-.040
h
-.549 .584 -.040 .999
.015
h
.197 .844 .014 .906
.034
h
.468 .640 .034 1.000
-.077
h
-1.047 .297 -.076 .985
.099
h
1.257 .210 .092 .843
-.010
i
-.144 .886 -.010 1.000
-.018
i
-.244 .807 -.018 1.000
.006
i
.081 .936 .006 1.000
-.042
i
-.575 .566 -.042 1.000
-.009
i
-.124 .901 -.009 1.000
.033
i
.452 .652 .033 1.000
-.085
i
-1.164 .246 -.085 1.000
.054
i
.748 .455 .054 1.000
-.074
i
-1.017 .311 -.074 1.000
V9
V9
V8
V9
V8
V2
V9
V8
V2
V3
V9
V8
V2
V3
V7
V9
V8
V2
V3
V7
V1
V9
V8
V2
V3
V7
V1
V4
V9
V8
V2
V3
V7
V1
V4
V5
V9
V8
V2
V3
V7
V1
V4
V5
V6
Model
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Beta In t Sig.
Partial
Correlation Tolerance
Collinearit
y
Statistics
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V1, V8, V3, V5, V2, V4, V7, V6 a.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V1, V3, V5, V2, V4, V7, V6
b.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V1, V3, V5, V4, V7, V6 c.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V1, V5, V4, V7, V6 d.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V1, V5, V4, V6 e.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V5, V4, V6 f.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V5, V6
g.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V6 h.
Predictor: (constant) i.
Dependent Variable: V29 j.


310



Regression



Vari abl es Entered/Removed
b
V15, V13,
V12, V10,
V14, V11
a
. Enter
. V14
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V13
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V11
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V15
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V10
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
. V12
Backward
(criterion:
Probabilit
y of
F-to-remo
ve >=
.100).
Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
All requested variables entered.
a.
Dependent Variable: V29
b.


311


Model Summary
.134
a
.018 -.008 1.1759 .018 .681 6 225 .665
.133
b
.018 -.004 1.1734 .000 .042 1 227 .837
.126
c
.016 -.001 1.1719 -.002 .398 1 228 .529
.112
d
.012 -.001 1.1714 -.003 .800 1 229 .372
.096
e
.009 .001 1.1708 -.003 .758 1 230 .385
.072
f
.005 .001 1.1705 -.004 .905 1 231 .342
.000
g
.000 .000 1.1711 -.005 1.215 1 232 .272
Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
R R Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
Change Statistics
Predictors: (Constant), V15, V13, V12, V10, V14, V11 a.
Predictors: (Constant), V15, V13, V12, V10, V11 b.
Predictors: (Constant), V15, V12, V10, V11 c.
Predictors: (Constant), V15, V12, V10
d.
Predictors: (Constant), V12, V10
e.
Predictors: (Constant), V12
f.
Predictor: (constant)
g.
ANOVA
h
5.651 6 .942 .681 .665
a
311.138 225 1.383
316.789 231
5.592 5 1.118 .812 .542
b
311.196 226 1.377
316.789 231
5.045 4 1.261 .918 .454
c
311.744 227 1.373
316.789 231
3.946 3 1.315 .959 .413
d
312.843 228 1.372
316.789 231
2.905 2 1.453 1.060 .348
e
313.883 229 1.371
316.789 231
1.664 1 1.664 1.215 .272
f
315.124 230 1.370
316.789 231
.000 0 .000 . .
g
316.789 231 1.371
316.789 231
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Predictors: (Constant), V15, V13, V12, V10, V14, V11 a.
Predictors: (Constant), V15, V13, V12, V10, V11 b.
Predictors: (Constant), V15, V12, V10, V11 c.
Predictors: (Constant), V15, V12, V10 d.
Predictors: (Constant), V12, V10 e.
Predictors: (Constant), V12 f.
Predictor: (constant)
g.
Dependent Variable: V29 h.


312




Regression
Excl uded Vari abl es
g
.014
a
.206 .837 .014 .956
.014
b
.210 .834 .014 .956
-.042
b
-.631 .529 -.042 .992
.010
c
.152 .880 .010 .960
-.043
c
-.649 .517 -.043 .993
-.061
c
-.894 .372 -.059 .939
.016
d
.244 .808 .016 .971
-.041
d
-.622 .535 -.041 .994
-.049
d
-.732 .465 -.048 .967
.058
d
.871 .385 .058 .987
.025
e
.375 .708 .025 .990
-.036
e
-.548 .584 -.036 1.000
-.036
e
-.549 .583 -.036 1.000
.062
e
.934 .351 .062 .992
-.063
e
-.951 .342 -.063 1.000
.018
f
.266 .791 .018 1.000
-.035
f
-.525 .600 -.035 1.000
-.037
f
-.568 .571 -.037 1.000
.068
f
1.029 .304 .068 1.000
-.062
f
-.936 .350 -.062 1.000
.072
f
1.102 .272 .072 1.000
V14
V14
V13
V14
V13
V11
V14
V13
V11
V15
V14
V13
V11
V15
V10
V14
V13
V11
V15
V10
V12
Model
2
3
4
5
6
7
Beta In t Sig.
Partial
Correlation Tolerance
Collinearit
y
Statistics
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V15, V13, V12, V10, V11 a.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V15, V12, V10, V11
b.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V15, V12, V10 c.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V12, V10 d.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V12
e.
Predictor: (constant) f.
Dependent Variable: V29 g.


313












Vari abl es Entered/Removed
a
V20 .
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
Model
1
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
Dependent Variable: V29 a.
Model Summary
b
.213
a
.045 .035 1.2261 .045 4.601 1 97 .034 1.904
Model
1
R R Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
Change Statistics
Durbin-W
atson
Predictors: (Constant), V20
a.
Dependent Variable: V29
b.
ANOVA
b
6.917 1 6.917 4.601 .034
a
145.830 97 1.503
152.747 98
Regression
Residual
Total
Model
1
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Predictors: (Constant), V20
a.
Dependent Variable: V29 b.
Coeffi ci ents
a
1.534 .465 3.301 .001
.280 .130 .213 2.145 .034
(Constant)
V20
Model
1
B Std. Error
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Beta
Standardi
zed
Coefficien
ts
t Sig.
Dependent Variable: V29
a.
Excl uded Vari abl es
b
.043
a
.421 .674 .043 .948
.071
a
.715 .476 .073 .995
.010
a
.102 .919 .010 .990
-.013
a
-.125 .901 -.013 .909
.035
a
.336 .738 .034 .922
-.070
a
-.695 .489 -.071 .984
.020
a
.197 .844 .020 .998
V16
V17
V18
V19
V21
V22
V23
Model
1
Beta In t Sig.
Partial
Correlation Tolerance
Collinearit
y
Statistics
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), V20
a.
Dependent Variable: V29
b.


314
APPENDIX 19



Correlations
1.000 -.003
. .962
297 297
-.003 1.000
.962 .
297 324
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
V29
V30
V29 V30
Count % within
% of Total
Poor
Custmer
focus