A PROJECT ON

CONSUMERS PERCEPTION ON FOOD APPS

A report submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the award of the Degree

of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

in
Quantitative Techniques
by
Akankshya Tripathy - 230402100013
Rajashree Paikaray - 230402100014
Prangya Sarangi – 230402100017
Pooja Jyoti Mohanty – 230402100019

Guided by: -

Dr. Jyotirmayee Sahoo

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
CENTURION UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT
BHUBANESWAR, ODISHA,
2023-25
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project entitled “Consumer Perception On Food Apps”
being submitted to the faculty of Management, Centurion University Technology
and Management is a bonafide work of MS. RAJASHREE PAIKARAY, carried out
under my / our supervision, is in accordance with the standards prescribed by the
university for the award of the degree of Master Of Business Administration of this
University. It is to further certify to the best of my / our knowledge, that this work has
not been submitted earlier in this institute and the university or elsewhere for the
award of any degree or diploma.

Signature of Co- Supervisor Signature of Supervisor

Name of Co- Supervisor with designation Name of Supervisor with designation

SIGNATURE

Dr. Chinmay Das

DEPARTMENT SEAL

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the Project entitled “Consumer Perception On Food Apps”

submitted for the Master of Business Administration is my original work and the

project has not formed the basis for the award of any Degree / Diploma or any other

similar titles in any other University / Institute.

Name of the Student: Akankshya Tripathy - 230402100013

Rajashree Paikaray - 230402100014
Prangya Sarangi – 230402100017
Pooja Jyoti Mohanty – 230402100019

Signature of the Student:

Place: BHUBANESWAR

Date:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 I wish to express my profound and sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Jyotirmayee
Sahoo, Department of Master of Business Administration (MBA), Bhubaneswar
Campus, who guided me into the intricacies of this thesis nonchalantly with
matchless magnanimity.
I thank Prof. Dr. Girija Nandini, Head of the Dept. of Department of Master of
Business Administration, Bhubaneswar Campus and Prof. Chinmay Das, Dean,
School of Management, Bhubaneswar Campus for extending their support during
the Course of this investigation.

I am highly grateful to ……. who evinced keen interest and invaluable support in
the progress and successful completion of my thesis work.
I am indebted to ………………. for their constant encouragement, co-operation
and help. Words of gratitude are not enough to describe the accommodation and
fortitude which they have shown throughout my endeavor.
Name of the Student: Akankshya Tripathy - 230402100013
Rajashree Paikaray - 230402100014
Prangya Sarangi – 230402100017
Pooja Jyoti Mohanty – 230402100019
Signature of the Student:

Registration No: 230402100014

Place: BHUBANESWAR

Date:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

CERTIFICATE 2

DECLARATION 3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4

ABSTRACT 7

1. CHAPTER – 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the study 8
1.2. Research aim 9
1.3. Research Question 10
1.4. Objectives 10
1.5. Hypothesis 10
2. CHAPTER – 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. TAM Theory 11
2.2. Perception 11
2.3. Consumer perception 12
2.4. On e- commerce 12
2.5. Digital payment 12
2.6. On food apps 13
3. CHAPTER – 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHOD
3.1 Research design 15
3.2 Research design 15
3.3 Research Philosophy 15
3.4 Research approach 15
3.5 Research method 15
4. CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Descriptive analysis 18
4.2 Hypothesis testing 31
5. CHAPTER – 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Findings 35
5.2 Conclusion 36

REFERENCES
 ABSTRACT
This report is about a research article “Consumer perception on food apps” where the objective of
this research is to examine the consumer perception on food apps and to analyse the factors that
influences consumer perception towards food apps. To understand the research deeper, a survey
method was conducted where a questionnaire was sent to all segments of people like age, gender and
income and the questionnaire was designed on the basis of TAM model. A T-Test analysis was also
undertaken to give a better interpretation about this study and an overall conclusion is given
regarding the learning from this research about how people perceived food apps, how this research
could be done better and what learnings did the researcher learned during this research project.
Keywords: - Consumer Perception, Zomato, Swiggy, Food apps, Digital Payments, Consumer
Buying Behaviour, Business.

CHAPTER-1
1.INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Zomato is one of the leading online food delivery services, and recently, it acquired
UberEATS for around $350 million. This resulted in capturing nearly 50-55% of the market share in
terms of numbers of orders, getting ahead of their closest competitor Swiggy (ETtech. 2020). Swiggy
started in 2014, and made a late entry into a vast market, and the only competition was Zomato,
which was the leader of the food tech industry. Within 4 years, Swiggy has joined an elite list of
start-ups, and their competition with Zomato is so severe and intense at present that the latter is
investing in hundreds of crores to catch up with Swiggy (Livemint, 2020). Since the merger of
Zomato and UberEATS, there is an expectation that the market share is going to reach between 50-
55% on the basis of current numbers thus overtaking Swiggy. Overall, the competition between
Swiggy and Zomato has been intense, but Swiggy is at the top with the highest repeat order rates,
and it's the customer's favourite app to order from. According to a stat, about 90% of consumers
choose only Swiggy (ETtech, 2020). The Indian online food industry is expected to grow up to $12.3
billion by 2023. The global growth is 9.01%, the online food delivery market in India is growing at a
rate of 15%. Swiggy has sales of $1.5 billion, whereas Zomato is at sales of $800 million. Jointly
both the companies have delivered 96 million orders from April 2017 to March 2018.
(Visakhapatnam News, 2020). The diversity of applications including food apps, has become very
important for the business to innovate and enthral existing consumers. There is little evidence about
how the internet and mobile technology has supported consumers in meeting their daily demands by
using a display to order from their preferred restaurants. The importance of this research is that it
defines consumers' attitudes towards the utilizing of food apps, and how these apps have built-in
purchasing, planning, and socially enjoying meals and snacks (Levin, Heath, and LeVangie, 2015).
The increase in income of the family members, changing lifestyle and eating patterns have to lead to
an increase in market growth. The demand of food apps are growing coupled with affordable prices
and this has led to the growth of the business. (Business Insider, 2020).
The advent of technology has transformed various aspects of our daily lives, and one notable
area that has experienced significant change is the way people access and consume food. The
emergence of food delivery apps represents a paradigm shift in the food service industry, providing
consumers with unprecedented convenience and choice. With the tap of a finger, individuals can now
order a diverse range of cuisines and have them delivered to their doorstep, eliminating the need for
traditional dining experiences or cooking at home.
As these food delivery apps become increasingly ubiquitous, understanding consumer
perceptions becomes crucial for both businesses and researchers. Consumer perception encompasses
a myriad of factors, including user experience, reliability, affordability, and the overall satisfaction
derived from using these platforms. The preferences and attitudes of consumers towards food
delivery apps can have profound implications for the success of these platforms and the broader
dynamics of the food industry.
This study aims to delve into the intricate web of consumer perceptions surrounding food
delivery apps, seeking to unravel the factors that influence their choices and satisfaction levels. By
gaining insights into these perceptions, businesses operating in the food delivery sector can refine
their strategies, enhance user experiences, and tailor their services to meet the evolving expectations
of their customer base.
The popularity of food delivery apps can be attributed to various factors, including changing
consumer lifestyles, urbanization, and the increasing reliance on digital solutions for daily needs.
However, the success and sustainability of these platforms hinge on the perceptions and preferences
of the end-users. Therefore, exploring how consumers perceive and engage with food delivery apps
is crucial for businesses operating in this space as well as researchers seeking to comprehend the
broader implications of this technological shift.
Consumer perception is a multifaceted construct encompassing elements such as user
experience, trust, reliability, cost-effectiveness, and the overall satisfaction derived from using food
delivery apps. This study seeks to delve into these dimensions, aiming to uncover the nuances of
consumer attitudes and behaviors towards these platforms. By doing so, it aspires to provide valuable
insights for service providers to enhance the quality of their offerings, optimize user experiences, and
address potential pain points identified by consumers.
Moreover, understanding consumer perceptions towards food delivery apps is not only
pertinent to the industry stakeholders but also offers a lens through which broader societal trends can
be observed. The study will explore how these digital platforms contribute to or shape social
interactions, dining habits, and the overall food culture in contemporary urban environments.
 Moreover, in an era where technology continues to redefine the way people interact with the
world, understanding how individuals perceive and integrate food delivery apps into their lifestyles
provides valuable insights into the broader socio-cultural changes influenced by technological
advancements. This study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge by shedding light on the
evolving dynamics of consumer behavior in the context of food consumption and technology
adoption.
India holds the record for being one of the youngest populations around the world with the
average age standing at 27 years. The combination of a young demography and disposable income
has increased the demand for new-age platforms like food apps. This has resulted in impulsive
purchasing power because the willingness to try new products or services is high, thus leading to the
growth of food apps in India (Inc42 Media, 2020) (Business Insider, 2020).Overall, the author has
stated about the growth of food apps in India, how Swiggy and Zomato has started and changed the
consumers perceptions completely.

1.2 RESEARCH AIM:

The research aim is to examine the consumer's perception of online food delivery apps.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

• What is the consumer's perception about online food delivery apps?
• What are the factors that have influenced consumer perception towards online food delivery apps?

1.4 OBJECTIVES:
• To examine the consumer's perception regarding online food delivery apps.
• To analyse the factors that influence consumer's perception towards online food delivery apps.

1.5 HYPOTHESIS:
 FIGURE 1: TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL.
Source: (Alagoz and Hekimoglu, 2012)

The TAM model explains how customers use food apps in relationship with new technology and the
various factors that influence users decisions on using food apps.

CHAPTER-2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW:
The author has incorporated and applied various learnings pertaining to consumer’s perception on
food apps.
2.1 TAM THEORY:
Davis (1989) used the TAM theory to explain customer usage towards technology. The TAM theory
explains the determinants of computer acceptance using customer’s behavior and perception over a
broad range of end-users computer technologies. (Lai, 2017).
The technology acceptance model (TAM) theory explains the use of new technology amongst users
or customers. The TAM theory puts emphasis on perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness
while explaining the customer’s perception and usage of the new technology. According to the
research of Davis (1989), it describes the former option as effortless for customers using a particular
system, whereas the latter option states that a person using a particular system would improve their
productive output. Rogers (2003) research describes innovation as an idea or perceived by
individuals in different manners. Trust is the foundation of a consumer’s belief and faith in food
apps. It is a very vital factor that influences and molds customer’s understanding of food apps. Hung
(2006) believes that customers get influenced by external and interpersonal factors, which are
important in the behavior of customers using food apps (Alagoz and Hekimoglu, 2012).
The author has reviewed that the TAM model is useful in food apps as it changes people’s perception
by moving from telephone to ordering via phone however some people wouldn’t use TAM model for
ordering food instead use the old way of ordering food that is telephone.
2.2 PERCEPTION:
According to Brown et al. (2000), teenagers prefer food based on the nutritional factor as well as
other important external factors like home, school, and social environment taking into consideration
the hygiene and cleanliness around. Aaker (2000) feels that brand awareness is very crucial in
consumer perception, especially based on their buying pattern. Kumar et al. (1987) examined the
various factors that affect buying decisions of a large number of respondents for a range of food
products. factors like brand of the product is a crucial factor because consumers get attracted towards
a brand quickly whereas income and age are dependent factors.
Consumer perception is the application of the concept of sensory perception to marketing and
advertising. Just like sensory perception relates to humans and how they process sensory stimuli
through their five senses, the same consumer perception relates to how individual form their own
opinion regarding the apps and the products they offer through the choice of purchases they make.
The theory of consumer perception is about how the customers form their views about any online or
e-commerce product or website. The same method they use forms the basis for developing marketing
and advertising strategies so that they can retain their old customers and attract new ones (Kumar,
2017).
Furthermore, perception is a process by which people select, organize, and interpret sensations,
which is the quick response of the sensory receptors like eye, nose, ear to essential stimuli like color
or odor. Anything that activates a receptor is known as the stimulus. The study of perception only
focusses on how the consumer reacts for them to reach a decision. Each individual has their unique
reaction to stimulus and how it is consistent with their own unique biases, needs, and experiences.
Overall perception talks about selecting, organizing, and interpreting to derive a meaning which
would affect decision making. For example, what is seen or heard in an advertisement, smelt, or
whilst touching a product, the customer receives information inputs, and these processes are
collectively known as perception (Madichie, 2012).
2.3 CONSUMER PERCEPTION AND BUYING BEHAVIOUR:
Engel et al. (2005) define consumer behavior as the activities involved directly in obtaining,
consuming, and disposing of products and services, which includes the decision processes and follow
up of their actions. Schiffman and Kanuk (2010) state that consumer behavior is the process that a
consumer applies while purchasing, using and disposing of a product, service, and ideas which they
accept and which overall fulfills their needs. Mowen (1995), in his research paper, conceptualizes
decision making as problem-solving. This is helpful in understanding and analyzing. Knowledge and
level of Involvement is the relevance perceived by the purchaser and the importance linked to the
product and brand choice. Complex buying behavior is when the product is unaffordable, bought
infrequently, and the knowledge consumers have regarding the differences among the alternatives.
The decisionmaking process has attracted a lot of researchers, which develops the understanding of
logic and how the purchasers use their minds between the choices of two or more options. (Misra,
Katiyar and Dey, 2013).
2.4 CONSUMER PERCEPTION ON APPS/E-COMMERCE:
According to the research paper of Rajesh and Purushothaman (2013),“Consumers Perception
towards online”, shopping based on e-shopping is very popular due to ease of convenience and low
prices. During holidays, online shopping is a savior for an individual from having to go to different
shops and waiting in long queues to buy an item. The internet has revolutionized the consumer’s
shopping habits of purchasing goods and has proved to be a global success. A lot of companies have
started using the internet with their aim of cutting marketing costs, reducing the price of products to
counter competition. Silpa and Balasubramanian (2016) conducted a study that talks about “people
perception towards online shopping.” In this survey, a lot of people find online shopping better and
easier option, though some found it challenging. A lot of people think that online shopping will be
more in demand than offline shopping. In the future, online marketing has a vast scope, and people
will prefer cash on delivery (Manjunatha, 2018).
2.5 CONSUMER PERCEPTION ON DIGITAL PAYMENT:
Bamasak (2011) came up with a point about the future of e – payment. Illegal use via mobile phones
and the security involved were the main issues in digital payments. Liu et al. (2012) found out that
digital wallet payment gives the consumer added convenience by providing flexible payment options
and an increase in the speed of transactions. Padashetty and Kishore (2013) explain the ease of use,
express mode of use, and trust adopted in digital payment through wallets, and they act as motivators
to bring in digital payments. Other factors like innovativeness, incentives, convenience, and legal
provisions have contributed towards the improvement of e-payment. According to Roubiah (2015),
factors like poor security, lack of trust, fear of failure, high charges, and inadequate familiarity are
the main issues that affect e-payments. Other than safety, internet banking facilities and privacy also
affect epayments (Hariharan and Selvakumar, 2018).
E-payment on mobile phones has been a practice since many years. Also, a lot of consumers prefer
to use mobile phones for making payments. Digital wallet has become an important component for
the consumers. The Digital wallet gives many benefits like convenience, security, and affordability.
The increase in technology has allowed this mode of payments to be the most convenient and easy
form of transaction. It is also accessible and acceptable. Consumers are inclined towards mobile
payments, which offer benefits like flexible payment wallet brands and offer convenience to the
customers. Factors such as perceived ease of use, express mode of use and trust enhances the
adoption of the digital wallet as a form of payment. Digital wallet payments add convenience to
shoppers by adding various payment additions. Shin and Ziderman in the research paper “Study of
consumer perception on digital payment” in 2016, tested a model of consumers accepting mobile
payment, which is known as the theory of acceptance and use of technology, which builds upon
security, trust, social influence, and self-efficiency. Digital wallets offer a convenient way of
payment for consumers without them having to swipe their debit or credit cards (Singh and Rana,
2020).
2.6 CONSUMER PERCEPTION ON FOOD APPS:
Customers’ point of view towards online food purchases show their comfort in using food apps.
Even their preference among the mobile food apps are the choice of perception based on consumer
feedback. The smart system has cut down on paperwork and time taken by a waiter at the restaurant
to write down the order because technology is utilized to deliver the food at any given point of time.
In retrospect, these new technologies based on food ordering, have become a concern regarding
healthy dining. This can be adapted towards a healthy diet along with customized diet plans (Preetha
and Iswarya, 2019).
According to Murat, Alagoz and Hekimoglu’s research (2012), e-commerce is growing extensively
worldwide, and has led to an increase in the growth of the food industry. The researchers have
adopted the Technology Acceptance Model as a base to understand online food ordering apps. The
attitude of consumers towards online food ordering like Swiggy and Zomato has made it accessible
and useful for ordering online. Furthermore, it also varies with respect to innovation in information
technology, attitude towards e-commerce websites and external factors like social media, friends,
and family. According to Chavan (2015), smartphone mobile interface for the consumers to track
their orders and follow up has given an advantage to restaurants in delivering orders to consumers
quickly. The analysis has come up with the conclusion that ordering food online is convenient,
effective, and easy to use, which is expected to improve day by day. The research of Sethu and Saini
(2016) was to analyze the perception, behavior, and enjoyment involved in ordering food online.
Furthermore, the study shows that online food ordering is time efficient due to the options available
to them. They can view their favorite food online at any time through free access to the internet. The
research paper of Kimes (2011) “An Analysis of Online Food Ordering Applications in India:
Zomato and Swiggy”, perceived control and convenience in food apps are essential for the users as
well as to non-users (Saxena, 2020).
The study done by Bhatnagar, Misra, and Rao (2000) has attempted to study the risk, convenience,
and behavior of ordering from food apps. They found marital status of individuals does not impact
the purchase behavior of the customers and found mixed results based on gender, internet usage
timeframe and age. Baveja and Rastogi (2000) have found that customer loyalty on the internet is
key to long term profitability. Loyal online customers, similar to offline customers, spend time,
recommend friends and family, and try to research thoroughly when they purchase anything. The
online retailers who have carved out the factor of building customer loyalty will help them to become
profitable (Chaturvedi and Karthik, 2020).
According to the research of Rastogi’s (2010) study, it describes that 44% of students use the
Internet pan India, and 72% of youngsters use the internet every day. Factors affecting ease of use,
usefulness and enjoyment are linked to other factors like consumer individuality, situational factors,
product distinctiveness, previous online shopping and having faith in online shopping and these have
shaped the behavior of an online shopper. The research of Mr. Chorneukar (2014) specifies that food
apps are recommended to customers by their friends, family or peers. However, some people use
telephone as the primary communication to use food apps. Sethu and Saini’s (2016) study discusses
the penetration of food apps online as being high. The service providers try to keep the quality stable.
Factors like culture, socio-economic, reference group, and household and intrinsic factors like
experience, personality and self-image, and perception and attitudes have influenced the decisions of
consumers to order online (Laddha, 2019).
According to Chavan et al. (2015), digital apps like Zomato and Swiggy are downloaded on mobile
phones so that customers can place orders. The smartphone replaced the personal digital interface to
provide customers with a better interface to view a menu or track their orders. With a safe login
system, customers have the freedom to view a list, place their order anytime, navigate their order,
receive updates about their food, and make an online payment. Bhandge et al. (2015) have come up
with an automated food ordering system that will help in keeping track of orders efficiently.
According to Bhargave et al. (2013), online ordering will help in increasing the efficiency in
restaurant operations as well by being time-efficient for the customers while ordering online.
Dabholkar (1995) states that aptly designed online ordering systems will give customers control on
the choice of food available and the amount of transactions which limit the personal interaction they
witness (Ghosh and Saha, 2020).
The Wireless Food Ordering System is a system that unites the concept of intranet and wireless
technology. This system provides the user a pathway to gain information about the data and services
from a faraway server, which enables the user to obtain information about the central databases
distributed throughout the restaurant business. Most of the mobile devices have executed and support
wireless technology. Hence, mobile devices are an essential hardware component that are used to
help this system to allow the user to gain access to the database for data retrieval. The system
requires the user to build a network within the restaurant, and there will be a central database server,
which belongs to the web. The customer can perform data recapture by utilizing mobile devices like
PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) linked to the wireless access point (Sonu et al, 2019).

CHAPTER-3
3. RESEARCH METHODLODY AND RESEARCH METHOD:
The author has applied specific procedures to study the overall validity and reliability of the
Questionnaire by applying quantitative approach.
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN:
The author has applied specific procedures to study the overall validity and reliability of the
Questionnaire by applying quantitative approach.
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN:
Research design is a process that gives an appropriate framework to a study. A critical decision in
research design is the right choice of conducting a research approach since it determines how to get
useful information from a review (Sileyew, 2019).
3.3 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY:
Positivist research objectives talk about how the social world is understood through impartially. The
basis of this research philosophy, the scientist, is an objective analyst and based on that, it separates
him from personal values and independent work. Pragmatist research philosophy talks about facts. It
declares that the research problem determines the philosophy. In this research philosophy, the
practical results are essential (Žukauskas ,Vveinhardt, and Andriukaitienė, 2018).
3.4 RESEARCH APPROACH:
The deductive approach focuses on the development of a hypothesis from an existing theory and
planning a research plan to check the explanation. The usefulness of the deductive approach is in
business research during the following stages (Research-Methodology, 2019):
1. Develop a hypothesis from a theory.
2. Planning out the hypothesis in working terms and suggesting relationships between two variables.
3. Assessing the hypothesis with the help of various methods, which are quantitative methods like
regression and correlation analysis.
4. Studying the outcome, thus resulting in confirming or rejecting the theory.
3.5 RESEARCH METHOD:
The research will be according to the survey method as it covers a wider range of people as
compared to other research methods and ensures accurate result to draw conclusions.
QUANTITATIVE METHOD:
This method deals with numbers and analysis to get results from particular research or data. It
consists of the utilization and analysis of statistical data, utilizing the analytical tool of the response
towards questions (Apuke, 2017).

QUALITATIVE METHOD:
This method is a live exercise where questions are asked on the field. It comprises of interpretive,
material practices, which enables the world to visualize. The world turns into a range of variables
like interviews, conversations, photographs, and memos. The qualitative method consists of an
interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world (Sagepub, 2019).
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN:
The questionnaire was designed in order to gain insight into people’s different perspectives of food
apps. The questionnaire was prepared through a survey method designed online via Google forms
and sent across to people through social media platforms. The questionnaire was prepared on the
basis of 5 hypotheses, which were derived earlier while making the questionnaire, which were: the
ease of use, perceived ease of use, trust, external influence, and innovation. The questionnaire was
designed to understand consumers perception of food apps.
The basic reason for using the TAM theory in this questionnaire is broadly used in the Information
technology and talks about the impact of perceived ease of use and usefulness on the basis of
individuals using IT systems. (Lanlan, Ahmi and Popoola, 2019). In this questionnaire, the usage of
TAM theory is to understand the perception of customers based on questions under 5 hypothesis.
A question based on the efficiency of using food apps is perceived usefulness, whether the customers
are skillful enough to handle food apps. The flexibility of using food apps among customers is
perceived ease of use wherein the customers have no problems, and it’s easy for them to use without
facing any hurdles. It is described as effortless and a secure system while using the app. The real-
time tracker on food apps is an innovation for customers because they are able to track their food
right from the specific time they order till it is delivered to their doorstep. The food app will give
proper tracking on how long it will take for their food to get delivered. The trust involves the safety
of using the online payment method which the customer can use and do not encounter any problem
and the service quality as such. External influences include questions like the customer’s reviews and
posts on social media, whether the food app is excellent and convenient to use.
Overall there are 2 questions on the basis of perceived ease of usefulness and 3 on perceived
usefulness. 4 questions on innovation and 5 on external influence and 8 questions on the customer’s
trust while they use the food apps and 4 questions were based on basic usage of food apps.
The survey method is defined as the collection of information from a group of individuals through
their responses towards the questions. This format of research allows a range of methods to select
participants, collect data, and use various systems of instrumentation. The survey method can use a
quantitative or qualitative research strategy or even both (Ponto, 2015)
Closed questions are wherein the responses are limited to a fixed set of responses. They are various
types of questions like Yes/No – which is the most basic question, and the respondent has to give a
simple answer, multiple-choice – where the respondent has several options, and they have to choose
the appropriate option. Scaled questions are where the respondents grade their response on the basis
of scale, which is ranged from either 1 to 10 or 1 to 5. The perfect example of this type of this is the
Likert scale. This form of scale is a psychometric scale that employs a questionnaire to measure
social attitudes. For example: strongly agree, strongly disagree or don’t know. (Roopa and Rani,
2012)
Therefore, for the concept of this questionnaire, the questions were designed on the basis of multiple
choices and Likert scale questions. In the multiple-choice, the respondents can answer all the
questions or answer one based on their particular relevance, and in the Likert scale questions, the
rating scale ranges from 1-5 where 1 strongly agrees, and 5 strongly disagrees.
JUSTIFICATION:
The author has taken the survey method, and he will derive the information from quantitative data.
Survey questions will be conducted online and asked on various social media platforms where the
people have to answer at least 26 questions. It also talks about the satisfaction of people using online
apps for home delivery and the standards of the service quality and food provided to them and how it
varies from the given norm of ordering via telephone. Moreover, the survey method will also allow
people to give them the freedom of stating their point of view with regards to their experience of
ordering from online delivery apps.
The researcher will ask closed-ended questions in the form of multiple-choice questions or rating
scales. By asking these questions, the researcher will have quantitative information regarding
people’s preferences for using online food apps, and it will also give a clear idea about their
satisfaction levels.
Finally, observations will bring results through research methods and analysis will be derived at with
the help of the research data available to them thus finding information whether people are satisfied
with online food apps or not.
ADVANTAGES:
The benefit of using closed-ended questions is that it will be very efficient and bring a quick
response to the questions asked, and the immediate response will facilitate asking more and more
questions about a topic. Furthermore, there is no interview required to manage closed-ended matters
(Apuke, 2017) (Copeland, 2017).
DISADVANTAGES:
The drawback of close-ended questions is that the interviewer doesn’t have much information
regarding the respondents reasoning basis and choices. It is easy for a respondent who is not
informed about the survey to easily choose an answer rather than admitting the lack of knowledge,
which they have (Ary, Jacobs and Sorensen, 2010).
Overall, the questionnaire is conducted by the survey method and it was designed based on 5
hypothesis consisted of 26 questions.

CHAPTER-4
4. DATA ANALYSIS:
The analysis comprises of two sections; descriptive and hypothesis testing.
4.1 PART 1: DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS:
The researcher conducted a survey on the topic “A study on consumers perception on food apps”
where there were 26 questions. 5 hypothesis were framed to carry out the research and these
hypothesis were based on the TAM model and the hypothesis were perceived ease of use, perceived
usefulness, trust, external influence and innovation. The questionnaire consists of Likert scale(22
questions) and multiple choice questions(4) and a total of 143 respondents wherein all of them were
correct and the questionnaire was designed such that there was no scope for error.
CHART 1: FREQUENCY OF FOOD APPS:

FIGURE 2: FREQUENCY OF FOOD APPS

The first question was how frequent food apps are used by customers. 40.6% of respondents order it
occasionally whereas only 8.6% of respondents order it daily. It can be interpreted that food apps are
not used everyday because it is assumed that respondents prefer home cooked food over food
ordered from restaurant. Hence, the frequency of food app usage is occasional rather than frequent.

CHART 2: FOOD APPS PREFERENCE:

FIGURE 3: FOOD APPS PREFERENCE

The second question was based on which food app do customers prefer and according to the bar
graph about 70.6% of respondents use Swiggy and 0.7% of respondents prefer other food apps like
scootsy or they don’t use the app and prefer the old fashion way of ordering food via telephone. It
can be interpreted that maybe customers trust Swiggy because of their offers and efficient service
hence it can be seen that Swiggy is the most preferred food apps over other apps.
 CHART 3: PREFERABLE DAY TO USE FOOD APPS:

FIGURE 4: PREFERABLE DAY TO USE FOOD APPS.

The third question describes which part of the day do customers usually prefer to order food from
food apps and about 63.6% of respondents prefer ordering food in the evening as dinner or work
meal and 6.3% of respondents order food as breakfast. It can be assumed that most of the
respondents belong to the working population and don’t have time or are tired, hence find it more
convenient to order food online rather than cooking.
CHART 4: PREFERRED MODE OF PAYMENT:

FIGURE 5: PREFERRED MODE OF PAYMENT

The fourth question talks about the preferred mode of payment which is convenient for customers
and 63.6% of respondents prefer cash on delivery as compared to the 0.7% of respondents who
prefer other mode of payments like food coupon, amazon pay or apple pay. It can be assumed that
respondents don’t trust online payment due to privacy being breached or they feel unsafe to use
online payment hence they prefer to use cash on delivery.
CHART 5: FOOD AVAILABLE OF FOOD APPS ON THE BASIS OF TASTE:
 FIGURE 6: FOOD AVAILABLE OF FOOD APPS ON THE BASIS OF TASTE.
Question five mentions about whether the respondents get their food as per their preferred taste from
the food app, and majority of respondents(52) either agree to it or are on the fence means they have
and haven’t got their food according to their own taste at the rate of 36.4%. the lowest was the
respondents(7) who strongly disagree that they get their preferred food taste from food apps at 4.9%.
CHART 6: FLEXIBILITY OF FOOD APPS:

FIGURE 7:FLEXIBILITY OF FOOD APPS..

Question six talks about the flexibility of using food apps and 33.6% of respondents strongly agree
that food apps are flexible to use as compared to 6.3% of respondents who disagree that food apps
are flexible to use. It can be assumed that it is very easy to use, the most efficient way of ordering
food and customers can order food at any time of the day hence customers strongly agree that food
apps are flexible to use.
CHART 7: COST AFFORDABLIITY ON FOOD APPS:
 FIGURE 8: COST AFFORDABLIITY ON FOOD APPS.
The seventh question is about whether consumers find the cost of food affordable on food apps and
41.3% respondents lie in the middle of the spectrum where they either find food available affordable
or not and 3.5% of respondents strongly disagree that food on food apps are affordable. It can be
interpreted that maybe some customers find food affordable on food apps and some don’t find it
affordable and it is expensive hence it is shown that customers have mixed feelings regarding food
on food apps are affordable or not.
CHART 8: DIFFICULTY USING FOOD APPS:

FIGURE 9: DIFFICULTY USING FOOD APPS.

The eight question talks about the difficulty in using food apps. 37.5% of respondents strongly
disagree that food apps are difficult to use and 6.3% of respondents strongly agree that food apps are
difficult to use. It can be assumed that customers don’t find any complexity while using food apps
and it is the easiest method of ordering food. Hence it can be proved that customers don’t find it
difficult to use food apps.
 CHART 9: EFFICIENCY OF USING FOOD APPS:

FIGURE 10: EFFICIENCY OF USING FOOD APPS

The ninth questions mentions about the time efficiency while using the food apps and 31.5% of
respondents strongly agree that food apps are efficient to use and 6.3% of respondents strongly
disagree that food apps are efficient to use. It can be assumed that a food app is the swiftest way of
ordering food as compared to ordering via telephone and maybe customers have more time to make
their choice regarding what they want to order hence it is shown that food apps are efficient to use.
CHART 10: VARIETY IN FOOD APPS:

FIGURE 11: VARIETY IN FOOD APPS

The tenth question talks about the variety of restaurants available in food apps and 29.4% of
respondents strongly agree that there are variety of restaurants on food apps and 8.4% of respondents
strongly disagree that there is no variety of restaurants on food apps. It can be assumed that
customers who use food apps almost all the time find a choice of varied range of restaurants
available and hence it can be seen food apps offer the customers a large spectrum of restaurants.
 CHART 11: OFFERS ON FOOD APPS:

FIGURE 12: OFFERS ON FOOD APPS

The eleventh question talks about the influence of different offers on food apps like 1+1 delivery and
31.5% of respondents strongly agree that they get influenced by offers on food apps and 4.9% of
respondents disagree that they don’t get influenced by food apps. Maybe regular customers who use
food apps are aware of and up to date with respect to the various offers and discounts that’s why a lot
of customers get influenced by offers available on food apps and customers who use it rarely maybe
are not aware about offers on food apps that’s why there are less customers who disagree about it.
CHART 12: SAFETY OF ONLINE PAYMENTS:

FIGURE 13: SAFETY OF ONLINE PAYMENTS.

Question twelve asks about the safety in using online payments while ordering from food apps and
25.9% of respondents lie in between the spectrum where they have mixed feelings whether using
online payments and 11.9% of respondents disagree that online payments are safe and secure. The
reason why people have mixed feelings regarding this mode of payment maybe because they feel
that revealing their card information is not safe or they feel cash on delivery is the most trustful mode
of payment hence customers have mixed feelings over paying food online.
 CHART 13: SERVICE QUALITY IN FOOD APPS:

FIGURE 14: SERVICE QUALITY IN FOOD APPS..

The thirteenth questions talks about service quality influencing respondents perception on food apps.
36.4% of respondents strongly agree that they get influenced by service quality and 4.2% of
respondents strongly disagree that they get influenced by service quality on food apps. It can be
assumed that service quality is better in food apps as compared to ordering via telephone as
promptness and effectiveness are of higher standards which impact customer preferences. Hence it
can be seen that customers get influenced by food apps.
CHART 14: INNOVATION OF ONLINE TRACKING:

FIGURE 15: INNOVATION OF ONLINE TRACKING.

Fourteenth questions talks about the innovative feature of real time tracking to see whether
respondents find it innovative so 43.4% of respondents strongly agree that they find online tracking
innovative whereas 5.3% of respondents strongly disagree that online tracking is innovative. It can
be assumed that customers can find out how long it will take for their order to come or they can track
where their order is hence a majority of customers find online tracking innovative on food apps.
 CHART 15: ORDERING ON THE BASIS OF CUSTOMER REVIEWS:

FIGURE 16: ORDERING ON THE BASIS OF CUSTOMER REVIEWS.

The fifteenth question describes whether customer reviews will help the respondents order from that
particular restaurant which are tied up with food apps and 41.3% of respondents strongly agree
whereas 4.2% of respondents strongly disagree. It can be inferred that maybe customers believe
customer reviews of a particular restaurant and help them decide whether to order from that
restaurant or not.
CHART 16: CUSTOMER CARE RESPONDING TO COMPLAINTS:

FIGURE 17: CUSTOMER CARE RESPONDING TO COMPLAINTS.

The sixteenth question mentions about the customer care response to complaints made by
respondents and 25.6% are in the middle of the spectrum where customers complaints are either
responded to or not and 8.4% of respondents strongly disagree that customer care responds to their
complaints. It can be assumed that the food apps don’t have good customer care services, hence it
can be seen that people have mixed feelings towards customer care responses to their complaints in
food apps.
 CHART 17: USEFULNESS OF SPECIAL FEATURES IN FOOD APPS:

FIGURE 18: USEFULNESS OF SPECIAL FEATURES IN FOOD APPS.

Question seventeen is about the use of special features on food apps such as Zomato gold 1+1 and
Swiggy Super. 31.5% of respondents feel that special features are useful to them whereas 9,.8% of
respondents strongly disagree to the fact that special features are useful. Maybe the former set of
respondents initially got attracted to these special features, hence it can be seen that majority of
respondents find these special features useful on food apps.
CHART 18: INFLUENCED THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS:

FIGURE 19: INFLUENCED THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS.

Question eighteen talks about the influence of social media posts of using food apps and 28.7% of
respondents are in between the spectrum. 14.7% of respondents strongly agree that they get
influenced by social media posts on food apps. Maybe customer opinion is divided on whether social
media posts influence their preferences for food apps. Hence it can be proved that people have mixed
influences with regards to social media posts on using food apps.
 CHART 19: INFLUENCED THROUGH ADVERTISEMENTS:

FIGURE 20: INFLUENCED THROUGH ADVERTISEMENTS.

Question nineteen speaks about other external influences like TV or Youtube advertisements and
23.8% of respondents are evenly divided opinions wherein they agree or are neutral and 16.1% of
respondents disagree that they get influenced by advertisements. It is a clear interpretation that
respondents have mixed feelings whether they get influenced by advertisements are not.
CHART 20: INFLUENCED THROUGH FRIENDS AND FAMILIES:

FIGURE 21: INFLUENCED THROUGH FRIENDS AND FAMILIES.

Question twenty talks about customers getting influenced by friends and family for their choice on
food apps and 32.9% of respondents are neutral whereas 9.8% of respondents strongly disagree that
they get influenced by their friends and family for their choice of food apps. It can be interpreted that
maybe customers are better informed to take their own decisions on using food apps hence
respondents have neutral opinion and nearly 45% also rely on their friends family (option 1 and 2).
 CHART 21: IMPORTANCE OF HYGIENE FACTOR

FIGURE 22: IMPORTANCE OF HYGIENE FACTOR.

Twenty first question talks about the hygiene factor in food apps. 44.1% of respondents views
strongly agree and 3.5% of respondents strongly disagree with regards to the hygiene factor in food
apps. It can be assumed that respondents find hygiene a very crucial and vital factor hence the
hygiene rating factor is of importance to them in making a decision while ordering.

CHART 22: GETTING THE RIGHT QUANTITY ORDERING FROM FOOD APPS:

FIGURE 23: GETTING THE RIGHT QUANTITY ORDERING FROM FOOD APPS.
The twenty second question describes about the respondents getting sufficient quantity of food from
food apps. 35.7% of respondents have a neutral opinion and 5.6% of respondents strongly agree. The
assumption made is that customer may have faced problems wherein the quantity of food was
insufficient. Thus it can be seen that people have mixed expectations towards getting adequate
quantity of food when ordering from food apps.
 CHART 23: TWO WAY COMMUNICATION CHANNEL WHILE ORDERING:

FIGURE 24: TWO WAY COMMUNICATION CHANNEL WHILE ORDERING.

Question twenty three talks about two-way communication channel between the food app and
respondents and 36.4% of respondents have mixed opinion and 5.6% of 8 respondents totally
disagree that there is a two way communication channel. It can be assumed that the respondents may
not have met their expectations with regards to communication and hence they have mixed opinions
on the two way communication channel.
CHART 24: EASE OF USING CHAT BOT SUPPORTING SYSTEM:

FIGURE 25: EASE OF USING CHAT BOT SUPPORTING SYSTEM.

Question twenty four mentions about the innovative feature of automated chat bot system on food
apps and whether it is easy to use 30.1% respondents who have neutral opinion and 8.4% of
respondents strongly disagree to this question. An interpretation can be made that maybe
respondents may find it easy to use or they don’t have know how of usage hence it can be seen
that respondents have mixed opinion on the ease of using chat bot supporting system.

CHART 25: DELIVERY OF HOT AND FRESH FOOD FROM FOOD APPS:

FIGURE 26: DELIVERY OF HOT AND FRESH FOOD FROM FOOD APPS.
Question twenty five talks about the whether the food is delivered hot and fresh and 34.3% of
respondents have mixed opinion of getting their food delivered hot 5.6% of respondents strongly
disagree that they get their food hot and fresh which could be due to the fact that the restaurant takes
time in preparation of their food, the delivery boy takes time to deliver their food or they get their
food on time. Hence it can be seen that customers have mixed opinion whether they get their food
hot and fresh.
CHART 26: PACKAGING IN FOOD APPS:

FIGURE 27: PACKAGING IN FOOD APPS.

The last question describes about the food getting packed properly through food apps and 48.3% of
respondents strongly agree that they get their food packed properly from Swiggy or Zomato and
4.9% of respondents strongly disagree regarding the same. An assumption can be made that the
restaurant has an efficient packaging protocol in place and hence majority of the respondents
strongly agree that their expectation of food packaging is as per their liking.
PART 2: HYPOTHESIS TESTING (INTERPRETED ANALYSIS):
The analysis is done through the t-test sample where there are two variables. Variable 1 is heavy user
whereas variable 2 is light user.
HO1: there is no difference between heavy and light users with respect to perceived ease of
usefulness of app.
HA1: There is a difference between heavy and light users with respect to perceived ease of
usefulness of app.

FIGURE 28:HYPOTHESIS 1.
the alpha value is .05 and P value is .18 so the P value is more than the alpha value hence the results
states the null hypothesis cannot be rejected and there is no difference between the perceived ease of
usefulness of customer using food apps. The interpretation made is that there is no difference
between the heavy and light user with respect to the perceived ease of usefulness for respondents. In
both the categories the respondents find it easy to use food apps. Given that the scale used was Likert
scale with 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree, the mean value of heavy users category is 2.88
and the mean value for light users category 2 is 3.04. This indicates that the two categories of users
view the perceived usefulness of the app in a similar manner. The heavy user category is closer to the
agreement of the app being useful , however the difference between the two is not statistically
significant. less the mean more the usage from the test above, it states there is majority of heavy
users as compared to light users maybe the heavy users use food apps more frequently as compared
to light users.
HO2: there is no difference between heavy and light users with respect to perceived usefulness of
app.
HA2: There is a difference between heavy and light users with respect to perceived usefulness of
app.

FIGURE 29: HYPOTHESIS 2.

The alpha value is .05 and P value .00 so the P value is less than the alpha value hence the final result
is the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a difference between the perceived usefulness of
customers using food apps. The interpretation made there is a difference between heavy and light
user when it comes to perceived usefulness for respondents.
In both the categories the heavy user is skilful in using the food apps whereas the light user may find
it difficult to use. According to the Likert scale where 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree, the
mean value for heavy user is 2.03 and the mean for light user is 2.50. This shows that there is a
difference between the two categories of users and how they use the food apps. Maybe the heavy
user are using food apps practically all the time as compared to light users hence there is a difference
in perceived usefulness. Therefore less the mean more the usage and from the above test it states that
heavy users are more as compared to light users.
HO3: there is no difference between heavy and light users with respect to the trust on app.
HA3: There is a difference between heavy and light users with respect to the trust on app.
 FIGURE 30:HYPOTHESIS 3.
The alpha value is .05 and the p value is .00 so here the P value is more than the alpha value and the
null hypothesis is rejected and there is a difference between the trust of customers using food apps.
The interpretation made is that there is a difference in trust using food apps between heavy and light
users. According to the Likert scale where 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree, the mean
value for heavy users is 2.18 and the mean value for light users is 2.63. this shows there is a
difference of .45 between the categories maybe the heavy users trust using food apps more as
compared to the light users who may find it unsafe to use food apps. Lesser the mean, more the
usage and hence it is proved that there are large amount of heavy users who trust food apps as
compared to the light users.
HO4: there is no difference between heavy and light users with respect to external influence of app.
HA4: There is a difference between heavy and light users with respect to external influence of app.

FIGURE 31:HYPOTHESIS 4.
The alpha value is .05 and the P value is .00 so the P value is more than the alpha value hence the
null hypothesis is rejected and there is a difference between customers getting influenced by external
parties in using food apps. The interpretation made is that there is a difference between heavy and
light users with respect to getting influenced by external parties like friends or family. According to
the Likert scale where 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree, the mean value for heavy users is
2.43 whereas the mean value for light users is 2.83. from this above stats, it shows that both the users
may have a certain level of difference when it comes to being influenced by friends and families
maybe the heavy users may get influenced quicker as compared to light users or maybe the heavy
users trust external parties as compared to light users hence there is a difference between the heavy
and light users getting influenced externally.
HO5: there is no difference between heavy and light users with respect to innovation in the app.
HA5: There is a difference between heavy and light users with respect to innovation in the app.

FIGURE 32: HYPOTHESIS 5.

The alpha value is .05 and P value is 0.18 so here again the P value is more than the alpha value
hence the null hypothesis is rejected from the above result and there Is a difference between
customers finding food apps innovative. The interpretation made is that there is a difference between
heavy and light users with respect to innovation in food apps for respondents. In both the categories,
heavy users find food apps innovative whereas light users don’t find it innovative because According
to the Likert scale where 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree the mean value for heavy users
is 2.07 and the mean value for light users 2.61. the huge difference of .54 suggests that maybe heavy
users use food apps almost daily skilfully and hence they are able to find some new and innovative
features whereas light users maybe use it sparingly and are unable to see any sort of innovation
hence heavy users find food apps innovative as compared to light users.
Overall, they were 143 respondents and in the hypothesis testing, there were 4 rejections out of 5.
 CHAPTER-5
5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
5.1 FINDINGS:
Overall, this report has carried out a survey which consists of 26 questions out of which 4 were
multiple-choice questions, and 22 were Likert scale questions. Furthermore, 5 hypothesis were
framed while preparing the questionnaire from the TAM model. The questionnaire addressed all the
age groups using food apps, and from the study majority of users use it on any occasion, and they
feel that food apps are the fastest and efficient way of ordering food as compared to the traditional
form of ordering via the phone. Furthermore, respondents have mixed feelings over paying online as
nearly 63% of users pay for their food via cash on delivery, and about 37% use another form of
payment like a credit card, debit, net banking, or another form of payment. From this, it reflects that
not everyone prefers paying online as they feel that an online theft or error may occur or transactions
would be slow; hence they use cash on delivery. Moreover, the heavy and light users find it easy to
use food apps however the light users are not that skillful enough to use food apps as compared to
the heavy users because maybe the former group uses it rarely as compared to the later hence there is
a difference between ease of use between the heavy and light users. There is a difference between
heavy and light users when it comes to trust while using food apps, perceiving any kind of
innovation, and getting influenced by external factors. In this overall study, the researcher has found
that there are two types of users who use food apps, which are heavy and light users. The study also
answers the research questions like how consumers perceive food apps and what are the factors
through which they get influenced to use food apps. The study also fulfills the objectives of how
food apps have changed customer’s perception of ordering online and level of satisfaction achieved
while using it.
There are certain sections like usage and food app preferences customers use comparing to the study
of the journal “A STUDY ON CUSTOMER’S ATTITUDE AND PERCEPTION TOWARDS
DIGITAL FOOD APP SERVICES” by Parashar and Ghadiyali, in 2017 , there are differences when
it comes to the usage and factors while using food apps, however, the survey conducted from the
journal mentioned above suggests that fast food delivery app is the most widely used food app of up
to 76% because of the factors like speed of delivery and service quality, hence customers prefer
ordering from fast food delivery apps. Whereas this study suggests that Swiggy is the most preferred
app because of the innovative features like discounts, service quality and variety of food available on
them. However, both the studies suggest that cash on delivery was the most preferred food payment
feature. Furthermore, in both the studies, respondents get affected by marketing factors like an
advertisement, social media posts, friends and family members word of mouth. Hence, there is no
difference between the heavy and light users
The best part about conducting this survey was that all the respondents had different answers to the
questions that were asked of them and what was their point of view or own perception when they use
food apps. Another highlight of carrying out the questionnaire was, with the increase in technology
food apps are playing an important role in shaping the food industry as well as customer perception,
food apps have become a huge trend overall in the world and irrespective of age group, income
group or demographic location or customers segmentation, there is daily usage of the same. The
researcher feels that there is proper connectivity, ease of tracking their order and prompt response to
their complaints, hence a lot of people use food apps and most importantly it is the easiest,
comfortable and efficient way of ordering food and customers have a lot of options and choices
available for them to try.
The limitation the researcher found was that the number of people who have taken the survey was
not as vast as expected, and a detailed understanding of customers using food, apps weren’t
achievable in terms of what was the difference between ordering via telephone and using food app
and any problems they have faced while using food apps.
 FIGURE 33: FINDINGS TABLE.

5.2 CONCLUSION:
To conclude this research on customer’s perception of food apps, it is thus inferred that a majority of
people use food apps as it’s the best way to save time and is convenient. Furthermore, ordering via
food apps is a precise operation. Among the respondents, the most preferred food app is Swiggy, and
cash on delivery is the safest and most secure form of payment. The study also states that all age and
income groups use food apps, and they are happy with the service quality, hygiene, and packaging
system, which make people order from food apps. The questionnaire had very interesting answers
such as do people still prefer cash on delivery as a preferred mode of payment as compared to the
trendy online payment. Furthermore, the questionnaire also found that some people still prefer the
old fashion way by ordering over the telephone and overall people get influenced by offers and
variety of food apps and they are preferred as they are the fastest way of ordering food. The overall
reflection on this research states that all the customers use food apps in today’s day and age because
of its rapid response. It enhance my understanding of people’s preferences, the efficacy in time
management, affordability, food preferences, discounts available and door-to-door service without
compromising on quality.
6. REFERENCES:
1. Alagoz, S. and Hekimoglu, H. (2012). A Study on Tam: Analysis of Customer Attitudes in Online
Food Ordering System. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, pp.1138-1143.
2. Apuke, O. (2017). Quantitative Research Methods : A Synopsis Approach. Kuwait Chapter of
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 6(11), pp.40-47.
3. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. and Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education. 8th ed.
Belment: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
4. Business insider. 2020. Online Food Delivery Services Market Size Worth $6.4 Billion By 2025:
Grand View Research, Inc. | Markets Insider. [online] markets.businessinsider.com. Available at:
[Accessed 20 March 2020].
5. Business Insider. 2020. Swiggy Says It's The Most Loved Brand And Doesn’T Need Discounts.
[online] Available at: [Accessed 19 March 2020].
6. C.E, R., Manjunatha, H. and U, C. (2018). Consumers Perception towards online shopping.
IJSDR, [online] 3(11). Available at: http://www.ijsdr.org/papers/IJSDR1811025.pdf [Accessed 26
Feb. 2020].
7. Chaturvedi, D. and Karthik, T. (2020). A study on online food ordering companies in India. EPRA
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR), [online] 5(1). Available at:
http://eprajournals.com/jpanel/upload/733pm_22.Tatikonda-Karthik-2895-1.pdf [Accessed 26 Feb.
2020].
8. Copeland, A. (2017). The Pros and Cons of Open and Closed Questions. [ebook] Available at:
https://www.interpnet.com/NAI/docs/CIT/Copeland-Questions.pdf [Accessed 20 Dec. 2019].
9. E. Kimes, S. (2011). Customer Perceptions of Electronic Food Ordering. Cornell University
School of Hotel Administration The Scholarly Commons. [online] Available at:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d8da/43a2de3b45cc282604adfd73798867483ab6.pdf [Accessed 3
Dec. 2019].
10. ETtech. 2020. Zomato Buys Uber Eats In An All-Stock Deal - Ettech. [online] Available at:
[Accessed 19 March 2020].
11. Gawande, N., Pachaghare, G. and Deshmukh, A. (2019). A Study of Customer Perception about
Online Food Ordering Services in Amravati City. International Journal of Latest Technology in
Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS), [online] 8(4). Available at:
https://www.ijltemas.in/DigitalLibrary/Vol.8Issue4/114-116.pdf [Accessed 10 Nov. 2019].
12. Ghosh, R. and Ranjan Saha, T. (2020). A study of e-payment system on food delivery industry:
A case on Swiggy. IJRTBT. [online] Available at:
http://ejournal.lucp.net/index.php/ijrtbt/article/view/187/152 [Accessed 26 Feb. 2020].
13. Hariharan, D. and Selvakumar, D. (2018). Consumer perception towards online shopping with
reference to Tirupattur. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, [online] 119(18).
Available at: https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-119-18/3/273.pdf [Accessed 26 Feb. 2020].

7. TABLE OF ANNEXTURES:
7.1 QUESTIONNAIRE:
APPENDIX 1:

APPENDIX 2:
APPENDIX 3:

APPENDIX 4:
APPENDIX 5:

APPENDIX 6:
APPENDIX 7:
APPENDIX 8:

APPENDIX 9:
APPENDIX 10:

ASSESSMENT
Internal:

SL FULL REMARK
RUBRICS MARKS OBTAINED
NO MARK S

Understanding the relevance, scope and

1 10
dimension of the project

2 Methodology 10

3 Quality of Analysis and Results 10

4 Interpretations and Conclusions 10

5 Report 10

Total 50

Date: Signature of the Faculty

COURSE OUTCOME (COs) ATTAINMENT

➢ Expected Course Outcomes (COs):

(Refer to COs Statement in the Syllabus)

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

➢ Course Outcome Attained:

How would you rate your learning of the subject based on the specified COs?
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

LOW HIGH

➢ Learning Gap (if any):

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

➢ Books / Manuals Referred:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Date: Signature of the Student

➢ Suggestions / Recommendations:

(By the Course Faculty)

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Date: Signature of the Faculty