UCSD STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2001 - 2002 - 2003 - 2004 HOUSING & DINING DEPARTMENT RATINGS Prepared For: University of California-San Diego SUTTON.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
March 2008 Casual Dining Executive Summary – Talking Points –
Advertisements

Sim 1: Market Survey. Step 1 Step 1 Look at larges demographic (couples)
The 2005 Chicken Consumer Market Survey Results Steve Kernen Vice President of Sales and Marketing Amick Farms Chicken Marketing Seminar 2005 Funding for.
WHAT OAKLAND SUDENTS ARE EATING. DO YOU LIVE ON CAMPUS?
1. FOOD QUALITY ON KMU CAMPUS RESEARCHERS: EX AMPLE DEM ONSTRATION 2.
Survey of Stakeholders Survey Participants 113 participants in 2010 versus 112 in 2006.
Chapter 6 Food and Beverage Operations
4 The World of Food and Beverages. 4 The World of Food and Beverages.
Survey of 1,135 Voters in Wichita October 2007 Preliminary Results of a Scientific Survey of 1,135 Voters in Wichita Conducted October 2007 by WSU Marketing.
Survey results. 100% of all the people we surveyed in Melbourne's CBD agree that Melbourne caters for its multi-cultural popularity based on food.
Common Core Investigation 5.1. Today I will understand that information can be gained about a population by examining the sample where random sampling.
More Than Just Great Food: Factors Influencing Customer Traffic in Restaurants Emily Moravec Megan Siems Christine Van Horn.
UC San Diego Financial Perspective How do we look to resource providers? Customer Perspective How do customers see us? Internal Process Perspective Are.
1 Implementing the New Business Architecture University of California, San Diego January 18, 2006.
Types of Foodservice.
C o n f i d e n c e p e r f o r m a n c e d i s t i n c t i o n q u a l i t y Nursing Facility Family Satisfaction Survey Report Prepared for: Wiley Mission.
How much was your average salary? Take your average salary and divide by 12. You now have your gross annual income (This does not include taxes.)
Matthew P. Casey & Associates welcomes the opportunity to discuss the importance, integration, and role of the supermarket pharmacy in completing detailed.
Cochise College Center for Economic Research Cochise College CENTER FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH Economic Outlook Sierra Vista, AZ.
University of California San Diego By Robert DeMario
Consumer Preferences For New Foodservice Chicken Products Survey Results 2011 Funding Provided by WATT Poultry USA and Givaudan Flavors Chicken Marketing.
Rates, Unit Rates, and Percent Problems
National Food Service Management Institute Section 7: Vendor Choices 1 Section 7: Vendor Choices (Step 4) Food Purchasing for Child Care Centers.
February 28 th, 2012 Research Brief: Leveraging Marketing Research to Help Solve Management’s Decision Problem By: David Schwartz MSBA, MBA, MSc.
Salt Lake City Golf Division 2008 Overall Chart Report for 2,178 surveys received *service provided by Six Star Solutions, Inc*
Tom Miller Director, Corporate Response Centers FileNet Corporation.
PIZZA WAREHOUSES Manufacturing Unique Marketing Solutions.
© & ® Happyornot Ltd All Rights reserved. Patent pending. All other trademarks belong to their respective owners. The.
Jamestown Parks & Recreation Survey Results 2007.
Oregon Department of Education 2006 School Health Profiles Report Weighted Principal Survey Results.
Example City 1 Citizen Satisfaction. 2 Measuring Citizen Satisfaction Q: How do you measure citizen satisfaction? A: Ask the “Ultimate Question”
UTEP Office of Research and Sponsored Projects Results from Spring 2004 Satisfaction Survey SOURCE: UTEP Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research.
AACN – 2005 STRATEGIC RESEARCH STUDY Prepared for: AACN Prepared by: Research Dimensions International Date: September 2005.
PrePay Online Survey Results 2014 Based on 348 responses.
Membership Survey Survey Prepared by Bristol Omnifacts Research Lunenburg Yacht Club February 2008.
Copyright © 2015, 2010, and 2007 Pearson Education, Inc. 1 Chapter 7 Data, Graphs, and Statistics.
Chapter 8 Monthly Inventory and Monthly Food Cost Principles of Food, Beverage, and Labour Cost Controls, Second Canadian Edition.
LINKS Evaluation. Why evaluate? Evaluation of the LINKS Advising Program is particularly important in this pilot year. It gives participating staff, students.
©2004 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Introduction to Hospitality Management, First Edition John Walker CHAPTERCHAPTER CHAPTERCHAPTER.
Town of Vail Events June 3 rd - August 1st Objectives and Methodology The objectives of this study were to:  Understand who is attending Town of.
Copyright © 2015 by Dr. Wendy Tietz. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. What type of responsibility.
Splash Screen. 1.A 2.B 3.C 4.D Five Minute Check 1 (over Lesson 8-3) Which choice shows a stem-and-leaf plot for the set of data? 11, 32, 21, 43, 57,
R OYCE H ALL - An iconic building of UCLA - One of the original four buildings.
The Service is Great Chapter 7. What kind of eating place is this? It’s a café. What kind of food do they serve? Cafés usually server foods like snacks,
In what situations do we use each type of graph?
© 2007 Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ All Rights Reserved. Walker: Introduction to Hospitality Management, 2 nd edition Chapter 6 Food.
Gator Dining Survey Project AEB 4309 Dr. Allen F. Wysocki.
West Richland City Council Update February 2016.
Chapter 3: Section 2 Measures of Variance. Paint Comparison: How many months will they last??? Brand ABrand B Average for Brand.
BIS 155 Academic professor/tutorialrank.com For more course Tutorials
2011 RTD Customer Satisfaction Research Results: Executive Summary – Ops Committee March 2013.
Best Fast Food French Fries?. Fry facts
C.A.R. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS June 5, 2008 Joel Singer Executive Vice President California Association of REALTORS®
BIS 155 UOP Course Tutorial For more course tutorials visit
Chapter 8 Monthly Inventory and Monthly Food Cost Principles of Food, Beverage, and Labour Cost Controls, Canadian Edition.
Driver Rating Program.  Why Evaluate Driver Performance?  Easily identify problem areas to develop management strategy.  Identify specific driver deficiencies.
food goods clothes bicycles sports leisure computers & electronics.
King abdul Aziz university Tourism institute KAUTI
Scoring the Technical Evaluation Maximum possible score
Chapter 3 The Income Statement 1.
4 The World of Food and Beverages. 4 The World of Food and Beverages.
Data Analysis AMA Collegiate Marketing Research Certificate Program.
US Chicken Consumption
Springfield Town Center
5A Unit 3 Places to eat.
Canyon Vista Administrative and Dining Facility East: Inaccessible Element
Dined at a Sit-Down Restaurant at Least 4x (Past 2 Weeks)
Chapter 5.
Potato Opportunity Analysis
Dining Services RFP - Building Floor Plans
Presentation transcript:

UCSD STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY HOUSING & DINING DEPARTMENT RATINGS Prepared For: University of California-San Diego SUTTON ASSOCIATES

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/20042 DINING SERVICES - PAST 6-MONTHS USAGE UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: *New restaurant for 2003 ** New restaurant for 2004 Percent Evaluating:2004 = 90.7% 2003 = 87.1% 2002 = 82.2% 2001 = 76.1% Base: Those who have eaten at/used at least one of these restaurants n = 2905 for for for for 2001

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/20043 SATISFACTION WITH DINING SERVICES UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: Satisfaction Mean Score Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio: ‘ ‘ ** ‘ ** ‘ ** Average Percent Evaluating:2004 = 98.5% 2003 = 98.8% 2002 = 97.7% 2001 = 96.8% n = 2556 for for for for 2001 Service Attributes - Dining Services * Not asked prior to %Extremely 32.2%Very 50.5%Somewhat 9.5%Not Very 1.7%Not At All 2004 Overall %

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/20044 SATISFACTION WITH DINING SERVICES Plaza Café UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: Satisfaction Mean Score Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio: ‘ ‘ ** ‘ ** ‘ ** Average Percent Evaluating:2004 = 98.5% 2003 = 99.1% 2002 = 98.1% 2001 = 95.9% Service Attributes - Dining Services/Plaza Cafe n =409 for for for for %Extremely 28.8%Very 55.1%Somewhat 10.5%Not Very 2.3%Not At All 2004 Overall % * Not asked prior to 2004

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/20045 SATISFACTION WITH DINING SERVICES Sierra Summit UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: Satisfaction Mean Score Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio: ‘ ‘ ** ‘ ** ‘ ** Average Percent Evaluating:2004 = 98.7% 2003 = 98.9% 2002 = 97.9% 2001 = 96.8% Service Attributes - Dining Services/Sierra Summit n =445 for for for for %Extremely 34.2%Very 50.1%Somewhat 7.6%Not Very 1.8%Not At All 2004 Overall % * Not asked prior to 2004

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/20046 SATISFACTION WITH DINING SERVICES Canyon Vista UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: Satisfaction Mean Score Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio: ‘ ‘ ** ‘ ** ‘ ** Service Attributes - Dining Services/Canyon Vista 7.6%Extremely 25.0%Very 55.5%Somewhat 10.1%Not Very 1.8%Not At All 2004 Overall % n =443 for for for for 2001 Average Percent Evaluating:2004 = 98.7% 2003 = 99.1% 2002 = 97.3% 2001 = 97.7% * Not asked prior to 2004

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/20047 SATISFACTION WITH DINING SERVICES Ocean View UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: Satisfaction Mean Score Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio: ‘ ‘ ** ‘ * * ‘ ** Service Attributes - Dining Services/Ocean View 6.1%Extremely 40.4%Very 45.4%Somewhat 7.3%Not Very 0.8%Not At All 2004 Overall % n =490 for for for for 2001 Average Percent Evaluating:2004 = 98.7% 2003 = 98.8% 2002 = 97.9% 2001 = 97.2% * Not asked prior to 2004

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/20048 SATISFACTION WITH DINING SERVICES Club Med UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: Satisfaction Mean Score Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio: ‘ ‘ ** ‘ ** ‘ ** Service Attributes - Dining Services/Club Med 22.2%Extremely 38.9%Very 22.2%Somewhat 16.7%Not Very 0.0%Not At All 2004 Overall % n =19 for for for for 2001 Average Percent Evaluating:2004 = 97.8% 2003 = 93.9% 2002 = 98.0% 2001 = 99.5% * Not asked prior to 2004

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/20049 SATISFACTION WITH DINING SERVICES Price Center Food Court UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: Satisfaction Mean Score Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio: ‘ ‘ ** ‘ * * ‘ * * Service Attributes - Dining Services/Food Court 9.7%Extremely 34.3%Very 43.3%Somewhat 12.7%Not Very 0.0%Not At All 2004 Overall % n =139 for for for for 2001 Average Percent Evaluating:2004 = 98.1% 2003 = 96.9% 2002 = 97.3% 2001 = 96.7% * Not asked prior to 2004

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/ SATISFACTION WITH DINING SERVICES Foodworx* UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: Satisfaction Mean Score Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio: ‘ ‘ **** Service Attributes - Dining Services/Foodworx * New restaurant for 2003 ** Not asked prior to %Extremely 31.0%Very 50.4%Somewhat 11.3%Not Very 1.1%Not At All 2004 Overall % n =288 for for 2003 Average Percent Evaluating:2004 = 98.6% 2003 = 99.0%

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/ SATISFACTION WITH DINING SERVICES Café Ventanas* UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: Satisfaction Mean Score Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio: ‘ Service Attributes - Dining Services/Café Ventanas * New restaurant in %Extremely 31.0%Very 51.0%Somewhat 9.8%Not Very 3.3%Not At All 2004 Overall % n =323 for 2004 Average Percent Evaluating:2004 = 97.4% 2004

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/ DINING SERVICES - SNACK BAR AND CONVENIENCE STORES UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: Satisfaction Mean Score Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio: ‘ ‘ ‘ * ‘ * * New for 2003 n = 2905 for for for for 2001 Extremely Very Somewhat Not Very Not At All Average Percent Evaluating:2004 = 52.4% 2003 = 49.7% 2002 = 49.8% 2001 = 64.2%

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/ Satisfaction Mean Score Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio: ‘ ‘ ‘ * New question for 2002 n = 999 for for for 2002 Percent Evaluating:2004 = 91.9% 2003 = 95.1% 2002 = 92.8% DINING SERVICES - TRITONPLUS ACCOUNT* UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: %Extremely 38.5%Very 14.2%Somewhat 3.2%Not Very 1.0%Not At All 2004 Overall %

SUTTON ASSOCIATES 2732/2004 deptrate.ppt r1 3/19/ SATISFACTION WITH HOUSING SERVICES UCSD Student Satisfaction Survey: Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio: ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Satisfaction Mean Score n = 2905 for for for for 2001 Average Percent Evaluating:2004 = 84.6% 2003 = 83.0% 2002 = 79.1% 2001 = 75.4% Service Attributes - Housing Services 17.0%Extremely 48.1%Very 29.8%Somewhat 3.2%Not Very 1.9%Not At All 2004 Overall %