Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In Partial Fufillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of International Hospitality Management
ARSULA, MICHAEL L.
CANIMO, KRISTIAN O.
SALVACION, FREEMARK JOSEPH V.
October 2015
Page 2
_________________________
MS. CATHERINE B. PEAMANTE
Research Professor
_________________________
Member
Member
________________________
Chairman
Page 3
Page 4
Abstract
Page 5
Page 6
APPROVAL SHEET
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iii
ABSTRACT
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Synthesis
22
Conceptual Framework
23
Research Paradigm
24
25
25
26
Definition of Terms
27
Page 7
29
Sampling Technique
30
31
Research Instrument
32
Validation of Instrument
33
34
Reference
38
Appendices
Questionnaire validation
39
Survey questionnaire
42
Certificate of validation
45
CURRICULUM VITAE
48
Page 8
Chapter 1
This presents the Introduction of the Study, Background of the Study, Review
of related Literature and Studies, Synthesis, Scope and Limitation, Conceptual
Framework, Research Paradigm, Statement of the Problem and Significance of the
Study.
Introduction
A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is a set of written instructions that
document a routine or repetitive activity followed by every staff. SOP helps in
maintaining quality and consistency of service and standard's in your restaurant.
The development and use of SOPs are an integral part of a successful quality
system as it provides individuals with the information to perform a job properly, and
facilitates consistency in the quality and integrity of a product. It is a must that all
newly recruited kitchen staff should be given training on kitchen SOP.
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Types of SOPs
Several categories and types of SOPs can be distinguished. The name "SOP"
may not always be appropriate, e.g., the description of situations or other matters may
better designated pro tocols, instructions or simply registration forms. Also worksheets
belonging to an analytical pro cedure have to be standardized (to avoid jotting down
readings and calculations on odd pieces of paper) (Almeida S.L.) Some of the most
important SOP types:
Fundamental SOPs. These give instructions how to make SOPs of the other
categories.
Methodic SOPs. These describe a complete testing system or method of
investigation.
SOPs for safety precautions
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Achievable The standard must be reasonable and attainable, and should never
be so easy that it requires no significant effort, or so difficult that it requires
superhuman effort. In setting standards, you must take into account whether the people
responsible for delivering the service have the skills and resources they require to meet
those standards, supported by systems and policies that will allow the standard to be
achieved.
Relevant The standard must reflect customers expectations or be designed to
create a benefit for the customer and must be relevant to your particular operation, not
adopted/copied/borrowed from another.
Controllable Accomplishing the standard must be within the control of a
specific department and the measurement tools for accomplishing the desired result
must be set up.
Communicate the Standards
Operational standards are intended to let your people know the level of
performance expected of them. Reporting on performance against standards is critical if
you are to make operational standards achievable. However, you can only do so if
Page 17
Page 18
following steps:
Prepare hot foods:
1.
Poultry
Stuffing, stuffed meats,
casseroles, and other dishes
combining raw and cooked foods
Ground or flaked meats
Beef roasts; pork roasts and chops
Beef steaks, veal, lamb
Commercially raised game animals
Fish and foods containing fish
Shell eggs (for immediate service)
Vegetables (canned, frozen, fresh)
Potentially Hazardous Foods
cooked in microwave
after cooking
Page 19
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Prepare raw products away from other products not receiving heat treatment.
This reduces the opportunity of cross contamination with any ready-to-eat
foods.
Page 20
Take temperatures:
1. Use a calibrated thermometer suitable for the food product (see to take the
temperatures of all food products. A bi-metallic stem thermometer is
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Synthesis
The researchers only chose the data that most supported by the review of related
literature based on the facts that the researchers retrieve SOPs serve as a fundamental
means of communication for all levels of the organization. Not only do they include
employees departmentally, but they also allow management and employees to gain a
cross-functional view of the organization. This attitude encourages employees to think
about how process change may affect other functional areas. A good system forces
employee to think through processes and examine how procedure might influence
product, personnel, production, and equipment. SOPs can also signify agreement with
organizational and governmental needs and can be used as a part of a personnel training
program, since they should supply detailed work instructions. The researchers also want
to obtain the knowledge about how other establishment conduct their SOPs during
work.
Page 25
Buffet Restaurant
In
Las Pinas City
Manager, Supervisor
Kitchen Staffs
Standard
Operation
Procedures
Qualifications
Figure 1
Page 26
INPUT
Chefs and
all of the
Research Paradigm
kitchen staff
of Selected
Buffet
Restaurant
in Las Pinas
City
PROCESS
1.Observation
Kitchen Standard
2.Data Gathering
Operation
3.Consultation
Procedure
of
Different4.Questionaire
Buffet
5.Content
Restaurant
in Las
Pinas City
Figure 2
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
CIHM.
Respondents.
Researchers.
Page 30
Hazardous Food.
Buffet Restaurants.
area
where
themselves. Buffets
are
the
diners
offered
at
generally
serve
various
places
Page 31
Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
In this particular study the researchers will use the tools and methods of
descriptive research design since the researchers will be using a Likert-scale survey
questionnaire and they will be dealing with numerical data instead of studying traits,
trends, characteristics, or attitude and aptitude. The descriptive methods is selected by
the researchers as the most appropriate research method to use for the present study
where quantitative data based on the respondents responses for the items on standard
operating procedures in the kitchen department of selected buffet restaurants in Las
Pinas City.
The researchers also opted to use the descriptive research design because it
will provide the researchers with tools for population sampling, for data gathering, and
for analysis of the data to be gathered.
Page 32
Population Sampling
The researchers are concerned with determining the familiarization practices
in buffet restaurants to be selected in Las Pinas City, their standard operating
procedures in the kitchen department, and the rules implemented for hygiene of the
kitchen staff, therefore, the population in the present study will consist of the kitchen
staff, chefs, supervisors and managers of the kitchen department of the selected buffet
restaurants in Las Pinas City.
The population described above will be reduced to a similar size through the
use of some sampling technique in order for the researchers to manage their data
gathering more efficiently and effectively. The sample of kitchen staff, chefs, managers
and supervisors will allow the researchers to complete their study within the limited
timeframe. The sample of respondents will be obtained by the researchers using
sampling. That is, they will select only those kitchen staff, chefs, managers and
supervisors who are readily available to participate in the study as respondents will be
included for the study and as part of the sample. The sample then will be chosen using
random sampling to give every kitchen staff, chefs, managers and supervisors the
opportunity to part of the study of the researchers. More particularly, the researchers
Page 33
Page 34
Research Instrument
Since the researchers will need factual information from the kitchen staff, chefs,
managers and supervisors of the buffet restaurants in Las Pinas City, the survey
instrument that the researchers will be using is a self-administered questionnaire to be
devised by the researchers themselves so that it will fulfill their needs and provide them
with data necessary for them to answer satisfactorily the problems they have posed in
their statement of the problem. The researchers need not know the opinions or attitudes
of their respondents, but are rather interested in what they have actually experienced
regarding the familiarization practices in buffet restaurants to be selected in Las Pinas
City, their standard operating procedures in the kitchen department, and the rules
implemented for hygiene of the kitchen staff. The survey questionnaire is the most
appropriate research instrument for the study that will consist of four (4) parts. The first
part will pertain to the demographic profile of the respondents which will include their
age, gender, civil status, position, and work experience.
The second part of the researchers questionnaires will consist of items which
will determine the standard operating procedures in the kitchen departments of the
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
x=
x
n
f
w= x 100
n
Page 39
Description
Never
Sometimes
Always
Page 40
This chapter presents the data gathered as well as the results of the statistical
analysis of these data which provided the researchers with answers to the specific
research questions of the study.
Profiles of Respondents
The profiles of respondents are summarized and presented in the following
frequency tables below, beginning with the profile of respondents according to their
age.
Age (Years)
BELOW 25
25 - 30
ABOVE 30
Total
Table 1
Profile of Respondents according to Age
Frequency (f)
Percentage (%)
8
32.00
15
60.00
2
8.00
25
100.00
There were twenty-five (25) respondents in the study. Majority of the twentyfive (25) respondents belong to the second age group with ages between twenty-five
(25) years old and thirty (30) years old. Specifically, fifteen (15) respondents have ages
between twenty-five (25) years and thirty (30) years and they represent sixty percent
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Operating
Procedures,
Familiarization
Practices
and
Issues
Encountered
The following table summarizes the safety and hygiene practices of kitchen staff
in selected restaurants in Las Pinas City, and how frequently they are being practiced by
the kitchen staff.
Table 5
Safety and Hygiene Practices of Kitchen Staff of Selected Restaurants in Las Pinas
City
Practices
1. All food contact surfaces are cleaned and sanitized.
2. Hand washing before and after food preparation.
3. Correct and sanitary tasting method is used to prevent
contamination and ensure food safety.
4. Waste segregation and proper disposal of wastes.
Mea
n
2.96
2.68
2.60
2.56
SD
0.2
0
0.5
6
0.5
8
0.5
8
Interpretati
on
Ran
k
Always
Always
Always
Always
4.5
Page 44
2.56
2.28
2.61
0.5
1
0.6
8
0.2
2
Always
4.5
Sometimes
Always
The indicator All food contact surfaces are cleaned and sanitized has the
highest average rating of 2.96 and it means that this particular indicator is Always
practiced by the kitchen staff of the selected restaurants in Las Pinas City. This is
followed by the indicator Hand washing before and after food preparation with the
second highest average rating of 2.68 which means that this particular indicator is also
Always being practiced by the kitchen staff of the selected restaurants in Las Pinas
City.
On the other hand, the indicator Wearing of hair net, aprons and gloves of those
with contacts with food has the lowest average rating of 2.28 and it means that this
particular indicator is Sometimes being practiced by the kitchen staff of the selected
restaurants in Las Pinas City. The indicators Waste segregation and proper disposal of
wastes and Thorough washing and drying of dishes, utensils and equipment have the
same second lowest average rating of 2.56 which, nevertheless, means that these two
(2) particular indicators are Always being practiced by the kitchen staff of the selected
restaurants in Las Pinas City.
Page 45
Mea
n
2.76
2.44
2.44
2.68
2.20
SD
0.4
4
0.5
8
0.6
5
0.4
8
0.7
1
Interpretati
on
Ran
k
Always
Sometimes
3.5
Sometimes
3.5
Always
Sometimes
Page 46
2.50
0.2
2
Sometimes
The indicator All equipment installed, their use, handling, functioning and
maintenance are explained to kitchen staff has the highest average rating of 2.76 and it
means that this particular familiarization practice is Always practiced in the kitchen of
selected restaurants in Las Pinas City. This is followed by the indicator All standard
procedures are communicated to kitchen staff with the second highest average rating of
2.68 which means that this particular familiarization practice is also Always being
practiced in the kitchen of selected restaurants in Las Pinas City.
On the other hand, the indicator Induction into the kitchen area takes 2 or 3
days has the lowest average rating of 2.20 and it means that this particular
familiarization practice is Sometimes being practiced in the kitchen of selected
restaurants in Las Pinas City. The indicators Introduction of the team members within
and outside the kitchen is carried out in an informal manner and Rules and policies in
the kitchen are communicated to kitchen staff and each staff is made to understand
them correctly have the same second lowest average rating of 2.44 which means that
these two (2) particular familiarization practices are Sometimes being practiced in the
kitchen of selected restaurants in Las Pinas City.
Page 47
Mea
n
SD
Interpretati
on
Ran
k
Page 48
2.72
2.48
2.36
2.56
2.64
2.55
0.4
6
0.7
1
0.7
0
0.5
1
0.6
4
0.1
4
Always
Sometimes
Sometimes
Always
Always
Always
The indicator Preparing raw products away from other products not receiving
heat treatment has the highest average rating of 2.72 and it means that this particular
standard operating procedure is Always practiced in the kitchen of selected restaurants
in Las Pinas City. This is followed by the indicator Making a checklist, auditing of
standards and tracking performance are carried out regularly with the second highest
average rating of 2.64 which means that this particular standard operating procedure is
also Always being practiced in the kitchen of selected restaurants in Las Pinas City.
On the other hand, the indicator Batch cooking to reduce holding time of foods
has the lowest average rating of 2.36 and it means that this particular standard operating
procedure is Sometimes being practiced in the kitchen of selected restaurants in Las
Pinas City. The indicator Preparing food at room temperature within two hours or less
has the second lowest average rating of 2.48 which means that this particular standard
Page 49
The researchers conclude on the basis of the results above that it is expected that
the selected restaurants always practice the standard operating procedures in the kitchen
department since they are customary practices and have been declared by accrediting
bodies and international organizations. However, the researchers also conclude that
there are specific standard operating procedures in the kitchen department such as
Batch cooking to reduce holding time of foods and Preparing food at room
temperature within two hours or less, that may not be appropriate for all restaurants
because there are some kinds of food served in some restaurants where batch cooking
may not be necessary.
The next table below summarizes and presents the issues encountered inside the
kitchen of selected restaurants, and how frequently they are encountered in the kitchen
of selected restaurants in Las Pinas City.
Table 8
Issues Encountered in the Kitchen of Selected Restaurants in Las Pinas City
Issues
1. All standard procedures were followed by all of the
kitchen staff.
2. All equipment are being handled and used properly.
Mea
n
2.92
2.80
SD
0.2
8
0.5
Interpretati
on
Ran
k
Always
Always
Page 50
2.84
2.88
2.76
2.84
0
0.4
7
0.3
3
0.5
2
0.0
6
Always
Always
Always
Always
The indicator All standard procedures were followed by all of the kitchen
staffs has the highest average rating of 2.92 and it means that all standard procedures
are Always followed by all of the kitchen staff of selected restaurants in Las Pinas
City. This is followed by the indicator Every kitchen staff coordinates with each other
while working with the second highest average rating of 2.88 which means that every
kitchen staff Always coordinates with each other while working in the kitchen of
selected restaurants in Las Pinas City.
On the other hand, the indicator All of the few ingredients are being reported
on time has the lowest average rating of 2.76 and it means that all of the few
ingredients are Always being reported on time in the kitchen of selected restaurants in
Las Pinas City. The indicator All equipment are being handled and used properly has
the second lowest average rating of 2.80 which means that all equipment are Always
being handled and used properly in the kitchen of selected restaurants in Las Pinas City.
Page 51
Profile
Age
Below 25
2.60
25 30
2.60
Above 30
2.67
Single
2.65
Civil Status
Married
2.54
SD
0.2
0
0.2
2
0.4
7
0.2
1
0.2
3
Fvalue
pvalue
Decision on
Ho
Conclusion
0.08
0.93
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
1.44
0.24
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
Page 52
Less than
3
2.50
35
2.60
More than
5
Manager
Job Position
2.78
2.33
Supervisor
2.83
Staff
2.60
0.2
4
0.1
8
0.3
8
0.2
4
0.2
1
1.43
0.26
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
2.01
0.16
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
Page 53
Table 10
Differences in the Perception of Respondents on Familiarization Practices in the
Kitchen of Selected Restaurants in Las Pinas City
Mea
n
Profile
Age
Below 25
2.43
25 30
2.57
Above 30
2.30
Single
2.45
Civil Status
Work
Experience
Married
2.60
Less than
3
2.65
35
2.49
More than
5
Manager
Job Position
2.40
2.20
Supervisor
2.50
Staff
2.52
SD
0.3
6
0.2
1
0.1
4
0.3
0
0.2
0
0.2
5
0.2
8
0.2
0
0.1
4
0.2
8
Fvalue
pvalue
Decision on
Ho
Conclusion
1.44
0.26
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
1.82
0.19
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
0.81
0.46
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
0.64
0.54
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
Page 54
Table 11
Differences in the Perception of Respondents on Standard Operating Procedures
in the Kitchen of Selected Restaurants in Las Pinas City
Mea
n
Profile
Age
Below 25
2.53
25 30
2.55
SD
0.3
2
0.2
Fvalue
0.37
pvalue
0.70
Decision on
Ho
Accept Ho
Conclusion
Not
Significant
Page 55
2.70
Single
2.54
Civil Status
Work
Experience
Married
2.58
Less than
3
2.40
35
2.58
More than
5
Manager
Job Position
2.60
2.80
Supervisor
2.80
Staff
2.52
3
0.1
4
0.2
7
0.2
3
0.2
8
0.2
6
0.2
0
0.2
8
0.2
4
0.14
0.71
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
0.86
0.44
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
1.73
0.20
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
Page 56
Table 12
Differences in the Perception of Respondents on Issues Encountered in the
Kitchen of Selected Restaurants in Las Pinas City
Profile
Age
Below 25
Mea
n
2.90
SD
0.1
5
Fvalue
0.37
pvalue
0.69
Decision on
Ho
Accept Ho
Conclusion
Not
Significant
Page 57
2.80
Above 30
2.90
Single
2.89
Civil Status
Work
Experience
Married
2.76
Less than
3
2.95
35
2.80
More than
5
Manager
Job Position
2.93
3.00
Supervisor
2.90
Staff
2.83
0.3
4
0.1
4
0.2
2
0.3
6
0.1
0
0.3
1
0.1
2
0.1
4
0.2
9
1.33
0.26
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
0.66
0.53
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
0.22
0.80
Accept Ho
Not
Significant
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
II. Proponent(s)
ARSULA, MICHAEL L.
CANIMO, KRISTIAN O.
III. College
Page 65
V. Objectives
A. (Main Problem)
B. Specific (Subproblem)
VI. Methodology
A. Study Design
B. Sample Size
(Respondents)
Page 66
CERTIFICATE OF VALIDATION
This is to certify that the undergraduate thesis for the College of International
Hospitality Management Entitled Standard Kitchen Operation Procedure of
Selected Buffet Restaurant in Las Pinas City of Michael L. Arsula, Kristian O.
Canimo, Freemark Joseph V. Salvacion was validated by the undersigned.
________________________
Mr. Dennis Viduya
Research Adviser
Page 67
CERTIFICATE OF VALIDATION
This is to certify that the undergraduate thesis for the College of International
Hospitality Management Entitled Standard Kitchen Operation Procedure of
Selected Buffet Restaurant in Las Pinas City of Michael L. Arsula, Kristian O.
Canimo, Freemark Joseph V. Salvacion was validated by the undersigned.
________________________
Ms. Remedios Bristol
Grammarian
Page 68
This is to certify that the undergraduate thesis for the College of International
Hospitality Management Entitled Standard Kitchen Operation Procedure of
Selected Buffet Restaurant in Las Pinas City of Michael L. Arsula, Kristian O.
Canimo, Freemark Joseph V. Salvacion was validated by the undersigned.
________________________
Prof. Arturo Ronnie Tobias Calizon Junior, MS Math
Statistician
Page 69
VS
1.)
a.)
b.)
c.)
d.)
2.)
e.)
f.)
g.)
h.)
i.)
Questionaire`s Layout
Adequate Spacing
Readable
Alignment
Logos
Questionaire`s Content
Well-presented and Organized
Presented in a Sequential Manner
Adequate Content
Can easily be understood
Specific
NS
Page 70
Evaluated by:
__________________________
Signature Over Printed Name
Date of Evaluation: __________
APPENDIX E
Page 71
Dear Respondents:
We are graduating HRM students from the UPHSD in Las Pinas, and we are
presently conducting a study on Familiarization Practices, Standard Operating
Procedures, Issues Encountered and Rules Implemented for Hygiene of the
Kitchen Staff of Selected Fine Dining Restaurants in Las Pinas City as partial
fulfillment of our course requirements. We would like to seek your participation as
respondents of our study.
Our sincerest gratitude for your cooperation.
The Researchers
PART I Profile of Respondents
Directions: Please check the item that best applies to you.
Age:
Gender:
____ Male
Civil Status:
Work Experience:
Job Position:
____ Female
APPENDIX F
Page 72
3 2 1
3 2 1
3 2 1
3 2 1
Page 73
APPENDIX G
Documentation
Page 74
Page 75
APPENDIX H
References:
Online References:
Santosh (2012) - Kitchen Standard Operating Procedure
http://www.onlinehotelschool.com/article/kitchen-standard-operating-procedures-1431.html
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
BELOW 25
25 - 30
ABOVE 30
Total
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
8
15
2
25
32.0
60.0
8.0
100.0
32.0
60.0
8.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
32.0
92.0
100.0
GENDER
Valid
MALE
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
25
100.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
100.0
CIVIL
Valid
SINGLE
MARRIED
Total
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
16
9
25
64.0
36.0
100.0
64.0
36.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
64.0
100.0
WORK
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
4
18
3
25
16.0
72.0
12.0
100.0
16.0
72.0
12.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
16.0
88.0
100.0
JOB
Valid
MANAGER
SUPERVISOR
STAFF
Total
Descriptive Statistics
N
A1
25
A2
25
A3
25
A4
25
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
1
2
22
25
4.0
8.0
88.0
100.0
4.0
8.0
88.0
100.0
Minimum
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Maximum
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Mean
2.9600
2.6800
2.6000
2.5600
Cumulative
Percent
4.0
12.0
100.0
Std. Deviation
.20000
.55678
.57735
.58310
Page 79
25
25
25
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
Valid N (listwise)
N
25
25
25
25
25
25
3.00
3.00
Descriptive Statistics
Minimum
Maximum
2.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
2.5600
2.2800
Mean
2.7600
2.4400
2.4400
2.6800
2.2000
.50662
.67823
Std. Deviation
.43589
.58310
.65064
.47610
.70711
Descriptive Statistics
N
C1
25
C2
25
C3
25
C4
25
C5
25
Valid N (listwise)
25
Minimum
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
Maximum
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Mean
2.7200
2.4800
2.3600
2.5600
2.6400
Std. Deviation
.45826
.71414
.70000
.50662
.63770
Descriptive Statistics
N
D1
25
D2
25
D3
25
D4
25
D5
25
Valid N (listwise)
25
Minimum
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
Maximum
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Mean
2.9200
2.8000
2.8400
2.8800
2.7600
Std. Deviation
.27689
.50000
.47258
.33166
.52281
B
2.4250
8
.36154
2.5733
15
.21202
2.3000
2
.14142
2.5040
25
.27154
C
2.5250
8
.31960
2.5467
15
.23258
2.7000
2
.14142
2.5520
25
.25351
D
2.9000
8
.15119
2.8000
15
.33806
2.9000
2
.14142
2.8400
25
.27689
Report
AGE
BELOW 25
25 - 30
ABOVE 30
Total
2.00
1.00
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
A
2.6042
8
.19796
2.6000
15
.21639
2.6667
2
.47140
2.6067
25
.21985
ABCD
2.6131
8
.05362
2.6286
15
.12234
2.6429
2
.10102
2.6248
25
.10038
Page 80
ANOVA Table
A * AGE
B * AGE
C * AGE
D * AGE
ABCD * AGE
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Report
GENDER
MALE
Total
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Report
CIVIL
SINGLE
MARRIED
Total
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
(Combined)
(Combined)
(Combined)
(Combined)
(Combined)
A
2.6067
25
.21985
2.6067
25
.21985
A
2.6458
16
.20972
2.5370
9
.23241
2.6067
25
.21985
Sum of Squares
.008
1.152
1.160
.205
1.564
1.770
.050
1.492
1.542
.060
1.780
1.840
.002
.240
.242
B
2.5040
25
.27154
2.5040
25
.27154
B
2.4500
16
.29665
2.6000
9
.20000
2.5040
25
.27154
df
2
22
24
2
22
24
2
22
24
2
22
24
2
22
24
C
2.5520
25
.25351
2.5520
25
.25351
C
2.5375
16
.27049
2.5778
9
.23333
2.5520
25
.25351
Mean Square
.004
.052
F
.076
.103
.071
1.443 .258
.025
.068
.369
.696
.030
.081
.371
.694
.001
.011
.090
.914
D
2.8400
25
.27689
2.8400
25
.27689
D
2.8875
16
.21871
2.7556
9
.35746
2.8400
25
.27689
Sig.
.927
ABCD
2.6248
25
.10038
2.6248
25
.10038
ABCD
2.6310
16
.06846
2.6138
9
.14569
2.6248
25
.10038
ANOVA Table
A * CIVIL
Between Groups
Within Groups
(Combined)
Sum of Squares
.068
1.092
df Mean Square
1 .068
23 .047
F
Sig.
1.436 .243
Page 81
ABCD * CIVIL
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
(Combined)
(Combined)
(Combined)
(Combined)
Report
WORK
LESS THAN 3 YEARS
3-5
MORE THAN 5
Total
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
1.160
.130
1.640
1.770
.009
1.533
1.542
.100
1.740
1.840
.002
.240
.242
A
2.5000
4
.23570
2.6019
18
.18203
2.7778
3
.38490
2.6067
25
.21985
24
1
23
24
1
23
24
1
23
24
1
23
24
B
2.6500
4
.25166
2.4889
18
.28469
2.4000
3
.20000
2.5040
25
.27154
.130
.071
1.818 .191
.009
.067
.140
.100
.076
1.326 .261
.002
.010
.163
C
2.4000
4
.28284
2.5778
18
.25565
2.6000
3
.20000
2.5520
25
.25351
D
2.9500
4
.10000
2.8000
18
.31436
2.9333
3
.11547
2.8400
25
.27689
.712
.690
ABCD
2.6190
4
.06734
2.6164
18
.10769
2.6825
3
.09913
2.6248
25
.10038
ANOVA Table
A * WORK
B * WORK
C * WORK
D * WORK
ABCD * WORK
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
(Combined)
(Combined)
(Combined)
(Combined)
(Combined)
Sum of Squares
.134
1.026
1.160
.122
1.648
1.770
.111
1.431
1.542
.103
1.737
1.840
.011
.230
.242
df
2
22
24
2
22
24
2
22
24
2
22
24
2
22
24
Mean Square
.067
.047
F
Sig.
1.434 .260
.061
.075
.813
.456
.056
.065
.855
.439
.052
.079
.655
.530
.006
.010
.544
.588
Page 82
Report
JOB
MANAGER
SUPERVISOR
STAFF
Total
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
A
2.3333
1
.
2.8333
2
.23570
2.5985
22
.20993
2.6067
25
.21985
B
2.2000
1
.
2.5000
2
.14142
2.5182
22
.28054
2.5040
25
.27154
C
2.8000
1
.
2.8000
2
.28284
2.5182
22
.24424
2.5520
25
.25351
D
3.0000
1
.
2.9000
2
.14142
2.8273
22
.29144
2.8400
25
.27689
ABCD
2.5714
1
.
2.7619
2
.06734
2.6147
22
.09626
2.6248
25
.10038
ANOVA Table
A * JOB
B * JOB
C * JOB
D * JOB
ABCD * JOB
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
(Combined)
(Combined)
(Combined)
(Combined)
(Combined)
Sum of Squares
.179
.981
1.160
.097
1.673
1.770
.210
1.333
1.542
.036
1.804
1.840
.043
.199
.242
df
2
22
24
2
22
24
2
22
24
2
22
24
2
22
24
Mean Square
.089
.045
F
Sig.
2.006 .158
.048
.076
.637
.105
.061
1.731 .200
.018
.082
.222
.021
.009
2.358 .118
.538
.803
Page 83