Research Report

Customer satisfaction on facilities and services

provided by the canteen of

Faculty of Medical Sciences,

University of Sri Jayewardenepura

Group 16

20th Batch

Faculty of Medical Sciences

University of Sri Jayewardenepura

RESEARCH REPORT

CONTENTS

Page No.

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

DECLARATION

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4. RESULTS

5. DISCUSSION

6. LIMITATIONS

7. CONCLUSIONS

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

9. ANNEXTURES

Reference

Consent Form

Questionnaire

Ethical Clearance

I

II

III

IV

IV

V

01

06

09

14

33

39

40

41

42

44

45

Abstract

Introduction: Customers prefer to meet their basic needs of food and drink under hygienic

conditions and to enjoy their time in a comfortable environment in the canteen. So we have

undertaken this study to assess the customer satisfaction on facilities and services. Our target

is to provide the canteen management some evidences of customer satisfactory level for

making some changes in their service to improve the quality of service provided.

Method: This study was carried out for 10 weeks, during which a self-administered

questionnaire was given to 389 respondents (students, academic staff and non-academic staff)

who visited the canteen. The participants were recruited during different times of the day,

namely, during the times of breakfast, lunch, and morning and afternoon tea. All those who

visited the canteen during the times of data collection and did not refuse to participate were

given the questionnaire. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 15. Descriptive data were

presented as numbers and percentages and the differences between categories were checked

with chi-squared test.

Results: It was found to have a predominance of students (94.1%), females (63.2%), Sri

Lankan (99.7%) and Sinhalese (82.5%). Majority of customers (67.1%) visit the canteen at

least 3-4 days per week. 70% are not satisfied with the services and facilities of the canteen.

88.8% are satisfied with the quantity. 50.6% are not satisfied with the quality. 60.2% are

satisfied with price. 76.6% are not satisfied with accommodation. 83.3% are not satisfied

with cleanliness. 66.3% are not satisfied with customer services. From the total population

42.9% customers stated that food items are contaminated with flies. Nearly 1/5 of the

population stated that they have been treated for food poisoning after consuming from the

canteen.

Conclusion: Majority of customers are satisfied with the quantity and price but not satisfied

with the quality, accommodation, cleanliness and customer services.

I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We express our heartfelt gratitude to,

• Dr.Chamara Senaratne, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of

MedicalSciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, for giving us the opportunity to

carry out this research under the Community Health Stream curriculum and for his

continued support and guidance as an internal supervisor.

• Dr. Himansu Waidyasekara, Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences,

University of Sri Jayewardenepura for the guidance and support as an external

supervisor.

• Prof.S.Sivayogan, Department Community Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences,

University of Sri Jayewardenepura for his valuable guidance and advice in selecting

the research topic.

• Dr.W.A.A.Wijesiri, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medical

Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, who also guided us in selecting the

research topic.

• All the participants in our research who took their time off and answered the

questions.

• Our colleagues, who helped us at different stages of our study and lent a shoulder to

lean on during times of trouble.

• Our parents, family members and everyone else who helped us in any ways to finish

our research and achieve our goals.

II

DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY

We hereby certify that this is an original copy of the research done by Group 16 of 20th

Batch

(2009/2010).

Mr.E.Arjunar FMS/R/2995 ..................................

Mr.M.S.M.Ajeem FMS/R/2989 ..................................

Mr.N.A.Mohamed Riswan FMS/R/3133 ..................................

Miss.S.Maathury FMS/R/3105 ..................................

Miss.G.Nivetha FMS/R/3076 ..................................

........................................... .............................................

Dr. Chamara Senaratne Dr. Himansu Waidyasekara

Internal Supervisor External Supervisor

Department of Community Medicine Department of Physiology

Faculty of Medical Sciences Faculty of Medical Sciences

University of Sri Jayewardenepura University of Sri Jayewardenepura

III

List of abbreviation

FMS- Faculty of Medical Sciences

USJP- University of Sri Jayewardenepura

List of tables

Table 3.6.1.Variables

Table 4.1.1.Frequency distribution of socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Table 4.1.2.Characteristics of students

Table 4.1.3.Frequency distribution of food preference

Table 4.1.4.Frequency distribution of canteen visit

Table 4.2.1.Frequency distribution of food consumption, number (%)

Table 4.2.2.Frequency distribution of canteen visit in relation to the year of study

Table 4.2.3.Frequency distribution of consumption of breakfast in relation to place of

residence

Table 4.2.4.Frequency distribution of consumption of lunch in relation to place of residence

Table 4.3.1.Frequency distribution of satisfaction of all variables

Table 4.3.2.Overall customer satisfaction in regards to occupation

Table 4.3.3.Overall customer satisfaction by sex of the customers

Table 4.3.4.Overall customer satisfaction in regards to the place of residence

Table4.3.5.Overall customer satisfaction in relation to the duration of usage of the canteen

Table 4.4.1.Customer satisfaction of quantity of lunch by sex of the customers

Table4.4.2.Customer satisfaction on quantity of lunch in relation to food preference

Table 4.5.1.Overall customer satisfaction of quality by ethnicity of the customers

Table 4.5.2.Overall customer satisfaction of quality in regard to the place of residence

Table 4.5.3.Overall customer satisfaction of quality in relation to food preference

IV

Table 4.5.4.Customer satisfaction of quality of lunch in relation to the frequency of lunch

consumption of the customers

Table 4.5.5.Customer satisfaction of quality of beverages in relation to the frequency of the

beverage consumption by the customers

Table 4.5.6.Customer satisfaction of quality of snacks in relation to the frequency of snack

consumption by the customers

Table 4.5.7.Frequency distribution of contaminants of the food items

Table 4.5.8. Frequency of respondents served with food in unsuitable condition for

consumption and expired food, number (%).

Table 4.5.9. Frequency of respondents who are treated for food poisoning after consuming

canteen food, number (%).

Table 4.6.1.Overall customer satisfaction on accommodation of canteen in relation to years of

study

Table 4.6.2.Customer satisfaction of wash room facility by sex of the customers

Table 4.7.1.Distribution of duration of waiting in a queue to buy lunch

List of figures

Figure 1.1.1.Conceptual framework of Customer Satisfaction

Figure 4.3.1.Overall satisfaction of customers of canteen

V

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Institutional food service is a service provided by an institution to supply food for its own

relevant customer groups (Grossbauer, 2002). It can be found in schools, nursing homes,

hospital facilities, prisons, child and senior care centers and also catering services (Spears,

2000).

Customer satisfaction is the result of correlation between customer assumption and customer

feeling. Customer satisfaction is identified as the distraction between the assumed quality of

service and the customer involvement or feelings after having perceived the service.

Satisfaction is a person’s feeling of pleasure or disappointment resulting from comparing a

product’s perceived performance in relation to his or her expectations

According to SERVQUAL scale Customer satisfaction depends on such dimensions as,

a. Assurance – it is related to competency, courtesy and credibility of staffs and how

staffs give the secure feelings to the guest

b. Responsiveness – it is the willingness to help customers and provide prompt

service

c. Reliability – it is the ability to perform the promised service dependable and

accurately

d. Tangible – it is appearance of physical facilities , equipment , personnel and

communication material

e. Empathy – it discuss how good the communication between staffs and customers

and also how the staffs understand the customer

f. And further components such as personnel , price and situational factors

(Parasuraman, 1988)

To acquire customer satisfaction the following are the key concepts,

A. Quality service

Quality service includes all, from canteen ambiance to the food being served, from serving

the correct order to the speed of service. Quality service gain customer satisfaction.

B. Food quality

The word quality is derived from the Latin word, “Qualis” and it means distinctive

characteristic (Ehlers, 2007). Dictionary meaning of quality is characteristic. Characteristic is

defined as a feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to

identify them. There are many different definitions of quality in the literature. One reason for

not being able to arrive at a standard definition of the quality concept is the fact that various

definitions are valid for various sectors such as services and manufacturing, for various

groups such as producer/vendor, or for various situations such as production / consumption

(Pirnar, 2007).

2

Canteen must contain quality and tasty foods and most of all have to provide quality service.

Canteens should serve delicious and healthy food. Generally though not all the canteens can

afford to give the best quality food, they should at least ensure that the food is clean, stored

well and prepared safely. Food products must be properly labelled to avoid serving expired

foods. All the canteen staffs should apply or practice food sanitation procedures. They should

take measures on how they prepare their food and to keep the cooking and dining area clean.

Price and value are also important factors in influencing a student’s satisfaction in a

University’s dining services (Ng, 2005). Food should be available in a reasonable price and it

should be affordable by the students

C. Friendly environment

A friendly environment is utmost important for a peaceful dining. Cleanliness should be

maintained. Proper lighting and ventilation should be available. In a canteen we spend a small

amount of time but we all expect that to be a quality time. To dine peacefully it is necessary

to have a good dining environment. Availability of good food and a good place to eat is an

essential need for the students and staffs of the University When a canteen area is not

properly kept it will affect the psychological desire for having food in that area. Thus friendly

environment is an important factor in deciding the customer satisfaction.

The increasing number of student enrolment has forced the University administrators to build

more residential halls and to provide abundant selections to cater on-campus living. (Dollah,

2012)

Sellers are known as service providers, buyers are known as service receivers. Givers always

consider customer satisfaction as the key thing and they try to provide quality service. Also

the customers expect a quality service. Thus it is the responsibility of the organization to offer

and make the customer satisfy by providing their desires and wants. The expectations of the

customers are to get the best from the canteen.

3

1.1 JUSTIFICATION

Our target is to assess the customer satisfaction on the facilities and services provided by the

canteen of the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura. This canteen

is situated in the basement of the anatomy building. It caters for more than 600 customers

including medical students, paramedical students, staffs and non-academic staffs. Canteen

has a dining area, food distributing area, food preparing area, hand washing area and toilets.

Dining area contain 42 tables with each containing 4 chairs. Hand washing area has 6

washbasins and 3 sets of waste bins. There are separate restrooms for men and women.

Most of the customers consume breakfast, lunch, evening tea and snacks in the canteen. More

than 600 customers assemble in the lunch hour and dine lunch.

This is the only place that has been assigned to have meals for the students by the faculty, as

food consumption inside the lecture halls and reading rooms are prohibited. So we would like

to do the research on this topic to reveal the satisfaction of the customers in regards to the

adequacy of the provided facilities provided by the canteen and satisfaction of the customers.

As the population of the University students grows every year, more and more attention

should be paid on the dining problem at the faculty canteen and because the service quality of

the canteen also plays a major role in building a good standard of the faculty.

Our target is to provide canteen management, the knowledge about the satisfactory level of

the customers with some evidences for decision making and improving the quality of the

service.

4

Figure 1.1.1: Conceptual framework of Customer Satisfaction

Customer

satisfaction

Food Customer

Services

Cleanliness Accommodation

Quantity

Quality

Cleanliness

Storage

Wash

rooms Dining area

Garbage

bin

Sanitation

Dining Area

Utensils

Speed

Politeness

Nutrient

Price

Spacing Lighting Ventilation

5

1.2 OBJECTIVES

1.2.1 General Objective

To determine whether the customers are satisfied with the facilities and services

provided by the canteen of FMS, USJP.

1.2.2 Specific Objectives

1. To identify the customer satisfaction regarding the quality, quantity and the price

of food.

2. To assess the satisfaction of the customers regarding accommodation, cleanliness

and customer service.

6

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Overall Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction had been studied since long time ago by hundreds of researchers.

The underlying concept of customer satisfaction was initially viewed as a good predictor of

future purchase behavior. Obviously, the researcher would like to study the tangible part of

this service quality such as quality of food and price and value since a study completed by

Sulek and Hensley (2004) noted that food quality is one of the major factors apart from

waiting time, fairness of the order, comfortable waiting area, crowding in the waiting area,

politeness of host area staff, server attentiveness, atmosphere of dining area, and seating

comfort that had significant effects on the customers’ intention to return to the restaurant.

While customer satisfactions in foodservice are still being studied today, student satisfaction

in university dining is also becoming more popular among scholars as students are among the

big population in institutional foodservices especially in university dining (Ng, 2005; Xi

&Shuai, 2009). Even though this field of study has been studied for quite a sometime,

however from year 2000 onwards numbers of researches published in this area kept on

increasing. This suggests that customer satisfaction is becoming more important and it has

influenced institutional foodservice sectors and this matter should not be neglected. Students’

satisfaction in institutional foodservice solely depends on food quality, food variety and price

fairness (Xi &Shuai, 2009). Another study by Ng (2005) also revealed that food quality, price

and value are significant in measuring the students’ satisfaction.

Therefore, we have taken satisfaction on quality, quantity, price, accommodation, cleanliness

and customer services as the determinants of overall customer’s satisfaction

Food Quantity

Portion size plays a role in determining level of customer satisfaction (Okumu, 2012).

Food Quality

Quality plays a significant role in determining and influencing customer satisfaction. Food

quality and acceptability is complex and interdisciplinary, encompassing scientific disciplines

including food science and technology, nutrition, psychology, physiology, marketing and

hospitality (Imram, 1999). McWilliams (2000) revealed that food quality is the quality

characteristics of food that are acceptable by the customer. This includes external factors such

as appearance, taste, smell and texture of the food (Imram, 1999). The same researcher

added, appearance, flavor and texture are important quality attributes which differentiate raw

food materials and processed products. The above study has proven that customer satisfaction

7

with restaurant food quality is a powerful predictor of customer’s intent to return to a

particular restaurant.

Price

Bolton and Lemon (1999) defined price fairness as the perceived fairness of the price or

usage trade- off. Usually the lower the perceived price, the lower the perceived sacrifice and

the customer will view the price is fair (Xi and Shuai, 2009).

Several studies have been conducted by many researchers who argued about price and value

that will lead to customer satisfaction. Soriano (2003) posited that the price to be paid for a

service determines the level of quality to be demanded. It shows that, customers have raised

their expectations with regard to quality and good service, while seeking a better value for

their money. Furthermore, recent researches by Ng (2005) and Xi and Shuai (2009) did

consider price and value in their study in assessing student satisfaction of dining hall services.

Accommodation

In the ever-changing marketplace, cafeteria may need to update their concepts if they want to

continue compete successfully. The importance of a comfortable accommodation is

increasing with time (Dulen, 1998). Soriano (2002) mentioned that the importance of a

comfortable atmosphere will continue to increase with time. The ambience of the facility,

which decorated with upscale furniture, colors, and finishes, is the major factor that keeps

students coming back to the dining facility.

Cleanliness

Cleanliness is an essential aspect of the restaurant industry. As dining-out rate has been

increased, the issues of restaurant cleanliness and food safety have become increasingly

emphasized from both managerial and customer viewpoint.

Brewer and Rojas (2008) conducted study to investigate customer attitude toward food safety

issues. In the study, they collected 402 data samples and according to their study, nearly half

(47%) of the consumers responded that they consider eating safe very significant. Also,

42.6% of the total respondents believed food from a restaurant was the most likely source of

food borne illness. Furthermore, the study indicated that consumers were very concerned

about inspections of restaurant cleanliness.

As mentioned above, cleanliness is a key consideration in meeting the government and state

regulations as well as for meeting the restaurant consumers’ standard of restaurant quality.

Many studies found that cleanliness is a significant factor in a customers’ evaluation of

restaurant quality, which can affect customers’ level of satisfaction (Zeithaml, Parasuraman

et al. 1990).

8

Bienstock et al.(2003) evaluated food safety and sanitation procedures in relation to customer

perceptions of service quality in restaurants using three items; dining room cleanliness,

restroom cleanliness and food safety. According to their study, unless food safety and

cleanliness are obvious to customers, the link to service quality is not evident. Zeithaml et al.

(1990) suggested that food service establishments that failed to meet the standards of food

hygiene and cleanliness expected by customers, would be assumed as having poor or low

quality service. The cleanliness of the restroom was also found to be an important criterion

when a customer evaluates the overall quality of a foodservice establishment (Klara 2004).

Barber and Scarcelli(2010), in their scale to assess cleanliness, included physical factors such

as the exterior or interior of the restaurant, as well as restroom cleanliness. Since services are

intangible and usually cannot be experienced prior to a purchase, customers tend to rely on

tangible environmental clues to guide their expectations about a given service encounter

(Shostack 1977). However, as mentioned earlier, service is a multilayered experience affected

by numerous factors. Wall and Berry (2007) suggested these factors fall into three clues:

functional, mechanic and humane. Therefore, it is important to develop a reliable measure for

cleanliness in cafeterias that includes more than just physical environmental factors.

Customer service

Parasuraman et al. (1988) in the SERVQUAL scale mentioned five dimensions that are

proposed to be generalizing to virtually any service provider are: (1) the reliability of the

service provider, (2) the responsiveness of the service provider, (3) the tangible aspects of the

service, (4) the assurance provide by the service staff, and (5) the empathy shown to

consumers. Waiting time and service attitudes also attribute to customer satisfaction (Pizam&

Ellis, 1999).

9

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 STUDY DESIGN

The study design is Descriptive Cross Sectional Study.

3.2 STUDY SETTING

The canteen of the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura.This is

also called and known as ‘anatomy canteen’. The canteen is situated in the basement of the

academic departments.

3.3 STUDY POPULATION

Study population consist of the customers of the canteen of the Faculty of Medical Sciences,

University of Sri Jayewardenepura. This population consist of students,academic staff and

non-academic staff.

3.4 SAMPLING

3.4.1 Basis for sample size calculation

Sample size was determined using the following equation :

n = Z2

1-α/2[p(1-p)]

d2

n = required sample size

Z = Standard normal distribution

p = Expected proportion of determining factor

d = Margin of error

Since the study is a descriptive cross sectional study, the sample size was determined as

follows:

(Z) Standard normal distribution is taken as 1.96 to cover 95% of the population.

The (p) proportion of the determining factor can be extracted from a closely related previous

study.

Since there were no recent studies available on customer satisfaction of the canteen of

Faculty of Medical Sciences, USJP , to identify the above determining factors and

statistically maximize the sample, the (p) value was taken as 0.5(50.0%).

10

Margin of error (d) was taken into consideration since the study does not cover the universal

population. Thus (d) was taken as 0.05(5.0%).

n = 1.962[0.5(1-0.50)]

0.052

n = 384.16

approximated to 384.

3.4.2 Sampling technique

The participants were recruited during different times of the day, namely, during the times of

breakfast, lunch, and morning and afternoon tea. All those who visited the canteen during the

times of data collection were given the questionnaire after obtaining the informed verbal

consent. Data collection was conducted for 10 weeks.

3.5 STUDY INSTRUMENTS

Self-administered Questionnaire containing demographic data and data regarding quantity,

quality & price of the food, accommodation facilities, customer service and cleanliness of the

canteen. Questionnaire contains simple statements in an easily understandable way. Options

are given to mark the answers. A pre testing was done on 20 customers and the problems

encountered by them were discussed and necessary alterations were done after consulting the

supervisors to make the questionnaire more comprehensible and effective.

11

3.6 VARIABLES

Table No.3.6.1. Variables

Factor Variable Operationalized variable

Occupation Occupation Student/Academic staff/Non-academic staff/

others

Sex Sex Male/ Female

Nationality Nationality Sri Lankan /Foreigner

Ethnicity Ethnicity Sinhala/Tamil/Moor/Malay/Burgher/Other

Year of study Academic year 1st /2

nd /3

rd /4

th / 5

thyear

Residence Current residence Home/Relation’s home / University

Hostel/Boarding place

Food Preference Food Preference Vegetarian / Non-vegetarian

Duration of usage Duration of usage 1year/2years/3years/4years/more than 4 years

Frequency of Visit Frequency of Visit Daily/ 3-4 days per week/ 1-2 days per week/

Seldom

Frequency of

consumption

Breakfast Daily / 3-4 days per week/ 1-2 days per week/

Seldom / Never

Lunch Daily / 3-4 days per week/ 1-2 days per week/

Seldom / Never

Snacks / Beverages Daily / 3-4 days per week/ 1-2 days per week/

Seldom / Never

Customer

satisfaction on food

Satisfaction on Quantity

of lunch Adequate/Not Sure/not adequate

Satisfaction on Quality

of breakfast & lunch Very good/Good/ poor/very poor


of snacks Very good/Good/ poor/very poor

Satisfaction on Quality Very good/Good/ poor/very poor

12

of beverages & desserts


of storage Very good/Good/ poor/very poor

Overall quality

satisfaction Very good/Good/ poor/very poor

Customer

satisfaction on price

Customer satisfaction

on price Affordable / Not affordable

Customer

satisfaction on

accommodation

Satisfaction on

accommodation of

dining area

Very good/Good/ poor/very poor

Satisfaction on

accommodation of

washroom

Very good/Good/ poor/very poor

Satisfaction on overall

accommodation Very good/Good/ poor/very poor

Customer

satisfaction on

cleanliness

Satisfaction on

Cleanliness of dining

area

Very good/good/poor/very poor

Satisfaction on

Cleanliness of utensils Very good/good/poor/very poor

Satisfaction on

Cleanliness of garbage

bin


Satisfaction on

Cleanliness of

washroom


Overall satisfaction on

cleanliness Very good/good/poor/very poor

Customer

satisfaction on

customer services

Customer services Very good/good /poor/very poor

Customer

satisfaction on

washroom facilities

Washroom facilities Very good/good /poor/very poor

13

Overall satisfaction

on facilities and

services of canteen

Overall satisfaction of

canteen Very good/good /poor/very poor

3.8 DATA ANALYSIS

This study data were checked for completeness and whenever deficiencies were found they

were attended to. SPSS version 16.0 was used to data entering and analysis.

Descriptive statistical methods were used for summarizing and presenting data.

Chi squared (χ2) test was used to determine the significance for categorical data. Significance

level chosen was 0.05.

3.9 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION

No one was forced to participate in the study and participants were administered with

questionnaire after taking informed verbal consent.

The identification data of the subject will not be made available to any other sources at any

cost.

The data obtained with regard to this specific study was strictly used only for this study and it

will not be used for any other purposes.

The information extracted from obtained data will be used in communicating the findings.

Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the Ethical Clearance Committee of

University of Sri Jayewardenepura.

14

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

4.1 Socio-demographic Characteristics

The following table shows several socio-demographic details of the respondents of the

canteen.

Table 4.1.1. Frequency distribution of socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Socio-demographic characteristics of

respondents

Number (%)

(n=389)

Occupation

Student

Academic staff

Nonacademic staff

Others

366 (94.1%)

10 (2.6%)

11 (2.8%)

2 (2.5%)

Sex

Male

Female

143 (36.8%)

246 (63.2%)

Nationality

Sri Lankan

Others

388 (99.7%)

1 (0.3%)

Ethnicity

Sinhala

Tamil

Moor

Malay

Others

321 (82.5%)

45 (11.6%)

21 (5.4%)

1 (0.3%)

1 (0.3%)

Majority of the study population are students (94.1%), females(63.2%), Sri Lankan (99.7 %)

and Sinhalese (82.5%).

15

Table 4.1.2. Characteristics of students

Characteristics of students Number (%)

(n=366)

Year of study

1st year

2nd

year

3rd

year

4th

year

48(13.1%)

87(23.8%)

104(28.4%)

127(34.7%)

Current residence

Home

University hostel

Boarding place

Staying in relation`s home

Others

158(43.2%)

37(10.1%)

155(42.3%)

13(3.6%)

3(0.8%)

Among the total students (366), around 1/3 are 4th year students. Majority of students come

from either boarding or hostel (52.4%).

Table 4.1.3. Frequency distribution of food preference

Frequency of food preference Number (%)

(n=389)

Vegetarian 38(9.8%)

Non Vegetarian 351(90.2%)

Only 9.8% of customers of the canteen are vegetarian.

16

Table 4.1.4. Frequency distribution of canteen visit

Frequency of canteen visit Number (%)

(n=389)

Daily 184(47.3%)

3-4 days/week 77(19.8%)

1-2 days/week 59(15.2%)

Seldom 69(17.7%)

Nearly half of the whole study population uses the canteen daily.

4.2 Frequency distribution with socio-demographic variables

Table 4.2.1. Frequency distribution of food consumption, number (%)

Meals Daily 3-4

days/week

1-2

days/week Seldom Never

Breakfast 35(9.0%) 27(6.9%) 30(7.7%) 116(29.8%) 181(46.5%)

Lunch 45(11.6%) 47(12.1%) 46(11.8%) 140(36.0%) 111(28.5%)

Snacks/Beverages 80(20.6%) 68(17.5%) 82(21.1%) 144(37.0%) 15(3.9%)

Nearly 1/3 of customers buy breakfast seldom or 1-2 days/week. Around 1/3 of customers

buy lunch, snacks and beverages at least 3-4 days/week.

Table 4.2.2. Frequency distribution of canteen visit in relation to the year of study,

number (%)

Year of

study

Frequency of visit

Total Daily

3-4

days/week

1-2

days/week Seldom

1st year 18(37.5%) 11(22.9%) 11(22.9%) 8(16.7%) 48(100.0%)

2nd

year 49(56.3%) 23(26.4%) 9(10.3%) 6(6.9%) 87(100.0%)

17

3rd

year 60(57.7%) 10(9.6%) 15(14.4%) 19(18.3%) 104(100.0%)

4th

year 50(39.4%) 26(20.5%) 22(17.3%) 29(22.8%) 127(100.0%)

Total 177(48.4%) 70(19.1%) 57(15.6%) 62(16.9%) 366(100.0%)

Χ2=25.560,df=9, p=0.002

Majority of the 2nd

and 3rd

year students use the canteen daily while the 1st and 4

th year

students use it less frequently. The p value (0.002) is less than 0.05, so the differences seen in

the distribution shown in this table is statistically significant.

Table 4.2.3.Frequency distribution of consumption of breakfast in relation to place of

residence, number (%)

Place of

residence

Frequency of breakfast

Total Daily

3-4

days/week

1-2


Home 4(2.5%) 9(5.7%) 7(4.4%) 53(33.5%) 85(53.8%) 158(100.0%)

University

Hostel 12(32.4%) 6(16.2%) 3(8.1%) 11(29.7%) 5(13.5%) 37(100.0%)

Boarding

Places/

Staying in

relation’s

home/

Others

18(10.5%) 12(7.0%) 20(11.7%) 49(28.7%) 72(42.1%) 171(100.0%)

Total 34(9.3%) 27(7.4%) 30(8.2%) 113(30.9%) 162(44.3%) 366(100.0%)

Χ2=51.206, df=8, p=0.000

Around 1/3 of students from hostel consume breakfast daily while nearly 50% of the students

from home, boarding places and others never consume breakfast from the canteen. As the chi

square cannot be calculated due to the expected count is less than 5 in 20% of cells, we have

combined "boarding place, staying in relation's home and others" together. The new chi

square value is calculated. As the "p" value is less than 0.001 (p = 0.000), the differences

seen in the distribution shown in this table is statistically significant.

18

Table 4.2.4.Frequency distribution of consumption of lunch in relation to the place of

residence, number (%)

Place of

residence

Frequency of lunch

Total Daily

3-4

days/week

1-2


Home 10(6.3%) 12(7.6%) 16(10.1%) 66(41.8%) 54(34.2%) 158(100.0%)

University

Hostel 11(29.7%) 6(16.2%) 4(10.8%) 10(27.0%) 6(16.2%) 37(100.0%)

Boarding

Places/

Staying in

relation’s

home/

Others

23(13.5%) 28(16.4%) 24(14.0%) 55(32.2%) 41(24.0%) 171(100.0%)

Total 44(12.0%) 46(12.6%) 44(12.0%) 131(35.8%) 101(27.6%) 366(100.0%)

Χ2=28.796, df=2, p=0.000

Nearly 1/2 of students from hostel consume lunch daily while majority of the students from

home, boarding and others seldom or never consume lunch from the canteen.As the chi

square cannot be calculated due to the expected count is less than 5 in 20% of cells, we have

combined "boarding place, staying in relation's home and others" together. The new chi

square value is calculated.As the "p" value is less than 0.001 (p = 0.000), the differences seen

in the distribution shown in this table is statistically significant.

19

4.3 Overall satisfaction

Table 4.3.1.Frequency distribution of satisfaction of variables, number (%)

Variables Satisfied Not satisfied Total number

Quantity of meal 210 (88.8%) 39 (11.2%) 278

Quality

Breakfast and

lunch 40 (20.7%) 153 (79.3%) 193

Snacks 92 (24.6%) 282 (75.4%) 374

Beverages and

desserts 120 (32.1%) 254 (67.9%) 374

Storage 143 (36.7%) 246 (63.2%) 389

Overall 192 (49.4%) 197 (50.6%) 389

Price 234 (60.2%) 155 (39.8%) 389

Accommodation

Dining area 87 (22.4%) 302 (77.6%) 389

Wash room 97 (24.9%) 292 (75.1%) 389

Overall 91 (23.4%) 298 (76.6%) 389

Cleanliness

Garbage bin 110 (28.3%) 179 (71.7%) 389

Dining area 47 (12.1%) 342 (87.9%) 389

Utensil 88 (22.7%) 301 (77.4%) 389

Wash room 28 (7.2%) 361 (92.8%) 389

Overall 67 (16.7%) 324(83.3%) 389

Customer service 131(33.7%) 158(66.3%) 389

20

Majority of customers are dissatisfied with quality (50.6%), accommodation (76.6%),

cleanliness (83.3%) and customer services (66.3%) of the canteen and satisfied with the

quantity (88.8%) and price (60.2%).

Figure 4.3.1.Overall satisfaction of customers of canteen, number (%)

(n=389)

From the total study population 70% are dissatisfied with the facilities and services available

in the canteen.

24 6%Very poor

247 64% Poor

118 30% Good

21

Table 4.3.2.Overall customer satisfaction in regards to occupation, number (%)

Occupation

Overall satisfaction Total

Very Poor Poor Good/ Very

Good

Student 24(6.6%) 231(63.1%) 111(30.3%) 366

(100.0%)

Non Student 0(0.0%) 16(69.6%) 7(30.4%) 23 (100.0%)

Total 24(6.2%) 247 (63.5%) 118 (30.3%) 389

(100.0%)

Χ2=1.650, df=2, p=0.438

Majority of students (63.1%)and non-students (69.6%) are poorly satisfied with the facilities

and services of the canteen. As the chi square cannot be calculated due to the expected count

is less than 5 in 20% of cells, we have combined academic staff, nonacademic staff and

others into the " non student " category and the "good and very good" into one category. The

new chi square value is calculated. As the "p" value is more than 0.050 (p= 0.438), so the

differences seen in the distribution shown in this table is statistically NOT significant.

Table 4.3.3. Overall customer satisfaction by sex of the customers, number (%)

Sex

Overall Satisfaction

Total Very Poor Poor Good

Male 13 (9.1%) 95 (66.4%) 35 (24.5%) 143 (100.0%)

Female 11 (4.5%) 152 (61.8%) 83 (33.7%) 246 (100.0%)

Total 24 (6.2%) 247 (63.5%) 118 (30.3%) 389 (100.0%)

Χ2=5.994,df=2, p=0.050

Around 2/3 of males (66.4%) and females (61.8%) are poorly satisfied with the facilities and

services of the canteen. The p value is 0.050 so the differences seen in the distribution shown

in this table is statistically NOT significant.

22

Table 4.3.4. Overall customer satisfaction in regards to the place of residence, number

(%)

Place of

residence


Total

Very Poor/Poor Good/Very Good

Home 121(76.6%) 37(23.4%) 158(100.0%)

University Hostel 27(73.0%) 10(27.0%) 37(100.0%)

Boarding Places 100(64.5%) 55(35.5%) 155(100.0%)

Staying in

Relation’s

Home/Others

7(43.8%) 9(56.3%) 16(100.0%)

Total 255(69.7%) 111(30.3%) 366(100.0%)

Χ2=10.800,df=3, p=0.013

Majority of the students from home, hostel and boarding place are poorly satisfied with the

facilities and services provided by canteen while majority of the students who are staying in

the relation's home and other places are satisfied (56.3%). As the chi square cannot be

calculated due to the expected count is less than 5 in 20% of cells,we have combined " good

and very good”, “poor and very poor” and “staying in relation's home and others”. The new

chi square value is calculated. As the "p" value is less than 0.050(p = 0.013), the differences

seen in the distribution shown in this table is statistically significant.

23

Table 4.3.5.Overall customer satisfaction in relation to the duration of usage of the

canteen, number (%).

Duration of

usage of

canteen


Total

Very Poor/

Poor

Good/

Very Good

1 year 45(50.6%) 44(49.4%) 89(100.0%)

2 years 30(57.7%) 22(42.3%) 52(100.0%)

3 years 72(66.7%) 36(33.3%) 108(100.0%)

4 years 109(91.6%) 10(8.4%) 119(100.0%)

More than 4

years 15(71.4%) 6(28.6%) 21 (100.0%)

Total 271(69.7%) 118(30.3%) 389(100.0%)

Χ2=46.472, df=4, p=0.000

Among the customers who are using the canteen for 4 years 91.6% are not satisfied with the

facilities and services provided by the canteen. As the chi square cannot be calculated due to

the expected count is less than 5 in 20% of cells, we have combined “good and very good"

into one category and "very poor and poor”. The new chi square value is calculated. As the

"p" value is less than 0.001(p = 0.000), the differences seen in the distribution shown in this

table is statistically significant.

24

4.4 Quantity

Table 4.4.1. Customer satisfaction of quantity by sex of the customers, number (%)

Sex

Satisfaction Of Quantity

Total Not Adequate

Averagely

Adequate Adequate

Male 27 (18.5%) 96 (66.1%) 20(14.0%) 143(100.0%)

Female 12 (4.5%) 172 (69.9%) 62 (25.2%) 246 (100.0%)

Total 39 (10.0%) 268 (68.9%) 82 (21.1%) 389 (100.0%)

Χ2 = 23.187, df = 2, p= 0.000

Majority of males (67.1%) and females (69.9%) say that the quantity of the lunch is

averagely adequate.

The p value is less than 0.001(p = 0.000), so the differences seen in the distribution shown in

this table is statistically significant.

Table 4.4.2.Customer satisfaction on quantity of lunch in relation to food preference,

number (%).

Food preference

Satisfaction of quantity

Total

Not Adequate Averagely

Adequate Adequate

Vegetarian 4(10.5%) 28(73.3%) 6(15.8%) 38(100.0%)

Non- Vegetarian 35(10.0%) 240(68.4%) 76(21.7%) 351(100.0%)

Total 39(10.0%) 268(68.9%) 82(21.1%) 389(100.0%)

Χ2

=0.710,df=2, p=0.701

Out of the respondents 3/4th

of vegetarians (73.7%) and 68.4% of non-vegetarians say that

quantity of lunch is averagely adequate.As the "p" value is more than 0.050(p = 0.701), the


25

4.5 Quality

Table 4.5.1. Overall customer satisfaction of quality by ethnicity of the customers,

number (%)

Ethnicity

Overall satisfaction of quality

Total Very Poor/

Poor

Good/

Very Good

Sinhala 167(52.0%) 154(48.0%) 321(100.0%)

Tamil 19(42.2%) 26(57.8%) 45(100.0%)

Moor/Malay/Others 11(47.8%) 12(52.2%) 23(100.0%)

Total 197 (50.6%) 192(49.4%) 389(100.0%)

Χ2=1.595,df=2, p=0.450

More than 1/2 of Sinhalese (52.0%) are not satisfied with the quality of food while more than

1/2 of Tamils (57.8%) and Moor/Malay and others (52.2%) are satisfied. As the chi square

cannot be calculated due to the expected count is less than 5 in 20% of cells, we have

combined “good and very good", "poor and very poor" as well as "Moor, Malay and others".

The new chi square value is calculated. The new chi square value is calculated. As the "p"

value is more than 0.050(p= 0.450), the differences seen in the distribution shown in this

table is statistically NOT significant.

26

Table 4.5.2.Overall customer satisfaction of quality in regard to the place of residence,

Number (%)

Place of

residence


Total

Very Poor Poor Good/Very

Good

Home 10(6.3%) 74(46.8%) 74 (46.8%) 158(100.0%)

University

Hostel 5(13.5%) 14(37.8%) 18(48.0%) 37(100.0%)

Boarding Places 5(3.2%) 72(46.5%) 78(50.3%) 155(100.0%)

Staying in

Relation’s Home

Others

1(6.3%) 4(25.0%) 11(68.8%) 16(100.0%)

Total 21(5.7%) 164(44.8%) 181(49.5%) 366(100.0%)

Χ2=9.200, df=6, p=0.163

Most of the students from home and university hostel are not satisfied with the quality of

food while most of the students from boarding place, who are staying in relation's home and

other places, are satisfied with the quality of food. As the chi square cannot be calculated due

to the expected count is less than 5 in 20% of cells,we have combined " good and very good”,

“staying in relation's home and others". The new chi square value is calculated. As the "p"

value is more than 0.050(p= 0.163), the differences seen in the distribution shown in this

table is statistically NOT significant.

27

Table 4.5.3.Overall customer satisfaction of quality in relation to food preference,

number (%)

Food

preference


Total

Very Poor Poor Good

Very Good

Vegetarian 2(5.3%) 17(44.7%) 19(50.0%) 38(100.0%)

Non-

Vegetarian 19(5.4%) 159(45.3%) 173(49.3%) 351(100.0%)

Total 21(5.4%) 176(45.2%) 192(49.4%) 389(100.0%)

Χ2=0.007, df=2, p=0.996

Around ½ of the vegetarians and non-vegetarians are satisfied with the quality of food while

the other ½ are not satisfied. As the chi square cannot be calculated due to the expected count

is less than 5 in 20% of cells,we have combined “good and very good" into one category. The

new chi square value is calculated. As the "p" value is more than 0.050(p = 0.996), the


The below table shows the relationship between the customer satisfaction of the quality of

lunch and the frequency of lunch consumption.Those who have never consumed lunch have

been excluded from consideration,

Table 4.5.4.Customer satisfaction of quality of lunch in relation to the frequency of

lunch consumption of the customers, number (%).

Frequency of

lunch

Satisfaction of quality of lunch

Total Very Poor Poor

Good/Very

Good

Daily 11(24.4%) 23(51.1%) 11(24.4%) 45(100.0%)

3-4 days per

week 2(4.3%) 29(61.7%) 16(34.0%) 47(100.0%)

1-2 days per

week 6(13.0%) 27(58.7%) 13(28.3%) 46(100.0%)

Seldom 24(17.1%) 89(63.6%) 27(19.3%) 140(100.0%)

Total 43(15.5%) 168(60.4%) 67(24.1%) 278(100.0%)

28

Χ2=11.111, df=6, p=0.085

Around 1/2 of the customers who daily buy lunch are poorly satisfied with the quality of

lunch.As the chi square cannot be calculated due to the expected count is less than 5 in 20%

of cells,we have combined “good and very good" into one category. The new chi square

value is calculated. As the "p" value is more than 0.050(p = 0.085), the differences seen in the

distribution shown in this table is statistically NOT significant.


beverages and the frequency of beverage consumption. Those who have never consumed

beverages have been excluded from consideration.

Table 4.5.5. Customer satisfaction of quality of beverages in relation to the frequency of

the beverage consumption by the customers, number (%).

Frequency of

beverages

Satisfaction of quality of beverages


Good/ Very

Good

Daily 12(15.0%) 40(50.0%) 28(35.0%) 80(100.0%)

3-4 days per

week 7(10.3%) 43(63.2%) 18(26.5%) 68(100.0%)

1-2 days per

week 9(11.0%) 45(54.9%) 28(34.1%) 82(100.0%)

Seldom 13(9.0%) 85(59.0%) 46(31.9%) 144(100.0%)

Total 41(11.0%) 213(57.0%) 120(32.1%) (100.0%)

Χ2=4.020,df=6, p=0.674

Nearly 2/3 of the customers who buy beverages daily are dissatisfied with the quality of

beverages. As the chi square cannot be calculated due to the expected count is less than 5 in

20% of cells,we have combined “good and very good" into one category. The new chi square

value is calculated.As the "p" value is more than 0.050(p = 0.674), the differences seen in the


29


snacks and the frequency of snack consumption. Those who have never consumed snacks

have been excluded from consideration.

Table 4.5.6.Customer satisfaction of quality of snacks in relation to the frequency of

snack consumption by the customers, number (%).

Frequency of

snacks

Satisfaction of quality of snacks


Good/ Very

Good

Daily 41(51.3%) 22 (27.5%) 17(21.3%) 17(100.0%)

3-4 days per

week 24(35.3%) 26(38.2%) 18(26.5%) 68(100.0%)

1-2 days per

week 39(47.6%) 22(26.8%) 21(25.6%) 82(100.0%)

Seldom 58(40.3%) 50(34.7%) 36(25.0%) 144(100.0%)

Total 162(43.3%) 120(32.1%) 92(24.6%) 374(100.0%)

Χ2=5.670, df=6, p=0.461

Nearly ½ of the customers (51.3%) who buy snacks daily are very poorly satisfied with the

quality of the snacks. As the chi square cannot be calculated due to the expected count is less

than 5 in 20% of cells, we have combined “good and very good" into one category. The new

chi square value is calculated. As the "p" value is more than 0.050 (p=0.461), the differences

seen in the distribution shown in this table is statistically NOT significant.

30

Table 4.5.7. Frequency distribution of contaminants of the food items

Contaminant on the food* Number (%)

(n=389)

Flies 167(42.9%)

Hair 123(31.6%)

Parts of insect 56(14.4%)

Fungus 25(6.4%)

Others** 39(10.0%)

*not mutually exclusive

**finger nail, polythene pieces, egg shell pieces, worms

From the total population 42.9% customers stated that food items are contaminated with flies.

Table 4.5.8. Frequency of respondents served with food in unsuitable condition for

consumption and expired food, number (%).

Served

with food

which is,

Yes No

in unsuitable

condition 229(58.9%) 160(41.1%)

expired 115(29.6%) 274(70.4%)

More than ½ of the customers say that they have been served with food in unsuitable

condition and nearly 29.6% say they have got food items that are expired.

Table 4.5.9. Frequency of respondents who are treated for food poisoning after

consuming canteen food, number (%).

Treated for food poisoning Yes No

78(20.1%) 311(79.9%)

Nearly 1/5 of the population stated that they have been treated for food poisoning after

consuming food from the canteen.

31

4.6 Accommodation

Table 4.6.1.Overall customer satisfaction on accommodation of canteen in relation to

years of study, number (%).

Year of study

Overall satisfaction of accommodation

Total

Very Poor Poor

Good/

Very Good

1st year 4(8.3%) 30(62.5%) 14(29.2%) 48(100.0%)

2nd

year 10(11.5%) 54(62.1%) 23(26.4%) 87(100.0%)

3rd

year 21(20.2%) 57(54.8%) 26(25.0%) 104(100.0%)

4th

year 23(18.1%) 83(65.4%) 21(16.5%) 127(100.0%)

Total 60(15.4%) 238(61.2%) 84(23.0%) 366(100.0%)

Χ2=9.213,df=610, p=0.162

Majority of students from all the batches are poorly satisfied with the accommodation of

canteen. As the chi square cannot be calculated due to the expected count is less than 5 in

20% of cells, we have combined “good and very good" into one category. The new chi square

value is calculated.As the "p" value is more than 0.050(p = 0.162), the differences seen in the


32

Table 4.6.2. Customer satisfaction of wash room facility by sex of the customers,

number (%)

Sex

Satisfaction of washroom


Good/ Very

Good

Male 36 (25.2%) 74(51.7%) 33(23.1%) 143 (100.0%)

Female 70(28.5%) 130(52.8%) 46(18.7%) 246 (100.0%)

Total 106(27.2%) 204(52.4%) 79(20.3%) 389 (100.0%)

Χ2=1.231, df=2, p=0.540

More than ½ of males (51.7%) and females (52.8%) are poorly satisfied with the washroom

facilities.As the chi square cannot be calculated due to the expected count is less than 5 in

20% of cells, we have combined “good and very good". The new chi square value is

calculated. As the "p" value is more than 0.050(p= 0.540), the differences seen in the


4.7 Customer Service

Table 4.7.1. Distribution of duration of waiting in a queue

Duration of waiting in a queue Number(%)

Less than 2 minutes 17(4.4%)

2-5 minutes 136(35.0%)

6-10 minutes 126(32.4%)

11-15 minutes 71(18.3%)

More than 15 minutes 39(10.0%)

Nearly 2/3 of customers say that they have to wait at least 2-10 minutes in a queue to buy a

meal.

33

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Canteen of the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, which is

situated in the basement of the anatomy building, caters for more than 600 customers

including medical students, paramedical students and staffs. It provides service in weekdays.

This descriptive study was conducted to ascertain the customer satisfaction on facilities and

services provided by this canteen in regards to the quantity, quality, price of the food,

accommodation, cleanliness and customer service. Questionnaire was distributed among a

total number of 389 customers, who gave the informed verbal consent. In this study Self-

administered questionnaire containing demographic data and data regarding the determinants

of satisfaction of the canteen was used.

The analyzed results are presented in the previous chapter.

Socio-demographic characteristics

Of our respondents majority are students (94.1%) while academic staffs account to 2.6%,

non-academic staff to 2.8% and others to 2.5 %.

Females predominate males in count as the normal student population of the faculty consist

of more females.

All most all are Sri Lankans (99.7%) with 82.5% of Sinhalese. Out of the students who are

enrolled to our University, majority are Sri Lankans and Sinhalese, so our findings are

compatible with it.

Out of the student respondents 34.7% belong to 4th

year, 28.4% to 3rd

year, 23.8% to 2nd

year,

13.1% to 1st year of study.

Majority of students come from either home (43.2%) or boarding places (42.3%) while the

rest come from hostels or relations’ home.

Of the respondent most of them are non-vegetarians (90.2%).

Out of our respondents 47.3% visit the canteen daily, 19.8% visit 3-4 days per week, 15.2 %

visit 1-2 days per week and 17.7 % seldom visit the canteen. In a similar study done by

Schaefer (2013) shows that nearly half of the respondents (45%) visit Campus Cafeteria

frequently (at least once a week). The next largest group (29%) visits occasionally (a few

times a month) while 14% visits daily. Another study done by Dollah,Mansor&Mohamed

(2012) shows that majority of students (37.8 %) had visited around 2 – 3 times per week

compared to 17.7 % who had visited 4 – 5 times.

Most of the students coming from home (87.3%), from boarding places and relation’s home

(70.8%) rarely consume breakfast in the canteen. 48.6% of the students from University

hostel frequently consume breakfast at the canteen. There is statistically significant difference

34

in the distribution in regards to the residence and the frequency of breakfast consumption

(p=0.000). The students from home, relation’s home and boarding places may be provided

with breakfast at their places so the frequency of their breakfast consumption from the

canteen is less.

Most of the students coming from home (76.0%), from boarding places & relation’s home

(56.2%) rarely consume lunch in the canteen. 56.7% of the students from University hostel

frequently consume the lunch at the canteen. There is statistically significant difference in the

distribution in regards to the residence and the frequency of lunch consumption (p=0.000).

This may be because students from home and relation’s home mostly bring lunch from their

places. Students from boarding places buy lunch near their boarding and eat at their boarding

places as this may be convenient for them. More than ½ of the hostel students are buying

lunch from the canteen may be due to their easiness.

Overall customer satisfaction

Upon analysing the data we found that a majority amounting to 70% are not satisfied and

only 30% are satisfied with the facilities and services provided by the canteen. A similar

study done in Malaysia by Dollah, Mansor& Mohamed (2012) also found out that the

majority of the students were dissatisfied with the university cafeteria, mainly on the aspects

of quality and price. In contrast to our results another study done in California by Schaefer

(2013) found out that overall satisfaction levels of their cafeteria are higher with 88% of very

satisfied customers. They have mentioned that the reasons to achieve this satisfactory level

are friendly and efficient staffs, many food variety with good quality, comfortable

accommodation and clean cafeteria environment. This may be because they do researches

annually on the level of satisfaction and improve their drawbacks to fulfill the customer

demands.

Most of the students (69.7%) and non-students (academic staff & non-academic staff)

(69.9%) are not satisfied with the facilities and services provided by the canteen. Majority of

the male customers (¾) and the female customers (2/3) are not satisfied. There is no

statistically significant difference in the distribution in regards to the occupation (p=0.438),

sex (p=0.05) and overall customer satisfaction. So the level of satisfaction is not depended in

occupation or sex. A study done in Oklahoma by Ng (2005) also shows that there is no

significant difference between male and female satisfactory level.

Majority of the students coming from home (76.6%), University hostel (73.0%), and

Boarding places (64.5%) are not satisfied while students who are staying in relation’s home

and other places (56.3%) are satisfied. There is statistically significant difference in the

distribution in regards to the place of residence and overall customer satisfaction (p=0.013).

This indicates that level of satisfaction depends on the place of residence.

35

Regardless of duration of the usage of the canteen majority of the customers are not satisfied

and as the duration of the usage increases (from 1 to 4 years) the percentage of unsatisfied

customer population also increases. There is statistically significant difference in the

distribution in regards to the duration of usage of canteen and overall customer satisfaction

(p=0.000). The majority of the customers who have been using the canteen for 4 years

(91.6%) are not satisfied. This may possibly due to frequent changes in the contractors result

in disruption in food services and service quality assurance. As the customers using canteen

for 4 years or more have experienced the previous catering contract as well as the new one,

this high proportion of dissatisfaction may be due the comparison between the new and old

contract.

Customer satisfaction regarding Quantity of food

More than 3/4th

of the customers are satisfied with the quantity of meals.A similar study done

in Finland by Okumu (2012) shows that 83% was satisfied with the meal portion size.

Out of the respondents 80.1% of males and 95.1% of the females are satisfied with the

quantity of the lunch served in the canteen. There is statistically significant difference in the

distribution in regards to the customer satisfaction of the quantity of the food and sex

(p=0.000). May be this is due to the relatively less requirement of most of the female.

Both the vegetarians and non-vegetarians are equally satisfied with the quantity of the lunch

provided. This shows that the food preference doesn’t have an impact on the satisfaction of

food quantity (p=0.701). This may be because both vegetarian and non-vegetarian portion

contain the same amount of rice and curries except the non-vegetarian curry.

Only the quantity of lunch is considered by us, as portions of breakfast and snacks can be

repeatedly bought if the initial quantity is inadequate. But portions of lunch (½ of the lunch,

¼ of lunch etc.) are not available and buying a full meal again will be too much.

Customer satisfaction regarding Quality of food

Nearly ½ of the respondents are not satisfied with the quality of the food provided in our

canteen. But in a similar study done in Malaysia by Dollah, Mansor& Mohamed (2012)

indicates that majority of the students agreed with overall food quality, as the provided food

has good taste and flavor, fresh ingredients and consistent good quality. They also agreed

that the quality of food is important when dining at the university’s cafeteria.

It is possible that with the increment of the price of vegetables, groceries and fuel in Sri

Lanka, the canteen management may be trying to compromise the quality of food in order to

earn more profit.

Considering ethnicity of the customers, nearly half of the respondents of each ethnicity are

not satisfied with the food quality (p=0.450). This indicates that the ethnicity has no impact

36

on the level of satisfaction of the food quality. This may be due to the similar expectations

about food qualities by different ethnicities.

Majority of the students from home, University hostel and boarding places are dissatisfied of

the quality, where as the 68.8% students staying in the relation’s houses are satisfied.. There

is no statistically significant difference in the distribution in regards to level of satisfaction of

quality and residence (p=0.163). The students from home may compare the canteen food

quality with the homemade one. The students from the hostel and boarding places may

compare it with the food from outside restaurants while the students from relations home may

compare it with the food provided by their relations.

Nearly half of the vegetarians and non-vegetarians are dissatisfied (p=0.996). This indicates

that both the vegetarian and the non-vegetarian food items are not of good quality.

Nearly 3/4 of the customers who consume lunch from the canteen are not satisfied with the

quality of lunch. Majority of customers who consume lunch are dissatisfied regardless the

frequency of lunch consumption (p=0.085). This may due to unbalanced nutrient content, less

variety of curries, usage of artificial food additives (E621) and poor cleanliness of lunch.

Most of the customers (68.0%) who consume beverages and desserts are not satisfied with

the quality of beverages and desserts (p=0.674). This may be due to less variety of beverages

and desserts, less availability of bottled drinking water and poor quality of fresh juices.

Nearly 3/4 of the customers who consume snacks are not satisfied with the quality of snacks.

(p=0.461).This may be due to less availability and variety of snacks.

In the above calculations only those who have consumed lunch, beverages, desserts and

snacks at least once have been considered for the relevant calculation.

Majority of the customer population (63.2%) are not satisfied with the quality of the storage

of foods. This may be due to poor cleanliness of food exhibitors, contamination with flies and

poor refrigerating facilities.

Out of the respondents 42.9%, 31.6%, 14.4%, 6.4% of customers stated that they have

experienced food contaminated with files, hair, parts of insects, fungus respectively. And also

10% of customers stated that served foods are contaminated with polythene pieces, egg shell,

finger nails and worms. This aspect should be given an important consideration as even the

10% gives a significant negative impression.

Most of the customers (58.9%) stated that they have been served with food which is in

unsuitable condition for consumption and 29.6% of the customers have been served with food

items that have passed the date of expiry.

Out of the respondents 20.1% have been treated for food poisoning after consuming food

from the canteen. This indicates there is a significant problem with the quality of foods

provided in the canteen.

37

Customer satisfaction regarding the Price of food

Majority of the customers (60.2%) are satisfied with the price of food in the canteen.

In a similar study done by Dollah,Mansor&Mohamed (2012), the students agreed that the

price of food was acceptable and the price for a portion served by the University cafeteria

was reasonable. In another study done by Okumu (2012), 48% of the respondents indicated

that the price charged was average, 40% clearly indicated that the price was expensive and

8% indicated that the price was very expensive.

The University management is providing free electricity, water and building for the catering

contractors and pays off a part of the canteen contractor’s expenditure for the food. This may

be the reason that the price is affordable at our canteen.

Customer satisfaction regarding the Accommodation

Most of the customers (76.6%) are not satisfied with the overall accommodation in our

canteen. This may be due to the inadequate spacing, seating, lighting, ventilation and

washroom facilities. Out of the respondents 77.6% and 75.1% of the customers are not

satisfied with the accommodation of dining area and washroom respectively.

Regardless the year of study, most of the students are not satisfied with the overall

accommodation, with the 4th

year students having the highest percentage followed by 3rd

year

students (p=0.162). As 3rd

year and 4th

year students coming late to the canteen after finishing

their clinical the free seats will be very less for them to have a comfortable dining in a short

time.

In the study done in Finland by Okumu (2012), majority of the respondents (60%) said that

the accommodation was satisfactory, 19% of the respondents said the accommodation was

averagely satisfactory and 21% said it was not satisfactory. As it is a developed country,

regarding accommodation they may have better governance, administration and frequent

evaluation.

Customer satisfaction regarding the Cleanliness

Most of the customers (83.3%) are not satisfied with the overall cleanliness of the canteen.

Out of the respondents 87.9%, 71.7%, 77.4% of the customers are not satisfied with

cleanliness of the dining area, garbage bin and utensils respectively.

Almost all the customers (92.8%) are not satisfied with the cleanliness of the washroom as

there are no hand wash liquids available and because of the inadequate maintenance. The

dissatisfaction regarding garbage bins may be due to not disposing them timely, not closing

them properly and bins disturbed by animals. Tables not cleaned properly, flies not

effectively controlled, disturbance by stray animals and unavailability of hands washing

38

soaps or liquids may contribute to the dissatisfaction of the cleanliness of dining area. The

respondents stated that plates, cups, spoons and other utensils are not cleaned properly. These

are possibly due to inadequate work force in the canteen.

A similar study done in Finland by Okumu (2012) shows that majority of the respondents

(84.6%) felt that cleanliness was satisfactory.

Customer satisfaction regarding the Customer service

Satisfaction regarding customer service is assessed with politeness, cleanliness and number of

servers and speed of the service. Most of the customers (66.3%) are not satisfied with the

customer service. Canteen staff may have high workload due to insufficient canteen staffs. As

the workload is high the efficiency of staff would be decreased.

Nearly 2/3rd

of customers say that they have to wait 2 to 10 minutes in a queue to buy the

food. A similar study done by Okumu (2012) shows majority of the respondents (90%) were

served in 5-20min and 80% of respondents agreed as having friendly staff.

39

CHAPTER 6

LIMITATIONS

As we visited the canteen only in our free time due to our schedule of clinical and

para-clinical, we couldn’t collect data on daily basis on main meal times. Therefore

we might have taken non representative data. Some of the respondents may not have had enough time to respond properly to the

questionnaire as we distributed the questionnaire while they were dining and collected

back before they leave the canteen.

40

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

The gap between the customers’ expectations and their perception of delivered service has

become the principle indicator of customer satisfaction. This study determines the level of

satisfaction of the components of customers’ expectations.

In our study majority are students, females, Sri Lankan and Sinhalese. Out of the student

respondents majority come from either home or boarding places. Nearly 2/3 of the customers

visit the canteen at least 3-4 days per week.

Analysis on the level of satisfaction on food quantity, quality, price, accommodation,

cleanliness and customer services was undertaken. The results show that majority (70%) are

either poorly satisfied or very poorly satisfied with the facilities and services.

The outcome of our analysis shows a good level of satisfaction in regards of quantity (88.8%)

and price (60.2%).

Customers are poorly satisfied with quality (50.6%), accommodation (76.6%), cleanliness

(83.3%) and customer services (66.3%) of the canteen.

Considerable amount of customers have stated that they have been served with food that have

been contaminated with flies, hairs, parts of insect, fungus and others such as polythene

pieces, finger nails, egg shells and worms. Out of the respondents 20.1% of them have been

treated for food poisoning after taking food from this canteen.

Our analysis shows that the overall satisfaction is influenced by place of residence and

duration of usage of the canteen. The quantity is influenced by the sex. Frequency of meal

consumption is influenced by place of residence.

41

CHAPTER 8

RECOMMENDATIONS

This study identified some of the areas that can be improved in order to achieve a good level

of customer satisfaction on the facilities and services provided by the canteen of FMS, USJP.

Quality of the food should be maintained at a good level and a special consideration

should be given to prevent the contamination of food items.

The availability and variety of snacks should be increased.

The availability and variety of beverages and availability of bottled drinking water

should be increased.

The quality of storage of the food and beverages should be improved by maintaining

a clean exhibit, preventing the contamination with flies and maintaining good

refrigerating facility.

To improve the accommodation of dining area, spacing and number of seating

should be increased and lighting and ventilation should be improved by maintaining

the fans and lights in optimal working condition.

In washrooms, equipment should be maintained in optimal working condition and

good water supply should be provided.

Wash rooms should be kept clean and hand washing liquids or soaps should be

provided.

Garbage should be properly and timely disposed.

Cleanliness of the utensils and dining area should be maintained.

Customer service should be improved by increasing the number of distribution

counters, speed of service, cleanliness and politeness of servers.

Monitoring processes on the performance of the operators should be done frequently

by a professional evaluator to enhance the services.

42

REFERENCES

Barber, N. and Scarcelli, J. M. (2010). Enhancing the assessment of tangible service

quality through the creation of a cleanliness measurement scale. Managing Service

Quality 20(1): 70-88.

Bienstock, C. C., DeMoranville, C. W. et al. (2003). Organizational citizenship behavior

and service quality. Journal of Services Marketing 17(4): 357-378.

Bolton, R.N. and Lemon, K.N. (1999). A dynamic model of customers’ usage of

services: usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing

Research, 36 (2), 171-86.

Brewer, M. S. and Rojas, M. (2008).Consumer attitudes toward issues in food safety.

Journal of Food Safety 28(1): 1-22.

Dollah,S.N., Mansor. N., and Mohamed.M. (2012). Exploring the Major Determinants of

Student Satisfaction on University Cafeteria Food Services. Available at

http://www.idjrb.com/articlepdf/article276.pdf

Dulen J.(2001). Backstage pass. Resturants and Institutions, vol. 108 No.20, pp. 120-1

Ehlers, U. D. (2007), Quality Literacy, Competencies for Quality Development in

Education and e-Learning, Educational Technology&Society, 10 (2): 96-108.

Grossbauer, S. (2002). Managing Foodservice Operations. A system approach for

healthcare and institutions. 10th ed. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/ Hunt Pub.

Imram, N. (1999). The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of food

products. Nutrition and Food Science, 5, 224-228.

Klara, R. (2004). Consumer insights. Restaurant Business 103(13): 20-21.

McWilliams, M. (2000).Foods: Experimental Perspectives. 2nd ed. New York: measure

consumer satisfaction. Hospitality Research Journal, 17 (2), 63-74.measurement of

service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69, Spring, pp. 127-39.

Ng, Y. N. (2005).A study of Customer Satisfaction, Return Intention and words-of-Mouth

Endorsement in University Dining Facilities.Unpublished master’s thesis, Oklahoma

State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

43

Okumu,J.(2012). Importance of customer satisfaction Waskia restaurant. Available at

https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/44142/thesis%20doc.pdf?sequence=1

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. (1988). “SERVQUAL: A multiple-

item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”. Journal of Retailing,

64 (1), 12-37

Pırnar İ., (2007), “KaliteKavramıveÖnemi”, Ed. ŞevkinazGümüşoğlu - İ.Pırnar - Perran

Akan - AtillaAkbaba, In HizmetKalitesi: Kavramlar, YaklaşımlarveUygulamalar,

DetayYayıncılık: Ankara.

Pizam, A. & Ellis, T. (1999).Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality

enterprises.International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11 (7), 326-

339.

Schaefer,A.(2013).Cafeteria survey results. Available at

http://camosun.ca/services/cafeteria/_documents/2013-cafeteria-survey-aramark-web-

apr19.pdf

Shostack, G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. The Journal of Marketing

Soriano, D. R. (2003). “The Spanish Restaurant Sector: Evaluating the Perception of

Quality”. The Service Industries Journal. 23 (2), 183-194.

Spears, M. C. (2000). Foodservice Organizations. A managerial and system approach.

4th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc

Sulek, J. M. and Hensley, R. L. (2004).“The relative importance of food, atmosphere and

fairness of wait”.The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45 (3),

235-247.

Xi, L. and Shuai, Z. (2009).Investigation of Customer Satisfaction in Student Food

Service.An example of student cafeteria in NHH.International Journal of Quality and

Service Sciences, 1(1), 113-124.

Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman. A and Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering quality service:

Balancing customer perceptions and expectations, Free Pr.

https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/44142/thesis%20doc.pdf?sequence=1

http://camosun.ca/services/cafeteria/_documents/2013-cafeteria-survey-aramark-web-apr19.pdf

http://camosun.ca/services/cafeteria/_documents/2013-cafeteria-survey-aramark-web-apr19.pdf

44

Consent Form This is an undergraduate study done by 4th year medical students of University of Sri Jayewardenepura. The title of the research is “Customer satisfaction on facilities and services provided by the canteen of Faculty of medical sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura”. This research will assess the satisfactory level of the customers of the canteen regarding food, accommodation, cleanliness and customer services. All the medical students and academic staffs of University of Sri Jayewardenepura (customers) are invited to take part in this research. Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. Participants will be expected to fill a simple questionnaire related to the above given topic. The research team will maintain confidentiality of data with respect to both information about the participant and information that the participant shares. If you have any questions please feel free to contact Mr.E.Arjunar -0774322265.

45

Questionnaire to assess the Customer Satisfaction on the facilities and services provided by the

canteen of Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura.

Section A: Demographic Data

(Please answer the following questions and put ‘x’ in the box where necessary.)

Student Academic Staff Non Academic Staff Others (specify).................

Sex Male Female Nationality Srilankan Others (specify)................. Ethnicity Sinhala Tamil Moor Burgher Malay Others..............

If you aren’t a student please go to Section B. If you are a student, please answer the following and go to Section B.

Course of Study MBBS Year of Study 1st year B.Pharm 2nd Year Human Biology 3rd Year M.L.S 4th Year Nursing 5th Year others(specify)........................

Current Residence Home University Hostel Boarding places Staying in relation’s home others (specify)...........................

Are you vegetarian? Yes No, I’m non vegetarian

Section B

How many years you have being using the canteen ?........................... How often do you come to canteen? Daily 3-4 days / week 1-2 days / week seldom How often do you buy meals from the canteen? (Mark ‘x’ in the appropriate place in the following columns)

Meals Frequency

Breakfast Lunch Snacks/Beverages

Daily

3-4 days / week

1-2 days / week

Seldom

Never

46

Section C:

1. Quantity, Quality and Price of the canteen food

1.1 QUANTITY OF LUNCH Strongly

Agree

Agree Not

Sure

Disagree Strongly

Disagree

a. The amount of rice is adequate for lunch.

b. The amount of curry is adequate.

QUALITY

1.3 Snacks Strongly

Agree

Agree Not

Sure

Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Snacks are available anytime of the day.

Variety of available snacks is satisfactory.

1.2 Breakfast and Lunch Strongly

Agree

Agree Not

Sure

Disag

ree

Strongly

Disagree

a. The nutrient content is well balanced.

b. Many varieties of breakfast are available.

c. Different varieties of curries are served every day.

d. Usage of artificial food additives (eg: ajino motto E621) is agreeable.

e. The rice & curries are adequately cooked.

f. Cleanliness of the food is satisfactory. If you disagree please state the reason below contamination with flies hair parts of insect fungus others (Specify).............

1.4 Beverages & Desserts Strongly

Agree Agree

Not

Sure Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. Beverages are available at any time of the day.

b. Variety of available Beverages & Desserts is satisfactory.

c. Fresh Juices made in the canteen are of good quality.

47

1.5 Storage of Foods and Beverages Strongly

Agree Agree

Not

Sure Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. Food exhibitors are clean.

b. Contamination with flies is prevented.

c. Refrigerating facilities are satisfactory.

1.6 Price of Foods and Beverages Strongly

Agree Agree

Not

Sure

Disagre

e

Strongly

Disagree

a. Price of the food is appropriate for its amount.

b. Price is affordable to you.

2. Accommodation

2.1 Dining Area Strongly

Agree Agree

Not

Sure Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. Numbers of food serving counters are adequate.

b. Spacing of the dining area is adequate.

c. Availability of the seats is satisfactory a) In the morning b) In the Lunch Time c) In the evening

d. Condition of the seats and tables is satisfactory.

e. Lighting is satisfactory.

f. Ventilation is adequate.

g. Fans and lights are in optimal working conditions.

h. Students are able to sit in a group of desired number in one table.

d. Quality of fruits used for making juices is satisfactory.

e. Clean drinking water is available free of charge for consumption.

f. Bottled mineral water is available for sale.

48

2.2 Washroom Strongly

Agree Agree

Not

Sure Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. All equipment is in optimal working conditions.

b. Spacing of the washroom is adequate.

c. Doors of the wash room can be closed properly.

d. Dustbin is available inside the washroom.

e. Water supply to the washroom is satisfactory.

3. Cleanliness

3.1 Garbage Bin Strongly

Agree Agree

Not

Sure Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. There are enough numbers of bins.

b. Garbage bins are properly closed.

c. Garbage bins are not overflowed.

d. Bins are not disrupted by animals.

3.2 Dining Area Strongly

Agree Agree

Not

Sure Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. Tables are properly cleaned.

b. Flies are well controlled.

c. Floor is properly cleaned.

d. Disturbance by the stray animals are not present.

e. Adequate numbers of wash basins are available.

f. All the taps are in working condition.

g. Soap or hand washing liquids are available for use.

3.3 Utensils Strongly

Agree Agree

Not

Sure Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. Provided plates, cups and spoons area clean.

49

3.4 Sanitation of the WASHROOM Strongly

Agree Agree

Not

Sure Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. Maintenance of the washroom is satisfactory.

b. Soap or Hand washing liquids are available for use.

4. Customer Service

4.1 Customer Service Strongly

Agree Agree

Not

Sure Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. Adequate number of people is there to serve the food.

b. Speed of the service is satisfactory.

c. Cleanliness of the servers is satisfactory.

d. Servers are very polite.

SECTION D: Customer Own Experience

Q 1) Normally how long do you wait in the queue to buy lunch?

1. Less than 2 mins 2. 2-5 mins 3.6-10 mins 4.11-15 mins 5. More than 15 mins

Q 2) Were the lunch packets over by the time you got there during lunch hours(12pm-1.15pm) ?

1. Never 2.Sometimes 3. Frequently 4.Very Frequently 5. Always

Q 3) Have you ever been served with food which is in unsuitable condition for consumption?


Q 4) Have you ever been provided with expired food items ?


Q 5) Have you ever been treated food poisoning after consuming food from canteen?


THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION!