Market Analysis of the Point of Sale Systems Through Value Propositions
MARKET ANALYSIS OF THE POINT OF SALE SYSTEMS THROUGH VALUE PROPOSITIONS
Naveed Jivani Bachelor of Economics, I998 University of California at Berkeley
PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
In the Faculty of Business Administration
ONaveed JivaniZOO4
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
August 2004
All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author Approval
Name: Naveed Jivani
Degree: Master of Business Administration
Title of Project: Market Analysis of the Point of Sale Systems Through Value Propositions
Supervisory Committee:
Chair: Dr. Gary Mauser First Reader Professor Faculty of Business Administration Simon Fraser University
Dr. Bert Schoner Second Reader Professor Emeritus Faculty of Business Administration Simon Fraser University
Date Approved: Partial Copyright Licence
The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users.
The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies.
It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without the author's written permission.
The original Partial Copyright Licence attesting to these terms, and signed by this author, may be found in the original bound copy of this work, retained in the Simon Fraser University Archive.
Bennett Library Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada ABSTRACT
The goal of this paper is to determine which companies are the market leaders in the POS market, and speculate about why. In addition, what differentiation factors should a company have to be the forerunner of the industry? For the purpose of privacy, all the competitor names have been altered and the client will be referred to as POSuccess Systems.
In order to discover which companies are leading the industry, we need to first determine what attributes does their company have that the customers appreciate? This leads us to first investigate what attributes of a POS system are important for the customers? Second, it determines which companies are leading in those attributes, judged to be important? Third, it determines in which attributes is this company currently leading in? Fourth, based on the company's leading attributes, what target market should the company be focusing on?
The results show that customers perceive system reliability, ease of use, hardware support, and return on investment to be the most important attributes. POSuccess Systems is perceived to have a POS system that is easy to use and reliable as well as having a good software upgrade agreement. The two powerful competitors of POSuccess Systems are Hello Technologies and Macros Systems. Macros was found to have the largest market share among all of the companies. DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this project to my family Noorali, Parveen, Nadeem, and my loving wife Khairunissa for being extremely supportive throughout my MBA. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Professor Bert Schoner and Professor Gary Mauser for their guidance and insightful feedback in every step of the SIPS Project.
I am also grateful to Jennifer, Rob, Seema, and their colleagues for providing information and help to expedite our process.
I am also thankful to Khairunissa Jivani and Helen Lin for their dedication and assistance in collecting quality data for the survey. TABLE OF CONTENTS .. Approval ...... 11 ... Abstract ...... 111 Dedication...... iv Acknowledgements...... v Table of contents...... vi List of Tables ...... ix List of Figures ...... Glossary Of Terms ...... XIII I INTRODUCTION ...... 1. 1 Brief introduction of this study ...... I 1.2 POSuccess Systems. Inc...... 2 1.2.1 History ...... 2 1.2.2 POSuccess Systems Today ...... 3 1.2.3 Important Attributes of POSuccess' Value Proposition ...... 3 1.2.3.1 Real time application ...... 4 1.2.3.2 Ergonomically designed POS system ...... 4 1.2.3.3 The 24 hours a day I 7 days a week call centre ...... 4 1.2.3.4 Hardware support ...... 4 1.2.3.5 Custom integration and analysis ...... 4 1.2.3.6 Software Upgrade agreement ...... 5 1.2.3.7 System Reliability ...... 5 1.2.3.8 Ease of use ...... 5 1.2.3.9 Easy to upgrade ...... 5 1.2.3.10 Brand name ...... 6 1.2.3.11 Styling 1 Appearance ...... 6 1.2.3.12 Return on investment ...... 6 2 POS Overview ...... 7 2.1 POS Terminals ...... 7 2.1.1 Uses of POS System ...... 7 2.1.2 What to look for in purchasing a POS system ...... 8 2.1.3 Wireless POS Systems ...... I0 2.2 POS Market Structure In North America ...... II 3 POS Market ...... 12 3.1 POSuccess' Target Market In The POS Market ...... 12 3.2 Manufacturers of POS Terminals ...... 12 3.2.1 Hello ...... 12 3.2.2 ITBMl ...... 13 3.2.3 InfoPOS ...... 13 3.2.4 Macros Systems. Inc ...... 13 3.2.5 KCN ...... 14 3.2.6 SonicCap ...... 14 3.2.7 Peterpoint ...... 14 3.2.8 KTouch ...... 14 3.3 POSuccess' Competitors ...... 15 4 Market Research of the target market ...... 16 4.1 Sources of Market Research ...... 16 4.2 Market Size ...... 16 4.3 Methodology ...... 17 5 Market Analysis ...... 20 5.1 Descriptive Analysis of current customers ...... 20 5.1.1 POS system used by respondents ...... 20 5.1.2 Duration of POS system purchased ...... 21 5.1.3 Ratings of current POS system manufacturer ...... 22 5.1.3.1 Overall Experience ...... 22 5.1.3.2 Overall Ratings...... 23 5.1.3.3 Service Ratings ...... 24 5.1.3.4 Recommendation ...... i.25 5.1.3.5 Likelihood of Re-Purchase ...... 26 5.1.3.6 Satisfaction with Amount of Contact ...... 27 5.1.3.7 Quality of Sales Organization ...... 28 Price for 4-terminal POS system ...... 29 Preference in contacting customer service ...... 30 More then One POS system ...... 31 Likelihood of Purchasing or Upgrading a POS system in the next three years ...... 32 Likelihood of Switching POS manufacturer in the next three years ...... 33 Descriptive Analysis of the Value Propositions ...... 34 Important Attributes according to Customers ...... 34 Descriptive Analysis of Competitors ...... 35 Un-Aided and Aided Recall on POS System manufacturers...... 35 Analysis of Competitors ratings based on Attributes ...... 37 Analysis of the Competitor Ratings based on "Agree" Statements ...... 38 Descriptive Analysis of Marketing Services...... 46 Inferential Analysis ...... 47 Correlation Matrix...... 47 Multiple Regression Analysis ...... 49 Two Step Cluster Analysis ...... 50 POSuccess Systems VS . Competition...... 52 SWOT Analysis ...... 53 Strengths ...... 53 Weaknesses + Opportunities ...... 54 Threats ...... 54 Porter's Forces ...... 55 Potential Competitors...... 55 Rivalry in the industry...... 55 Closeness of Substitute ...... 55 6 Implications...... 56
vii 7 Conclusion ...... 58 APPENDIX A ...... 59 Questionnaire ...... 59 Appendix B ...... 65 Script 65 Appendix C ...... 67 Fall Back Questions Guide ...... 67 Appendix D ...... 69 Appendix E ...... 83 Appendix F ...... 84 Appendix G ...... 92 Reference list ...... 97
viii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Correlation Matrix ...... 48 Table 2 Multiple Regression: Coefficients Table ...... 49 Table 3 Distribution of 3 Clusters...... 50 Table 4. POS Systems used by Respondents...... 69 Table 5 Current Company Satisfaction Ratings ...... 70 Table 6 Average Duration from the Purchase of the Last POS System ...... 71 Table 7 Overall Company Experience ...... 72 Table 8 Overall Ratings ...... 73 Table 9 Service Ratings ...... 74 Table 10 Recommendation ...... 75 Table 11 Likelihood of Re-Purchase from Current Company ...... 76 Table 12 Satisfaction with the Amount of Contacts ...... 77 Table 13 Satisfaction with the Quality of Sales Organization ...... 78 Table 14 Price for a 4-terminal POS System ...... 79 Table 15 Preference in Contacting Customer Service ...... 80 Table 16 Usage of more then One POS System ...... 80 Table 17 Likelihood of BuyingIUpgrading in next 3 Years ...... 81 Table 18 Likelihood of Switching POS Manufacturer in Next 3 Years ...... 82 Table 19 Important Attributes ...... 83 Table 20 Attribute Importance by Cluster ...... 83 Table 21 Un-aided Recall of Companies ...... 84 Table 22 Company Aided Recall ...... 84 Table 23 Agree on Statement .Very Good Real Time Application ...... 85 Table 24 Agree on Statement .Very Good Ergonomically Designed POS System ...... 85 Table 25 Agree on Statement .Very Good 24x7 Call Centre ...... 86 Table 26 Agree on Statement .Hardware Support ...... 86 Table 27 Agree on Statement .Very Good Custom Integration and Analysis ...... 87 Table 28 Agree on Statement .Very Good Software Upgrade Agreement ...... 87 Table 29 Agree on Statement .Very Good Reliability of the System ...... 88 Table 30 Agree on Statement .Very Easy to Use...... 88 Table 31 Agree on Statement .Very Easy to Upgrade ...... 89 Table 32 Very Good Brand Name ...... 89 Table 33 Agree on Statement .Very Good StylingIAppearance ...... 90 Table 34 Agree on Statement .Very Good ROI ...... 90 Table 35 Preference in Receiving Information...... 91 Table 36 Regression Model Summary with R Square ...... 92 Table 37 Distribution of 2 Clusters...... 93 Table 38 Distribution of 4 Clusters...... 93 Table 39 Distribution of 5 Clusters...... 93 Table 40 Number of Respondents per Company within Attribute Clusters 1. 2. and 3 ...... 94 Table 41 Oneway ANOVA ...... 95 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 All Companies .Estimated Market Share based on POS System Used by Respondents. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 20 Figure 2 Current Customer -Duration from last purchase of POS System purchased over more then 11 years . Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 22 Figure 3 Current Customer - Overall Past Experience with Current Company . Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 23 Figure 4 Current Customer - Overall Company Satisfaction Rating. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 24 Figure 5 Current Customer - Service Satisfaction Rating. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 25 Figure 6 Current Customer - Recommendation to Others . Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 26 Figure 7 Current Customer - Likelihood of Re.Purchase . Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 27 Figure 8 Current Customer - Satisfaction (Satisfied + Very Satisfied) with the Amount of Contact . Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 28 Figure 9 Current Customer - Quality of Sales Organization. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 29 Figure 10 Current Customer - Price for a 4-terminal POS System. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 30 Figure 11 Current Customer - Preference in Contacting Customer Service. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 31 Figure 12 All Companies - Average Usage of more than 1 POS System. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 32 Figure 13 Current Customers.. Likelihood of Purchasing or Upgrading a POS System in the Next 3 Years . Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 33 Figure 14 All Companies -Average Likelihood of Replacing POS Manufacturer in Next 3 Years . Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 34 Figure 15 lmportant Attributes (Vitally lmportant + Important). Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 35 Figure 16 Un-Aided Recall of Companies . Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 36 Figure 17 Aided Recall of Companies . Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 37 Figure 18 Agree on Statement .Very Good Real Time Application. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 39 Figure 19 Agree on Statement .Very Good Ergonomically Designed POS System. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 39 Figure 20 Agree on Statement .Very Good 24 / 7 Call Centre. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 40 Figure 21 Agree on Statement .Very Good Hardware Support. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 41 Figure 22 Agree on Statement .Very Good Custom Integration and Analysis. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 41
xi Figure 23 Agree on Statement .Very Good Software Upgrade Agreement . Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 42 Figure 24 Agree on Statement .Very Good System Reliability. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 43 Figure 25 Agree on Statement .Very Easy to Use . Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 43 Figure 26 Agree on Statement .Very Easy to Upgrade. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 44 Figure 27 Agree on Statement .Very Good Brand Name. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 45 Figure 28 Agree on Statement .Very Good Styling or Appearance. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 45 Figure 29 Agree on Statement .Very Good ROI. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 46 Figure 30 Preference in Receiving Information ...... 47 Figure 31 Attribute Importance by Cluster. Source: Jivani. 2004 ...... 51 Figure 32 Average Duration from the Purchase of the Last POS System ...... 71 Figure 33 Average Overall Experience ...... 72 Figure 34 Average Overall Ratings...... 73 Figure 35 Average Service Ratings ...... 74 Figure 36 Recommendations ...... 75 Figure 37 Likelihood of Re-Purchase...... 76 Figure 38 Satisfaction with the Amount of Contacts ...... 77 Figure 39 Quality of Sales Organization ...... 78 Figure 40 Price Willingness for a 4-Terminal POS System ...... 79 Figure 41 All Companies - Average Likelihood of Purchasinglupgrading POS System in Next 3 Years ...... 81 Figure 42 All Companies -Average Likelihood of Replacing POS Manufacturer in Next 3 Years ...... 82 Figure 43 P-P Plot of Regression on the Dependent Variable Purchase ...... 92 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Customers Customers of the POS industry that are serviced by a variety of competitors.
POS Point-of-Sale
RO I Return On Investment
SWOT Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats
xiii INTRODUCTION
1.1 Brief introduction of this study
More then two decades ago, the sole purpose of a cash register was to either keep the money in an organized manner or provide change. In the last ten years, the point-of-sale (POS) systems have evolved in an astonishing manner. Today, the POS system not only conducts the transaction, but it also, among its many features, collects the customer's data in a CRM system, sends the customer information and the real time transactions to corporate headquarters, and provides touch screen technology to make the customer service turn around time more rapidly. This provided an extremely lucrative market for POS systems, inviting competition in masses to this industry. With the existence of enormous competition, it becomes essential for POS companies to be extremely customer focused while developing an estate of the art, differentiated product for the customer.
The paper conducts a market analysis for this company, exploring the current trends in the POS market that demonstrate some of the significant discoveries in the existing research. In addition, the paper examines the key attributes that are important to the POS customers, observing which attributes are geared towards a particular target market, analyzes them against the current value propositions of the company. Then it performs a competitor analysis to determine which companies in the market lead in the important customer attributes that are critical for the purchase of a POS system. The paper then provides a set of recommendations which discusses the value propositions of the company and provides suggestions that would set off an increase in market share of the company.
This research study is being conducted to determine the customers' perspective of Point-of-sales systems (POS), their attitude towards their current POS systems company, and to determine how their overall experience with that company is. The study also finds how the respondents rate the importance of various attributes of a POS system, and how that leads to their ratings of specific POS system manufacturers.
Finally, there is a competitor analysis conducted to explore the current status of
POSuccess Systems, our company in interest, among its immediate competitors in the industry.
Through the use of different measurement scales and graphical representations of data, I will be describing the results of each question, analyzing the responses to illustrate relationships, showing the status of POSuccess Systems among its competitors in the industry and discussing the implications of the survey in this report.
1.2 POSuccess Systems, Inc.
1.2.1 History
POSuccess is a leading provider of innovative technology solutions for the worldwide foodservice industry. The company claims to have the easiest restaurant point-of-sale system to learn, and use. POSuccess pioneered the touch-screen technology to the foodservice industry in 1985 and it has maintained a respectable market share over the last two decades. 1.2.2 POSuccess Systems Today
POSuccess currently services approximately 10,000 restaurants, hotels & clubs installed world-wide. The company's install-base includes more than 50,000 point of sale workstations. Some of the leading restaurant chains like the Keg, Chevy's,
O'Charleyls, Chi Chi's, McCormick & Schmick, Houlihan's and many others have standardized on POSuccess as their in-store management solution. Its current products and services are available from the corporate offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Hong Kong,
London, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney, and Vancouver as well as over hundred authorized business partners in the Americas, EMEA and AsiaIPacific.
1.2.3 Important Attributes of POSuccess' Value Proposition
POSuccess prides itself by providing some of the key value propositions that are beneficial to customers. By providing some of the top of the line systems, POSuccess combines the powerful Windows and SQL Server software platform from Microsoft with the POSuccess commitment that provides a point of sale system which is dramatically easier to use and customized to meet each restaurateur's unique desires. The designs of the user interface are based upon advanced human factors engineering making the system truly simple, intuitive and natural to use requiring substantially less training then some of the other systems in the market.
POSuccess provides this difference to its customers through twelve key value propositions. These propositions are not only the differentiating factor of POSuccess but the basis for all the products the company develops. These value propositions are described as follows: 1.2.3.1 Real time application
Real time application can produce up-to-the-minute customized reports in real- time both to corporate and the restaurant, and allows multiple users to operate other software programs while the system is in use.
1.2.3.2 Ergonomically designed POS system
The POSuccess POS systems are designed on the concept of human engineering which deals with designing and arranging systems that people use to be safe and efficient.
1.2.3.3 The 24 hours a day 1 7 days a week call centre
The POSuccess Solution Centre which is a 24 hours a day, seven days a week centrally staffed help desk service, is available to support all customers regardless of where they are located in North America. The POSuccess Customer Care services are fully integrated with the network of Corporate and Business service offices which are dispatched whenever a local service call is necessary to ensure continued satisfaction.
1.2.3.4 Hardware support
POSuccess offers numerous hardware maintenance plans which include parts and labour to maintain all or part of the hardware equipment. The plans are designed to include shipping of the parts to a support site near the customer as well as on-site repair, maintenance, and upgrade protocols.
1.2.3.5 Custom integration and analysis
Designed by hospitality specialists, the POSuccess POS systems are designed keeping the approach in mind that you can configure its features to fit your specific needs. In addition, the sales and the technical staff can design a system for the customer, which would cater towards their specific usage.
1.2.3.6 Software Upgrade agreement
A software upgrade agreement provides the customers with the peace of mind of not having to worry about paying for and installing software upgrades. By managing this task for its customers, POSuccess leaves the customer worry-free and focused on the business itself.
1.2.3.7 System Reliability
The POSuccess POS systems have been designed to last. The use of solid- state components and passive cooling eliminates the mechanical devices most prone to failure, hard drives and fans. The result is a device with an expected life span far in excess of a typical PC based workstations. Great care has been taken to ensure the finest components have been used to utilize components with proven superior in performance and reliability.
1.2.3.8 Ease of use
The systems at POSuccess are designed to be user-friendly, exciting, and easy to use. The systems are designed to provide a quick training to new employees, which can result in an efficient operation by them.
1.2.3.9 Easy to upgrade
The systems are designed so that they have the capability to get upgraded easily. This saves the customer both time and money on minor upgrades. 1.2.3.10 Brand name
POSuccess' brand name is one of the key assets that company owns. Being the pioneer of the touch screen systems, POSuccess' name is internationally recognized as one of the leading global brands in the POS market.
1.2.3.11 Styling I Appearance
The appearance and styles is an important part of POSuccess' value proposition because of two reasons. First, the styling provides an identity for the restaurant chain to differentiate itself from others. Second, the style of the POS system, which is mostly visible to the diners at these restaurants, portrays an image and sends out a message regarding the image of the restaurant, and to a POS expert, an image of POSuccess.
1.2.3.12 Return on investment
Every business that purchases any equipment, acquires it for its beneficial value and to attain a positively lucrative return on investment. This is the reason POSuccess develops every product keeping all of its differentiating factors in mind, while keeping it cost-effective to provide the best value for its customers. POS OVERVIEW
2.1 POS Terminals
2.1 .I Uses of POS System
POS systems help get customers out the door and on their way faster, and at the same time allow the operator to run businesses smoothly, efficiently, and with more tables turned. What was once a machine used solely to ring up orders and keep track of cash going in and out of operation, POS system technology has changed the way those in the foodservice industry run their businesses. According to a recent survey of POS systems and their use, it's rare to find a POS system that does not communicate with a corporate or main office workstation. Advancements in technology have been a driving force in how POS systems are used in day-to-day operations. They allow operators to easily track profits, control menus and analyze traffic trends down to the hour of service
("Point of Returns", 2004).
Some POS systems can customize menus, itemize products that make or lose money, and control inventory. Employee time-keeping and payroll records including automatic calculation of tips are functions of the new POS technologies. New systems allow operators to instantly deploy changes to every terminal throughout the enterprise without having to replace any previously purchased equipment. A lot of chains run on different POS systems. They start a new concept and buy a new model of POS. Then they acquire another chain, one already running another POS system, and it's unfeasible logistically and economically to get a full life cycle without replacing cash registers
("Point of Returns", 2004). Users look for software that provides detailed information for better margin analysis, and a product that would house all such reports at a centralized location. With the help of technology, now these operations are viable.
2.1.2 What to look for in purchasing a POS system
Which POS system is best for your operation depends on immediate needs and future plans. Knowing the challenges your business faces and how you would like to improve your operation goes a long way toward determining which system is best for you (Kaschyk, 2003). Another important consideration is the vendor itself. Your choice of a manufacturer should result in a business relationship that lasts for years. When selecting a POS system, two performance factors are of utmost importance: reliability and speed. The POS can be thought of as the transaction engine inside your business
("Powering the Point of Sale", 2000). This makes it the logical place at which to attach all the other components. The other factors have become so dynamic that what people are really talking about now is not interface among various systems but complete integration. When people talk POS today, they are actually weighing the single system that locks down the desktop, payroll, food stuffs, inventory, administrative reports -- and
POS. This is an indication of how the technology and adaptable design have driven down the costs of even the most sophisticated POS systems, making them affordable to both large and small companies. Moreover, the vendors maintain that the systems pay for themselves because of the way they can be utilized. The data collected at the POS alone can be translated quickly into marketing opportunities for savvy operators. Many systems now contain the built-in capability to sign up customers for frequent dining benefits; generate mailing lists for birthdays; create special reservation services; allow the human server, based on the order entered, to offer an appetizer or dessert that fits the entree or the customer profile; and provide a customized "comeback" coupon at checkout. It is a major marketing without the maintenance. Restaurants must select the POS system that contains the capabilities for customer profiling, coupon intelligence, .
loyalty rewards and other frequent-dining offerings. But marketing is just the tip of the
iceberg. Instant reporting, employee training and delivery services are some additional
areas POS technology can help bolster productivity for operators ("Powering the Point of
Sale", 2000).
Receiving information quickly at the corporate level is paramount to success, and
getting instant reporting from a POS system can make a huge difference to the
operators. The CEO can look over the reports from the previous day over coffee before
his 9 a.m. meeting. He can see what sold, what outlets are lagging, what innovations
are moving ahead. For multi-outlet restaurants, this efficiency is only possible through a
POS married to all the other services and systems. Unquestionably, this is an advantage of the modern POS back-end reporting, offering a range of reporting capabilities out of which each company can pick what they really want to know. For the
multi-store model, this use of the Internet allows centralized sharing with corporate
headquarters in a quick and convenient way we didn't have before.
POS systems even can be employed in the training of new workers which addresses a major issue for foodservice operators faced with the turnover of personnel and high-training costs.
Let's pretend that a restaurant got a new bartender who does not know how to make a Singapore Sling. It's right there in the computer, step by step. The staff can employ the POS system to remind them of methods and policies, identify which tables need to be covered, track the progress of kitchen orders and show which members of the staff are checked in or out ("Powering the Point of Sale", 2000). 2.1.3 Wireless POS Systems
The latest technology in point-of-sale systems cannot be found dangling at the end of a wire. The biggest and latest solution is wireless POS systems. Servers can take the order on a handheld device at the table. It saves time, labour and improves table-turn times. Non-wireless servers write down an order, walk to a POS station and re-enter the order on the touch-screen terminal. Repeat that for each time a meal segment is ordered and the time adds up. One particular provider of wireless computing solutions, offers hand-held Symbol products that are co-branded by both companies.
The software runs the hand-held unit and links to various POS systems. There is still a fixed touch screen, but you may need fewer of them. Hand-held units cost about $2,000 each, while fixed POS systems cost about $4,000 each (Adams, 2000). Macros
Systems and Hypercom Corporation also offer stand-alone or wireless POS solutions that can tie into a hotel's banquet room. It is a wireless, Internet-enabled, point-of-sale terminal using the newest operating system for restaurants that wants to bring the payment system to the diner. The graphical interface and open development platforms provides greater flexibility to use custom and third-party applications, increasing revenue and streamlining operations (Adams, 2000). The bottom line is that wireless POS systems help restaurants save time and labour and improve table-turn times, and hand- held POS systems cost about half of what is charged for fixed systems.
2.2 POS Market Structure in North America
Within roughly three years, global shipments of POS application software will approach the $1 billion mark, according to a report by Venture Development Corp.
(VDC). That figure is based on a 9.8% compound annual growth rate between 2003 and
2008 ("Market for POS Application Software Nearing $1 Billion", 2004). The increase in POS spending is due to a number of factors, VDC says, including compliance standards such as Sunrise 2005 and mandates from retail powerhouses like Wal-Mart and Target ("Market for POS Application Software Nearing
$1 Billion", 2004). POS tops ClO's list of investment priorities in 2004. As economic recovery begins to take hold, one of the first places retail IT shops plan to invest their increased funds is the POS. Traditionally a high-priority investment because of its direct impact upon the customer experience, POS spending is especially poised to break out in
2004, after several years of delaying POS investments (Scheraga, 2004).
There's a great deal of pent-up demand for new POS systems. That's been the story for several years now, but this year should finally see some spending, according to the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA). There are a lot of POS units out there that have outlived their lives as useful assets, and now they're becoming a pain point for some (Scheraga, 2004). POS MARKET
3.1 POSuccess' Target Market In The POS Market
Upon interviewing the senior management of POSuccess systems, it was determined that the target market (sweet spot) for POSuccess is the small to medium sized, franchised, dining restaurants. These restaurants included casual dining, and fine dining franchises that required a table service. These chains were categorized in three tiers, with tier one having two to five locations, tier two with six to fifty locations, and tier three with more then fifty locations, respectively. With the data available from the Chain
Store Guide ("Market Study of Food Service Technology", 2003), POSuccess determined that there are roughly about 3,000 chains in the market place and roughly ten percent of this market should be in a POS purchase mode. This point requires validation from the market study which will be further discussed in the analysis.
3.2 Manufacturers of POS Terminals
Within the next three year period, the global shipments of POS application software will approach the $1 billion mark ("Market for POS Application Software
Nearing $1 Billion", 2004). In this lucrative industry, there are a few key players that are leading the industry. Following are some of the companies in this industry.
3.2.1 Hello
Hello POS systems is part of Sunny Systems Inc., which provides store technology for the hospitality, petroleum and convenience store, and cinema industries. The company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Sunny has deployed its solutions in more than 50,000 sites worldwide.
3.2.2 ITBMl
ITBMI, formerly known as JKTR, was first established in 1888. Today, it is the world's largest information technology company. The POS systems by ITBMl are sold through its Retail Store Solutions which is part of ITBMl's Personal Systems Group
(PSG). ITBMl has more than 1.7 million point-of-sale systems installed around the world, and the greatest number of patents and inventions in the industry. ITBMl retail solutions are installed in more than 60 of the world's top 100 retailers.
3.2.3 InfoPOS
The InfoPOS POS solution is designed for table service restaurants, hotels, resorts, casinos, cruise ships, and institutional foodservice. They market their products through a direct sales force in the United States and Canada and through authorized resellers and business partners around the world. Founded in 1986 in Santa Barbara,
California, InfoPOS maintains its revenue growth by keeping it a privately held corporation.
3.2.4 Macros Systems, Inc
Macros Systems, Inc., established in 1977, is one of the leading developer of enterprise applications serving the hospitality and retail industries exclusively. Macros serves table service and quick service restaurants, hotels, the leisure and entertainment industry, and specialty retail stores. Macros' global network consists of over 3,000 employees, 43 subsidiaries in major markets, and 93 distributors in 40 countries. Macros is also one of the leading POS providers in the restaurant industry with more than 150,000 installations worldwide.
3.2.5 KCN
Founded in 1884, the KCN is one of the key providers in supplying relationship technology solutions. KCN was the first to introduce bar code scanning to retail, the first to deliver an integrated keyboard and display for POS, and the first to offer a fully integrated wireless ESL solution.
3.2.6 SonicCap
Founded in 1918, SonicCap is one of the key providers of the POS systems by operation. Within the hospitality industry it controls front counter, kitchen, drive-thru, manager's office, and remote offices.
3.2.7 PeterPoint
Established in 1992, PeterPoint has been committed to providing reliable, flexible, and easy-to-use point of sale software for restaurants. It has installations in
North America and internationally, covering almost every major economic centre worldwide.
3.2.8 KTouch
KTouch is a Windows based hospitality industries point of sale (POS) application for table service, quick service, hotels, country clubs, delivery and stadiumslarena use.
Their POS system has been installed in excess of 12,000 locations. Established in
1982, the company products are sold in US, Canada, South America, Europe, and Far
East. 3.3 POSuccess' Competitors
Among the POS manufacturers described above, there are two major and three minor competitors of POSuccess Systems. The two major ones are Macros, and Hello, where as the three minor ones include InfoPOS, Peterpoint, and KTouch. Since these are the companies of concern, the competitor analysis conducts the market study on each one of the companies, and provides a detailed analysis for each of the major players in the industry. MARKET RESEARCH OF THE TARGET MARKET
4.1 Sources of Market Research
In order to determine the goals of conducting a marketing research, a few meetings were set with the executives of POSuccess Systems to determine the primary information they are searching for. After determining their focus for the marketing study, a literature review was conducted to draw from some of the existing research on POS systems. Even though the information retrieved was fairly insightful, it did not answer all of the questions that the executives were seeking. Thus, a primary study of a telephone survey was created to be conducted on the current users of a POS system.
4.2 Market Size
In order to create a random sample, a mechanism was created to pull random companies from the Chain Store Guide that belonged to a table-service market. The table-service market included only table-service customers that belong to casual dining, fine dining, and family restaurant chains, and strictly excluded any fast food, quick serves, or vending companies. The mechanism was designed to distribute a fair number of customers from tier two and three, as there were no customers in the database that belonged to tier one. It was also designed to include an industry reflected fair share of respondents from each of the major competitors. This mechanism helped create a list of over 700 potential respondents out of the 3,000 different customers that belong to this market. Methodology
In order to accomplish the success of this marketing study, Lavrakas' (Lavrakas,
1987) basic steps in the telephone survey process were utilized. First, a sampling design mechanism was created by randomly opening the Chain Store Guide and picking the first or last company on the left or right page, alternating each time. If the first customer did not meet the table service requirements, then a search was conducted on the same page to find the first one that fit the target market. If none of the customers on that page fit the target market requirement, then the page number was noted down to avoid repetition, and another random opening of the Guide was conducted. There was sufficient random sample created to ensure that the qualifying 700 potential respondents on the list had a fair share of respondents from a variety of competitors and from the tiers two and three.
Second, a questionnaire (Appendix A) was developed that would fulfil the purpose of primary market research for POSuccess Systems. After going through multiple drafts and having the questionnaire reviewed by the executives at POSuccess, a final version was produced. This questionnaire consisted of five major parts. Part A was designed to determine which company are they currently with, and whether they are satisfied with their current company whether it is POSuccess or a competitor. Part B was to determine what percentage of the market is planning to purchase or upgrade in the next 3 yrs and for how much. Part C was designed to see which value propositions are important for the customers. Part D, then based on the more important value propositions, conducted a competitor analysis to determine which competitors currently fulfil the important attributes of the customers. And finally part E was to determine what form of advertising or marketing methods do the customers prefer. Third, a file was created to keep track of all of the numbers that were called and to store the results in the comments section whether there was a positive or a negative response or even a non-response. This way it would be easy to track the number of responses and call backs.
Fourth, a script (Appendix B) was developed to be used by interviewers to assist them in conducting this study as well as to maintain a consistency for the responses. In addition, there was a fall-back statements sheet (Appendix C) that was created to provide the interviewers with the tools of reducing the number of negative responses from the customers.
Fifth, since the respondents are mainly chief executives either in operations, information systems, or POS system department, their time is extremely valuable. To encourage these respondents to participate in the survey, they were offered incentives which included entering the respondents in a lottery to win a $US300 American Express gift certificate, and a small thank you gift. In addition, the script included an awareness statement that provided a built-in value of the set of questions themselves, which are what they should be asking at the time of searching for a POS system.
Sixth, an email advertisement was sent out on the undergraduate business students' list to hire external interviewers for the market study. The reason for hiring external interviewers is to avoid any bias towards POSuccess from the interviewer or the interviewee. After conducting the preliminary resume screening, two rounds of interviews, and the time limitations, three individuals were hired on a contract basis at an industry based hourly rate.
Seventh, a pilot-testing session was conducted to validate or revise the survey instruments. By determining which part of the questionnaire required a revision or re- formatting, the pilot testing benefited the questionnaire by making it a successful one. Eighth, the interviewers were provided with two training sessions. The training .& topics included what makes a good telephone interviewer, interviewer productivity, payments, and specifics about the survey. These specifics about the survey included an explanation of the purpose of the survey, the call sheet, the use of script and fallback statements, and a detailed explanation of the questionnaire. A decent portion of these training sessions was also spent on practice interviewing to make the interviewers more comfortable with the content.
Ninth, all of the respondent data that was collected was then inputted onto an
Excel file and reviewed carefully to avoid any miscoding or typing errors. At this point, the data was run both in Excel and SPSS to prepare the analysis that assists in understanding the customers and competitive nature of the POS industry. 5 MARKET ANALYSIS
5.1 Descriptive Analysis of current customers
5.1.I POS system used by respondents
This question was established to determine the market distribution of the competitors of POS systems within the table service sector of the hospitality industry.
The 153 respondents belonged to 26 different competitors in the industry (See Figure 1).
Figure 1 All Companies - Estimated Market Share based on POS System Used by Respondents. Source: Jivani, 2004
All Companies - Estimated Market Share based on POS System Used by Respondents
~ Companies
Even though the number of POS firms in the market is fairly wide spread, there are three companies that clearly dominate this sector. The leading firm is Macros with a
29% market share, followed by POSuccess at 16%, and Hello at 14%, respectively (Appendix D, Table 4). Maitre d' was not reported by any of the 153 respondents.
Among the respondents, 17 hesitated to report their POS systems.
The descriptive analysis of current customers with their POS provider that follows includes the data of all the competitors in this market. In order to provide POSuccess with a further thorough analysis, each current customer analysis is supplemented with the distribution of satisfaction analysis by the three top leaders in the industry.
5.1.2 Duration of POS system purchased
The goal for the duration question was to determine how long ago the
'r respondents purchased their current POS system. We found that out of the 153 respondents of the survey, 75% of the respondents have purchased their systems in the last ten years among which 25% purchased it just within last three years (Appendix D,
Table 6, Figure 32). The distribution of ranges that were used to categorize the respondents is 1 to 3 years, 4 to 5 years, 6 to 10 years, 11 to 15 years, and over 15 years. In addition, I also wanted to determine the percentage of customers within the company who have purchased their system over eleven years, since they might be the prime target for offering upgrades. According to the current customers, POSuccess' systems only has 17%, Hello has 33%, and Macros has 25% of current customers who have purchased their last system over eleven years. This means that most of the customers of POSuccess have either upgraded or purchased a POS system in the past ten years (See Figure 2, Table 5). Figure 2 Current Customer -Duration from last purchase of POS System purchased over more then 11 years. Source: Jivani, 2004
Current Customer--Purchased last POS System for > 11 Years
POSuccess Hello Macros
5.1.3 Ratings of current POS system manufacturer
Based on the list of questions on POS system manufacturers, the respondents were to assess their current POS system provider based on (I) their past experience with that manufacturer, (2) their overall rating of the manufacturer, (3) their overall satisfaction with the manufacturer's service, (4) their recommendation and likelihood of re-purchase from the same company (5) their satisfaction with the amount of contacts between respondents' company and the manufacturer, and (6) their perception on the quality of manufacturer's sales organization. A lickert scale was used and it was scaled from excellent (5 being extremely satisfied) to poor (I being extremely dissatisfied).
5.1.XI Overall Experience
The respondents were asked to rate the experience with their POS manufacturer.
Among the 153 respondents, 85% said their overall experience has been good or better
(Appendix D, Table 7, Figure 33). According to the current customers, the overall company experience of Macros' customers has been a bit higher then that of Hello and
POSuccess (See Figure 3, Appendix D, Table 5).
Figure 3 Current Customer - Overall Past Experience with Current Company. Source: Jivani, 2004
Current Customer--Overall Company Experience
I POSuccess Hello Macros
5.1.3.2 Overall Ratings
The respondents were asked to rate, their POS manufacturer. Among the 153 respondents, 60% said their overall experience has been good (Appendix D, Table 8,
Figure 34). According to the current customers, the overall company rating by
POSuccess' customers has been significantly higher then that of Hello and Macros (See
Figure 4, Appendix D, Table 5). Figure 4 Current Customer - Overall Company Satisfaction Rating. Source: Jivani, 2004
Current Customer--Overall Company Ratings
POSuccess Hello Macros
5.1.3.3 Service Ratings
The respondents were asked to rate the service component of the POS manufacturer. Among the total respondents, 60% said their service experience has been satisfactory (Appendix D, Table 9, Figure 35). According to the current customers, % the overall company rating by Macros' customers has been a bit higher then that of
POSuccess which is followed by Hello (See Figure 5, Appendix D, Table 5). Figure 5 Current Customer - Service Satisfaction Rating. Source: Jivani, 2004
Current Customer--Company's Service Ratings
POSuccess Hello Macros
5.1.3.4 Recommendation
At this point, the respondents were asked whether they would recommend their
POS manufacturer to someone else. Among the total respondents, 66% said yes they would recommend their POS company (Appendix D, Table 10, Figure 36). According to the current customers, the number of customer that would recommend their company was the highest for POSuccess' customers, then Hello, and Macros (See Figure 6,
Appendix D, Table 5). d Figure 6 Current Customer - Recommendation to Others. Source: Jivani, 2004
Current Customers who would Recommend their Company
POSuccess Hello Macros
5.1.3.5 Likelihood of Re-Purchase
The respondents were asked to rate their likelihood of re-purchase from the same POS manufacturer. This is to state that if and when they buy, they will buy from their existing POS manufacturer. Among the total respondents, 77% said they would re- purchase from the same manufacturer (Appendix D, Table 11, Figure 37) showing that most companies would like to remain loyal to their current provider of POS needs.
According to the current customers, the likelihood of re-purchase rating was 81% for
Hello's customers, 79% for POSuccess, and 77% for Macros (See Figure 7, Appendix D,
Table 5). Figure 7 Current Customer - Likelihood of Re-Purchase. Source: Jivani, 2004
Current Customers who would Re-Purchase from their POS Manufacturer
POSuccess Hello Macros
5.1.3.6 Satisfaction with Amount of Contact
The respondents were asked to rate the amount of contact between their company and the POS manufacturer. Among the total respondents, 82% were satisfied from the amount of contacts (Appendix D, Table 12, Figure 38). According to the current customers, the satisfaction by the amount of contact rating was highest by a bit for
Hello's customers, followed closely by Macros, and POSuccess, respectively (See
Figure 8, Appendix D, Table 5). Figure 8 Current Customer - Satisfaction (Satisfied + Very Satisfied) with the Amount of Contact. Source: Jivani, 2004
Current Customer--Satisfaction with the Amount of Contact from Company
POSuccess Hello Macros
5.1.3.7 Quality of Sales Organization
The respondents were asked to rate the quality of the sales organization of their
POS manufacturer. Among the total respondents, 95% said that the sales organization is rated at either good or better then good (Appendix D, Table 13, Figure 39). According to the current customers, the quality of the sales organization was highest rated by
Macros' customers at 70%, followed closely by POSuccess at 67%, and then by Hello at
52%, respectively (See Figure 9, Appendix D, Table 5). Figure 9 Current Customer - Quality of Sales Organization. Source: Jivani, 2004
Current Customer--Quality of Company's Sales Organization
POSuccess Hello Macros
5.1.4 Price for 4-terminal POS system
The purpose of a price question was to determine what a customer is willing to pay for a top of the line system. To examine the reasonable price that a customer sees for a top-of-the-line 4-terminal POS system, there was a scale of multiple price ranges created from $10,000 to $30,000. The data shows that 71% of the customers are willing to pay from $15,000 to $30,000 where as 22% are willing to pay even more then
$30,000 for a top of the line system (Appendix D, Table 14). One of the respondents stated that a 4-terminal POS system is not sufficient for her food service operation; for that reason we have exempted her answer from the data to prevent any adverse effect it might have on the data. According to the percentage of current customers who are willing to pay more then $25,000 for this system, 59% of Macros' customers, 57% of
Hello's customers, and 50% of POSuccess' customers, respectively, are willing to pay over $25,000 for a four terminal POS system (See Figure 10, Appendix D, Table 5). Figure 10 Current Customer - Price for a 4-terminal POS System. Source: Jivani, 2004
Current Customer--Price they are Willing to Pay for a 4-Terminal POS System
POSuccess Hello Macros
5.1.5 Preference in contacting customer service
In order to provide the best services to the customers, it is essential to know what communication methods they prefer. The respondents were provided with three ways of communication to see which one is most favourable among the senior executive officers.
The three selections provided are fax, e-mail or phone, among which 74% (Appendix 0,
Table 15) of respondents prefer the usage of phone while a few prefer contact through e-mail (See Figure 11). Figure 11 Current Customer - Preference in Contacting Customer Service. Source: Jivani, 2004
- ~ ------All Companies - Average of Preferences in Contacting Customer Service
Fax Email Phone All the Email and Preferences Phone Preferences I ~ . ~ ~.... - .. .- .. -
5.1.6 More then One POS system
There was particular information that was provided by the executives at
POSuccess that certain companies use more then one POS system. In this section, we
wanted to determine how many customers in this sector use more then one POS
system. Through the current customers, it was determined that 64% of the industry uses
only type of POS system (See Figure 14). The other 36% (Appendix D, Table 14)
sometimes use two or more POS systems, depending on the customer. Figure 12 All Companies -Average Usage of more than 1 POS System. Source: Jivani,
All Companies - Average Usage of more then 1 POS System
YES NO Responses
5.1.7 Likelihood of Purchasing or Upgrading a POS system in the next three years.
Through this study, I wanted to determine how many customers are likely to
purchase or upgrade to a better POS system in the next three years. Through the
current customers, it was determined that 50% of the sector is unlikely to purchase a
POS system in the next 3 years (Appendix D, Table 17, Figure 41). Among the 29% that
are likely to purchase, 8% showed a keen interest in purchasing a POS system soon.
According to this group that is more likely to upgrade among the current customers,
POSuccess has 9% compared to Hello, and 22% compared to Macros, more customers
who have the likeliness of purchase or upgrade in the next three years(Figure 13,
Appendix D, Table 5). Figure 13 Current Customers-- Likelihood of Purchasing or Upgrading a POS System in the Next 3 Years. Source: Jivani, 2004
Current Customers Planning to Upgrade in next 3 Years
POSuccess Hello Macros
Most companies are not considering a new system at this time, but this could be a distortion resulted from respondents' declination to survey questions that can be utilized as marketing techniques.
5.1.8 Likelihood of Switching POS manufacturer in the next three years.
In addition to asking the respondents on the likelihood of purchasing or upgrading from the same POS system manufacturers, the study wishes to extend the question and ask them if they are likely to replace a POS system manufacturer should they look for a new POS system. Through the current customers, it was determined that
57% of the sector is unlikely to switch POS manufacturer in the next 3 years (Appendix
D, Table 18, Figure 42). One of the possible explanations for this could be due to the high switching costs of replacing hardware systems and software in multiple locations.
Again, most companies are staying with their current manufacturers. Among the others,
24% are not sure, and 20% are likely to switch their POS manufacturer. According to group that is more likely to switch among the current customers, POSuccess has the
least likeliness of switching then Macros, and Hello. (Figure 14, Appendix D, Table 5).
Figure 14 All Companies -Average Likelihood of Replacing POS Manufacturer in Next 3 Years. Sourp: Jivani, 2004
1 Current Customers--Planning to Switch POS I Manufacturers in next 3 Years
POSuccess Hello Macros
5.2 Descriptive Analysis of the Value Propositions
In order to validate the value propositions of POSuccess Systems, the respondents were asked to rate the importance of the twelve attributes which were discussed in the introduction. These attributes are the key differentiating factors of
POSuccess today.
5.2.1 Important Attributes according to Customers
According to the descriptive analysis of the attribute importance responses
(Appendix E, Table 19), the three most important attributes with their importance levels are system reliability (99%), ease of use (99%), and return on investment (93%). The two least important attributes are stylinglappearance and brand name (See Figure 15). Figure 15 lmportant Attributes (Vitally lmportant + Important). Source: Jivani, 2004 I lmportant Attributes (Vitally lmportant + Important)
Based on these attributes, I wish to determine the numbers of company within each rating. Since there are twelve attributes and five ratings per attribute, I will categorize respondents into a matrix of sixty groups and analyze how each group perceives POSuccess Systems and its immediate competitors.
5.3 Descriptive Analysis of Competitors
5.3.1 Un-Aided and Aided Recall on POS System manufacturers
An unaided recall of POS manufacturers was conducted immediately prior to the
aided recall to determine how many respondents think of POSuccess when they think
about a POS manufacturer, and how aware are they of other competitors in this market
(Appendix F, Table 21). Even though most respondents reported their own POS system
manufacturers, according to the un-aided recall, Macros (45%), POSuccess (25%), and
Hello (22%) were the most recognized companies (See Figure 16). Figure 16 Un-Aided Recall of Companies. Source: Jivani, 2004 I Un-aided Recall of Companies on Average
In order to conduct an aided recall and to help with recalling of the customers, the experimenter then read out a list of company names, which comprised of
POSuccess Systems and its direct competitors, asking the respondents to answer yes or
no based on their awareness of the companies (Appendix F, Table 22). Again, Macros
Systems was found to have the highest aided recall at 89%, with POSuccess Systems at
71%, and Hello Technologies at 69%, respectively. These three best recalled
companies also tend to be the most widely used Point-of-sale system manufacturers in this sector. Maitre d' has the lowest aided recall rate of 37% and there were no
respondents reporting Maitre d' as their POS systems (See Figure 17). Figure 17 Aided Recall of Companies. Source: Jivani, 2004
Company aided recall on Average
5.3.2 Analysis of Competitors ratings based on Attributes
Manufacturers of POS systems, including POSuccess Systems, were asked to
be rated on the twelve attributes of POSuccess' value propositions. Keep in mind
though that due to the market structure InfoPOS, Peterpoint, and KTouch have a very
few respondents. Thus, they are not included in the figures below to avoid any bias
based on the lack of respondents from these companies, which comprise of 7% of the
current customers, combined (Appendix D, Table 3). If there is further curiosity on how
these companies rated against the three major players, then please refer to the related
appendix for the tables that provide the analysis on all six companies (Appendix F,
Tables 23-34).
Each of the attributes was designed in the form of a statement. Respondents
were then requested to rate these statements on a scale from one to five, where one means disagree totally and five means agree totally. For an example, please refer to the questionnaire (Appendix A). The data was collected for Macros Systems, Hello
Technologies, POSuccess Systems, InfoPos, KTouch, and Peterpoint. Maitre d' was not included in this section, because no respondent mentioned the usage of this POS system.
The total respondents were 143 from the top six companies. Out of these respondents, a certain number of people agreed and totally agreed. The important calculation for this part was to determine how many people agree or apree totally to the statements for each company. Since the question was based on a scale of one to five, I took the number of people who either agreed or totally agreed to the statements,
determined what percent were they for each company out of the total respondents from the top six competing companies, and combined them together to get a total number of
respondents who agreed to the value proposition statements for that company.
5.3.3 Analysis of the Competitor Ratings based on "Agree" Statements
In real-time application, having only a 53% level of importance, Hello was rated
as the top company followed by Macros and POSuccess. Out of the respondents for
each of these companies, 86% agree that Hello's real-time application is very good, where as 63% agree with Macros, and 51% agree with POSuccess, respectively. This
shows that in real-time application the brand of Hello is far more reputable then Macros
or POSuccess (See Figure 18 & Appendix F Table 23). Figure 18 Agree on Statement -Very Good Real Time Application. Source: Jivani, 2004
Agree on Statement - Very Good Real Time Application. (Level of Importance to Customers = 53%)
I POSuccess Hello Macros
Again, in ergonomically designed POS systems, with a 65% importance, Hello was rated as the top company with 72% agreeing that Hello's ergonomically designed
POS system is very good, where as 67% agree with Macros, and 58% agree with
POSuccess, respectively. This shows that in ergonomically designed POS systems,
Hello is the most reputable company (See Figure 19 & Appendix F Table 24).
Figure 19 Agree on Statement - Very Good Ergonomically Designed POS System. Source: Jivani, 2004
Agree on Statement - Very Good Ergonomically Designed POS System. (Level of Importance to Customers = 65%)
POSuccess Hello Macros For a 24 hrs a day - 7 days a week call centre, with an importance of 68%,
Macros was rated as the top company by a bit, followed by POSuccess and Hello. Out of the respondents for each of these companies, 72% agree that Macros' call centre is very good, where as a decent 70% agree with POSuccess, and 69% agree with Hello, respectively. This shows that for the people who find the call centre important, the brand of Macros is far more reputable then POSuccess or Hello (See Figure 20 & Appendix F
Table 25).
Figure 20 Agree on Statement - Very Good 24 17 Call Centre. Source: Jivani, 2004
Agree on Statement -Very Good 24x7 Call Centre. (Level of Importance to Customers = 68%)
POSuccess Hello Macros
The key hardware support leader is clearly Macros, followed by POSuccess and then Hello. Hardware support has a 73% level of importance. Out of the respondents for each of these companies, 88% agree that Macros' hardware support department is very good, where as less then a third at 49% agree with POSuccess, and only 14% agree with Hello, respectively. This shows that in hardware support, Macros clearly dominates the field (See Figure 21 & Appendix F Table 26).
* Figure 21 Agree on Statement -Very Good Hardware Support. Source: Jivani, 2004
Agree on Statement - Very Good Hardware Support. (Level of lmportance to Customers = 73%)
I POSuccess Hello Macros
In custom integration and analysis, having an 88% level of importance, Hello again was rated as the top company with 90% agreeing that Hello's custom integration and analysis is very good, where as 87% agree with Macros, and only 56% agree with
POSuccess, respectively. This shows that in custom integration and analysis, Hello is the most reputable (See Figure 22 &Appendix F Table 27).
Figure 22 Agree on Statement -Very Good Custom lntegration and Analysis. Source: Jivani, 2004
Agree on Statement - Very Good Custom lntegration and Analysis. (Level of Importance to Customers = 88%)
POSuccess Hello Macros In software upgrade agreement, with an 87% level of importance, POSuccess leads by 88% agreeing that its software upgrade agreement is very good, where as 79% agree with Hello. Macros on the other hand place in the middle having an agreement of
79% of having a good software upgrade agreement. Thus POSuccess clearly dominates in this areas of expertise (See Figure 23 & Appendix F Table 28).
Figure 23 Agree on Statement -Very Good Software Upgrade Agreement. Source: Jivani,
Agree on Statement - Very Good Software Upgrade Agreement. (Level of Importance to Customers = 87%)
POSuccess Hello Macros
System reliability, with the highest importance of 99%, is another example in which Hello clearly leads the field with a 100% agreement from the total Aloha respondents but Macros, due to its size and resources is not too far behind at 87% and
POSuccess is also fairly close at 86%. With everything in consideration, all of the three companies are looked upon as the leaders of system reliability (See Figure 24 &
Appendix F Table 29). Figure 24 Agree on Statement -Very Good System Reliability. Source: Jivani, 2004
Agree on Statement - Very Good Realiability of the System. (Level of lmportance to Customers = 99%)
POSuccess Hello Macros
In the ease-of-use attribute, Macros was rated as the top company at 98% but 3 closely followed by POSuccess with 91 % and Hello with 90%. Having a fairly decent ranking in the compliance of ease-of-use, POSuccess should look into newer innovations and partnering with a technology firm, to capitalize on this attribute and enhance its technologies to become the market leader in this attribute since its level of importance is at 99% (See Figure 25 & Appendix F Table 30).
Figure 25 Agree on Statement -Very Easy to Use. Source: Jivani, 2004
Agree on Statement - Very Easy to Use. (Level of lmportance to Customers = 99%)
POSuccess Hello Macros The leader rated for easy to upgrade systems, which is at 86% importance to customers is Hello again, rated as the top company with an 86% agreement that its systems are very easy to upgrade, where as 75% agree with Macros, and 70% agree with POSuccess, respectively. Clearly, in the ease of upgrade attribute, brand of Hello is far more reputable then POSuccess or Hello (See Figure 26 & Appendix F Table 31).
Figure 26 Agree on Statement -Very Easy to Upgrade. Source: Jivani, 2004
Agree on Statement - Very Easy to Upgrade. (Level of Importance to Customers = 86%)
POSuccess Hello Macros
Brand name superiority, with a 39% level of importance, is certainly given to
Macros followed by Hello and POSuccess. Currently, POSuccess has an agreement of
51%, and Hello has 69%. Having much bigger resources and huge brand equity,
Macros clears this field with 80% agreement of having a very good brand name (See
Figure 27 & Appendix F Table 32). Figure 27 Agree on Statement - Very Good Brand Name. Source: Jivani, 2004
Agree on Statement -Very Good Brand Name. (Level of lmportance to Customers = 39%)
I< POSuccess Hello Macros
In styling or appearance, having only a 31% level of importance to customers, superiority is given to Hello with an 86% agreement followed by Macros at 83% and then by POSuccess at 40%. POSuccess should focus on improving in this area then its current position, but does not need to spend an extreme amount of capital, as this attribute is one of the least important ones for the customers (See Figure 28 & Appendix
F Table 33).
Figure 28 Agree on Statement -Very Good Styling or Appearance. Source: Jivani, 2004
--- - Agree on Statement - Very Good Styling I Appearance. (Level of Importance to Customers = 31%)
POSuccess Hello Macros The last attribute companies were rated on was ROI, in which superiority is given again to Macros with its biggest agreement at 95%, followed by Hello at 93% and
POSuccess at only 60%. ROI is one of the most important factors for customers (93% importance) and it should receive a consideration from POSuccess to provide one of the more reasonable ROI systems possible (See Figure 29 & Appendix F Table 34).
Figure 29 Agree on Statement -Very Good ROI. Source: Jivani, 2004
I Agree on Statement - Very Good ROI. (Level of Importance to Customers = 93%) I -
POSuccess Hello Macros I
Compared with the rest of its competitors, POSuccess Systems has a fair ranking. It received average rankings in each attribute with its strongest attributes of software upgrade agreement, ease of use, 24x7 call centre, and reliability of the POS system. The lowest rating was received on stylinglappearance.
5.4 Descriptive Analysis of Marketing Services
The respondents were also asked on their preferred means to receive information about new or improved POS systems. They were given choices among trade shows, trade journal, newsl&ters, web advertising, e-mail campaign, and direct mail campaign. Most respondents really like receiving information through email campaign (66%) by the time it's not done too often. In addition, they also prefer trade shows (54%) and direct mail (52%) campaigns. They really dislike campaigns through trade journals (37%) and receiving information from newsletters (34%), while the most preferred marketing service was email marketing campaign (See Figure 30, Appendix F
Table 35).
Figure 30 Preference in Receiving lnformation
Trade Show
EI Trade Joumals
Newsletter
0 Web Adwrtising
Email Campaign Extremely Like Neutral Dislike Extremely NIA Like Dislike es Dir.Mail Campaign
5.5 Inferential Analysis
5.5.1 Correlation Matrix
The goal for running SPSS analysis on this data was to manipulate the data to see what other explanations can be derived from this data. To further analyze the data, a correlation matrix was done to see if the top five important factors influence respondents to purchase product from their current POS system manufacturer (Table 1). * Table 1 Correlation Matrix
Correlations
Experience rating service satisfaction quality purchase upgrade replace Experience Pearson Correlation 1 ,579" .628** .449" .47P 540" -.024 -.178' Sig. (2-tailed) .OOO ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,768 ,028 N 153 152 151 153 153 153 153 153 rating Pearson Correlation .579** 1 ,484'' ,358" .428** .442*" ,034 -.I05 Sig. (2-tailed) .OOO ,000 ,000 ,000 .OOO ,679 .I99 N 152 152 150 152 152 152 152 152 service Pearson Correlation 628" .484*" 1 ,509" .415" ,557- .053 -.I45 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 .OOO ,000 ,520 ,076 N 151 150 151 151 151 151 151 151 satisfaction Pearson Correlation .449*^ .358** .509** 1 ,497" .423*' .047 -.029 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 .OOO ,567 ,719 (000 N 153 152 151 153 153 153 153 153 quality Pearson Correlation .474" .428^* .415** ,497- 1 ,374'' -.092 .030 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 .OOO ,000 .258 .710 N 153 152 151 153 153 153 153 153 purchase Pearson Correlation .540** .442** ,557" ,423'' .374*' 1 ,023 -.024- Sig. (2-tailed) .OOO ,000 ,000 .OOO ,000 ,774 .767 N 153 152 151 153 153 153 153 153 upgrade Pearson Correlation -.024 ,034 .053 ,047 -.092 ,023 1 ,122 Sig. (2-tailed) ,768 ,679 ,520 ,567 .258 .774 ,134 N 153 152 151 153 153 153 153 153 replace Pearson Correlation -.178' -.I05 -.145 -.029 ,030 -.024 .I22 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,028 .I99 ,076 ,719 ,710 .767 .I34 N 153 152 151 153 153 153 153 153 .* . Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The factors comprise of past experience with the POS system manufacturer, overall ratings of the POS system manufacturers, satisfaction with service from the manufacturer, satisfaction with the amount of contact between respondents and manufacturer, and the quality of the manufacturer's sales organization. Although all factors are positively correlated with repeated purchase decisions, past experience with the manufacturers and satisfaction derived from services were found to correlate with repeated purchase to a slightly greater extent. A similar matrix was set up for the # likelihood of respondents replacing their current POS system with a different manufacturer using the same factors. It was discovered that replacing manufacturers is again strongly correlated with past experience and service satisfaction. The negative correlations meant the more favourable the POS system manufacturers are rated, the less likely the respondents are to switch their POS system manufacturers. High co linearity was found for past experience and service satisfaction; one of the possibilities to this relationship could be that positive ratings of past experience are derived from respondents' satisfaction from manufacturer services. If this is the case, then it emphasizes the importance of customer service in the viewpoint of respondents.
5.5.2 Multiple Regression Analysis
Due to the strong correlation, the SPSS program yield for reheated purchase decision, a multiple regression analysis was performed to look at the relationship between the factors and re-purchase decision. This linear relationship (Appendix G,
Figure 43) can be described by the following regression equation:
Y = -0.334 + 0.3260verall Past Experience + 0.355Service Satisfaction +
0. I 61Contact Satisfaction + 0.058Sales Quality
Table 2 Multiple Regression: Coefficients Table
Unstandardized Standardized Model Coe cients Coefficients Sig.
B Std. Error Beta +1 (Constant) 1.101 .281 service .778 ,075 2 (Constant) .203 .329 service 512 .091 Experience .458 .098 3 (Constant) -.I56 .357 service .439 .095 Experience .411 .098 satisfaction .203 .083 4 (Constant) -.624 .412 service .408 ,095 Experience .322 .I06 satisfaction .I89 .083 rating ,206 ,094 a Dependent Variable: purchase
To understand how those five factors relate to repeated purchase decisions, I will look at the R-square value (Appendix G Table 36). This value shows that over 45% of the variation in the repeated purchase decision can be predicted on the basis of the five factors. Looking at the beta in the Coefficients table (Table 2), conveys that the re- purchase decision is based mainly on service as the biggest factor (Beta = 0.392), followed by past overall experience (Beta = 0.327). Therefore, it is vitally important to maintain a good service and overall experience of the customer which can be rewarded through re-purchase decision.
i 5.5.3 Two Step Cluster Analysis
A two step cluster analysis was conducted using two, three, four, and five clusters. The clusters were created using all original variables of the attribute importance. After running the cluster analysis, it was found that the best distribution of the value proposition attributes was through three clusters, since two, and four clusters were not evenly distributed and 5 clusters did not have significant differences (Appendix
G, Tables 37-39).
Table 3 Distribution of 3 Clusters Cluster Distribution
Combined -% of Total Cluster 1 73 47.7% 37.1% 2 36 23.5% 18.3% 3 44 28.8% 22.3% Combined 153 100.0% 77.7% Excluded Cases 44 22.3% Total 197 106.0% This analysis was conducted using the twelve attributes. Cluster one had 73 respondents, cluster two had 36, and cluster three had 44 respondents (Table 3). There were 44 cases that were no part of the attributes' scores. By looking at the cluster variation after running a Oneway ANOVA (Appendix G, Table 41) and focusing on the means plots of each attribute, I was able to determine which attributes are important to each of the clusters (Figure 31, Appendix E Table 20).
Figure 31 Attribute lmportance by Cluster. Source: Jivani, 2004
Attribute Importance by Cluster 1
Through the ANOVA, it was determined that cluster one gave importance to five attributes, which are custom integration and analysis, software upgrade agreement, system reliability, ease of use, and return on investment. Cluster two gives importance to two only attributes, which are custom integration and analysis, and brand name.
Cluster three, on the other hand, provides importance to six different attributes, which
b are real time application, 24x7 call centre, hardware support, software upgrade agreement, reliability of the system, and ease of use. The attributes ergonomically designed POS system and stylinglappearance were not considered a high priority for any of the clusters. The attribute tables for cluster one, two, and three which has each company's distribution in the three clusters, is provided in the appendix (Appendix G,
Table 40), where company 1 is Macros, 2 is Hello, and 3 is POSuccess.
5.6 POSuccess Systems VS. Competition
The immediate competitors of POSuccess Systems consist of Macros Systems,
Hello Technologies, Maitre d', InfoPos, KTouch, and PeterPoint. Maitre d' was removed from this comparison because no report was found on Maitre d' among the respondents, and the rest of the three due to insufficient market share. In the remaining three companies, based on this research, POSuccess Systems has the second largest market share next to Macros Systems in the lead. POSuccess Systems received the highest overall company rating. Macros Systems had been rated favourably on hardware support, easy to use, and its brand name. They were given a low average score on their software upgrade agreement and system reliability. Hello Technologies was next as they are being perceived to have good real time application, custom integration and analysis, very good reliability of the system, easy to upgrade, very good styling and ROI.
One of their poor ratings was on their hardware support. In addition to these immediate competitors that are being recognized, a few other companies were reported commonly by respondents. Those companies include TEC, a sales subsidiary to Toshiba TEC
Corporation, KCN, ITBMI, and SonicCap. Those companies carve up similar market share in our sample of respondents as PeterPoint and KTouch.
Data was retrieved from tier 2 and tier 3 companies, because the food service directory only provided database on the two tiers. According to this existing market
% share data, 15% of tier 2 companies were using POSuccess Systems, and they are the second largest POS system provider next to Macros Systems at roughly 70%. Similar statistics were found for tier 3 companies. POSuccess Systems has a gain with a market share of 13% in tier 3 market, while Macros Systems declined to 63%. Again,
POSuccess Systems was captivating the second largest share. These comparisons were conducted between the immediate competitors of POSuccess Systems within all hospitality sectors of the POS systems for North America.
In addition, by understanding the distribution of the current customers of the leading companies in the two clusters (Appendix G, Table 44); POSuccess is in a better position to decide on its distribution of resources, by allocating them in the most efficient manner.
5.7 SWOT Analysis
5.7.1 Strengths
POSuccess Systems has set up strategic partnerships with companies providing electronic payments or software development. By doing so, POSuccess Systems is able to provide customers with an end product that combines innovative and most up-to-date technologies. Consequently, it allows POSuccess Systems to achieve superior quality.
Being the innovator of touch screen POS systems, POSuccess Systems has gained brand loyalty with some large restaurant chains such as The Keg.
POSuccess Systems achieves competitive advantage by providing customized
POS systems for customers and developing easy to use and easy to learn POS systems. To ensure customer satisfaction, POSuccess Systems has established a 24 hours a day 17days a week solution centre to resolve customer inquiries. In addition to these strengths, this research study discovered that customers perceive POSuccess I Systems to have an easy to use, reliable POS system, with a good software upgrade agreement, and a 24x7 call centre. 5.7.2 Weaknesses + Opportunities
POSuccess Systems was rated poorly on its performance in custom integration and analysis, real time application of POS system, stylelappearance of the POS system, ease of upgrade, brand name, and R01. Instead of letting these attributes weaken
POSuccess Systems' status in the market; POSuccess can make improvements by boosting the real time application function of POS system, expanding its hardware support department, and enhancing the stylelappearance of its systems. The first priority for POSuccess should be to focus on the two important attributes to customers, which are ease of upgrade and ROI, in which this company has been rated low. Food service and hospitality industries have recognized the importance of advance technology in their business operations. With the growing demand of POS systems to help restaurants function more efficiently, it provides POSuccess with a definite opportunity to gain a fair market share. POSuccess should focus on cluster one and three companies that give importance to 24x7 call centre, software upgrade agreement, system reliability, and ease of use, since POSuccess is perceived to lead in these four attributes. Further expansion can be reached with proper marketing strategies.
5.7.3 Threats
A big threat to POSuccess Systems is the strong market position of Macros
Systems, which is a publicly traded company targeting the same market segment as
POSuccess Systems. From the collected data, more than half of the market share is captivated by Macros Systems. Another threat is associated with the growing demands of POS systems, because it attracts potential competitors to enter into the industry. This leads us to the discussion of Porter's first force, the risk of potential competitors, in our next section. 5.8 Porter's Forces
5.8.1 Potential Competitors
Potential competitors are companies currently in different industries, but have the ability to enter the POS systems industry given its lucrative status. During one of our surveys, a respondent has replied that they make their own POS system. Big companies in the food service and hospitality industries can enter into the POS systems industry by manufacturing the systems internally. These companies are knowledgeable about their needs, and could threaten to take away customers from POSuccess
Systems. Other potential competitors are technology companies, since they have the basic technology to manufacture POS systems; an example is ITBMI, which has been already offering POS systems and related products.
5.8.2 Rivalry in the industry
Rivalry is intense in the POS systems industry. During the survey, over twenty
POS system company names were mentioned. As previously mentioned, Macros
Systems is leading competitor among all of the companies. Most companies offer similar products and services in order to survive competition in the same market segment.
5.8.3 Closeness of Substitute
A substitute for POS systems is simple cash registers. They do not have a fancy design or anything more then a basic computer system. However, it is sufficient and affordable for smaller restaurant chains, such as those in the tier 1 with lesser resources available. With the ease of use of POS systems, restaurants will be looking forward to replace cash registers if there are models available for a comparable price. IMPLICATIONS
The implication of this research was to validate the importance of the value proposition that POSuccess offers. In addition, my goal was to pinpoint some of the strengths and weaknesses of POSuccess Systems by conducting an industry analysis with its competitors. Through these findings, I will be able to better understand the POS system manufacturers from the customer's stand point.
I have found that 2 strong competitors of POSuccess Systems are Hello
Technologies and Macros Systems. Their presence is taking away significant market share away from POSuccess Systems. POSuccess Systems could improve its standing among the competitors by enhancing its marketing strategy to gain more prevalence in the segment by making them aware of POSuccess' value propositions and make improvements on the above mentioned key areas of weaknesses. Based on the responses from the survey, e-mail campaigns, and direct mail campaigns can be utilized to help promoting POSuccess Systems' products and services to a broader customer base. In addition, POSuccess' booth at trade shows is certainly a preferred method of advertisement based on our respondents.
Past experience with manufacturers and the satisfaction derived from service seem to be two of the most important determinants in the repeated purchase decision.
Since the cost to retain customer is lower than the cost to cultivate a new group of customers, POSuccess Systems should focus their attention in gaining competitive advantage through high level of customer responsiveness, thereby increasing the possibility of future sales and reducing the likelihood of customers switching POS manufacturers. On the basis of the POS system manufacturer's ratings, POSuccess Systems is weak in its ease of upgrade, ROI, real time application, hardware support, and stylinglappearance attributes. Within the six attributes, ROI, ease of upgrade, and hardware support have been rated more important. POSuccess Systems can search for cost-effective measures to reduce its costs, providing a better product and service to the customer, resulting in the increase of the ROI of its products. It could also take measures to make the upgrade function simple, and improve its hardware support, which could include offering proper on-site POS systems training, and reducing resolution time.
One of POSuccess Systems' competitive advantages is its solution centre, which offers 24 hours a day and 7 days a week help desk service is to support customers.
However, competition have followed and added this service to their offerings. To differentiate itself from competitors, POSuccess Systems needs to strengthen or expand its current customer support. An easy access, quick, and convenient way to provide support is through the use of virtual solution centre, instead of call transfer and indefinite wait. Online support service can reduce the irritation for existing customers.
One of the possible explanations for Macros Systems to seize such a substantial market share is their impression of reliability and financial stability through its public stock offerings and because of being a remarkable leader in the two important attributes perceived by respondents were the reliability of the POS system and the ease of POS system use. Further studies could be implemented to find out about the determinants of those attributes. 7 CONCLUSION
This paper not only provides the information of what is important to the customers, but it also states who is leading the field among those attributes, and why.
The company should focus on the cluster one and three companies that give importance to 24x7 call centre, software upgrades, and ease of use since POSuccess is perceived to lead in these three attributes. POSuccess Systems could improve its standing among the competitors by enhancing its marketing strategy to gain more prevalence in the segment by making them aware of POSuccess' value propositions and make improvements on areas of weaknesses. Based on the customer preferences, they should be promoted through e-mail campaigns, trade shows, and direct mail campaigns.
With the information provided, POSuccess Systems will be in the position to provide its customers the difference that makes a difference. APPENDIX A
Questionnaire
Interviewee Company
Product Awareness, Attitudes, Usage
I understand that you currently have a POS system. 1) How long ago did you purchase your current POS system? 1-3 years 4-5 years 6-1 0 years 11-1 5 years 15 years +
2) In considering your current POS system's manufacturer, how is your overall experience with this company? Please select one of the following responses: -Excellent -Good -Fair -Poor -Never Again
3) Overall, how would you rate this company? Please select one of the following responses: Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible Not Sure
4) How satisfied are you with your service from this company? Extremely satisfied Very Satisfied Neutral Very Dissatisfied Extremely Dissatisfied 5) Would you recommend this product to someone else? Yes No Not Sure
6) For your NEXT product purchase, how likely are you to purchase from this company? Definitely would buy Probably would buy Mightlmight not buy Probably would not buy Definitely would not buy
7) Overall, how satisfied are you with the amount of contact between youlyour organization and this company? Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Not Sure
8) Overall, the quality of the sales organization of this company is: Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
9) What would you expect to pay for a top-of-the-line 4 terminal POS system? -1 0 to 15,000 -1 5 to 20,000 -20 to 25,000 -25 to 30,000 -More then 30,000
10) From which company did you purchase your last POS system? Please provide the name of the POS hardware manufacturer: Describe......
11) How did you prefer to contact customer service? Email Fax Telephone Other: Please Specify:
12) Are you using any other systems besides this one? -Yes -No
If Yes, which one(s): 13) How likely are you to buy or upgrade in the next 3 yrs? Very unlikely somewhat unlikely not sure somewhat likely very likely
14) How likely are you to replace your POS system with a different manufacturer over the next 3 years? -Very Certain -High Chance -Low Chance -No Chance -Not Sure
Product Purchase Decisions: I am going to ask you some questions about the attributes of POS systems.
15) How important are these Attributes to you when choosing to purchase a POS system: Please describe each of the following item based on the scale of 1-5, 1 being Not - important at all, 2 being Not so important, 3 being Neutral, 4 being Important, and 5 being Vitally Important. So, based on the scale of 1 to 5, how do you perceive: -Real Time Application -Ergonomically designed POS system -24 hours a day, 7 days a week, call centre -Hardware Support -Custom Integration and Analysis -Software Upgrade Agreement -Reliability of the system -Ease of Use -Easy to Upgrade -Brand name -Styling/Appearance -RO I
16) For the next question, please tell me the significant Point Of Sale company names that come to your mind. Please tell me the company names: 1> 2) 3) Note: Write down as many un-aided recalled company names, but conduct the survey on only the first three on the list. Competitor Analvsis: 17) Please tell me if you have heard of each of the following by saying Yes or NO: (Note: Exclude the company names that were listed in question 16, & randomize them) Micros Aloha Squirrel Maitre d' Info Genesis PosiTouch Pixelpoint
NOTE: List the top 3 company names they have mentioned in questions 16 and 17 based on the method provided in the training. If Squirrel is one of the companies mentioned in questions 16 or 17, include that as one of the three companies for questions 18-20.
COMMENT: Now I will be asking you some questions on three of the companies with respect to their POS systems. Based on the following attributes, please tell us according to your experience or image of this company, how you perceive the products from this company. Please base your answers on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means disagree totally and 5 means agree totally.
18) Company: -Very good Real Time Application -Very good Ergonomically designed POS system -24 hours a day, 7 days a week, call centre -Very good Hardware Support -Very good Custom Integration and Analysis -Very good Software Upgrade Agreement -Very good Reliability of the system -Very good Ease of Use -Very Easy to Upgrade -Very good Brand name -Very good StylinglAppearance -Very good ROI Any other comments regarding ? 19) The second company I'd like to ask you about is . Again, please base your answers on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means disagree totally, and 5 means agree totally. -Very good Real Time Application -Very good Ergonomically designed POS system -24 hours a day, 7 days a week, call centre -Very good Hardware Support -Very good Custom Integration and Analysis -Very good Software Upgrade Agreement -Very good Reliability of the system -Very good Ease of Use -Very Easy to Upgrade -Very good Brand name -Very good StylinglAppearance -Very good ROI Any other comments regarding ?
20) The third company I'd like to ask you about is . Again, please base your answers on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means disagree totally, and 5 means agree totally. -Very good Real Time Application -Very good Ergonomically designed POS system -24 hours a day, 7 days a week, call centre -Very good Hardware Support -Very good Custom lntegration and Analysis -Very good Software Upgrade Agreement -Very good Reliability of the system -Very good Ease of Use -Very Easy to Upgrade -Very good Brand name -Very good StylinglAppearance -Very good ROI Any other comments regarding ?
Evaluation of use of marketing services COMMENT: This brings us to our last question.
21) For each of the following advertising, sales and marketing services listed, please tell us which communication method does your company prefer in receiving information about new and improved POS systems? Extremely Like, Like, Neutral, Dislike, Extremely Dislike
-Trade Shows -Trade Journals -Newsletters -Web Advertising -Email marketing campaign -Direct mail campaign Do you have any additional questions or comments regarding this marketing study?
-AT THE END OF THE SURVEY, STATE:
Thank you very much for your valuable time Mr./Ms. . You have been extremely helpful. I will now enter your name in the lottery to win that gift certificate and will also be sending you a gift which you will receive within a two week period. For any questions or concerns regarding this marketing study, please contact Mr. Naveed Jivani. Thanks again, and have a great day. Bye. Script
AUTOMATED SYSTEM:
If you receive an automated system, locate the person by their last name and ring their extension and go to the RESPONDENT script directly. If you come across an assistant, go to the ASSISTANT script followed by the RESPONDENT script.
ASSISTANT:
Hello, this is . May I speak with Mr./Ms. . Thank you.
(If enquired upon where you are calling from, let them know, you're calling from SFU).
RESPONDENT:
Hello Mr./Ms. , how are you. This is . l am phoning you on behalf of Mr. Naveed Jivani, an MBA student fulfilling program requirements by conducting a survey on Point of Sale systems. This valuable research study, which could be of interest to you, is being conducted on behalf of one of the leading firms manufacturing the POS &terns. The survey will only take a few minutes, and at the end of it I will not only enter your name in a lottery to win a 300 US dollars
American Express gift certificate, but will also be sending you a valuable gift, which you will receive within next two weeks, as a gesture of our appreciation for your valuable time. To understand the needs that the point of sale system fulfils from a customer stand point, do I have your permission to ask you some questions that will only take a few minutes?
If YES, say THANK YOU and begin the survey.
If NO, refer to the FALLBACK QUESTIONS GUIDE. APPENDIX C
Fall Back Questions Guide
Q: I am busy right now.
R: Not a problem sirlmadam. I completely understand. What will be a better time for you so I can obtain your valuable perspective on POS systems.
Q: If assistant asks, the purpose for the call?
R: This is , and I need to speak to someone in the point-of-sale purchasing department.
Q: Who is the sponsoring company?
R: In order not to prejudice your response, I cannot tell you their name before nor during the survey, but I can certain tell you their name afterwards.
Q: At which university is the person finishing their MBA?
R: Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Q: How long will the survey take?
R: Nine minutes Q: What is a Real-time Application?
R: This is the application by which any data that is entered at any of the terminals in your restaurant chain, can be viewed in real-time at the head office. For example, by entering the last food order, the system at the local restaurant determines a particular product is running low in the inventory, it will immediately send a page in real-time to the head office to fulfil that inventory need.
Q: How may I contact the person conducting the marketing study?
R: Please contact Mr. Naveed Jivani at (604) 307-3923 or by email nii~ani~sfu.ca APPENDIX D
Table 4: POS Systems used by Respondents POS Systems Used by Respondents
Companies Number of Customers Percent Per Company ABS 1 1O/o Hello 2 1 14% CASH REGISTER 1 1% CAS I0 1 1% DIGITAL PLANNING 1 1% DILEVER PLUS 1 1% FoodTec 2 1% ITBMl 4 3% InfoPos 2 1% INTUIT ECLlP 1 1% LIWSON 1 1% Macros 45 29%
MULTIFLEX 1 1% NIA 17 11% NCR 5 3% SonicCap 5 3% PAR 1 1% Peterpoint 4 3% KTouch 4 3% Sunny 1 1% SABLE 2 1% SHAREWOOD 1 1% SHARP 2 1% POSuccess 25 16% TEC 3 2%
I I Respondents 153 Table 5 Current Company Satisfaction Ratings
Current Com~anvSatisfaction I POSuccess Hello Macros Duration > 11 yrs 4 11 Durltot.per comp. 17% Experience (Good+) 20 Expltot.per comp. 83% Company Ratings (Good+) 22 Rateltot.per comp. 92% Service (VS+ES) 14 Serv1tot.per comp. 58% Recommendation (yes) 19 Recomltot.per comp. 79% Re-purchase (PB+DB) 19 Purchaseltot.per comp. 79% Amount of Contact (S+VS) 20 Cont/tot.per comp. 83% I
Quality1tot.per comp. 67% Price > 25K 12
Switch (HC+VC) 1 Switchltot.per comp. 4%
Total Res~ondentsDer Co. Table 6: Average Duration from the Purchase of the Last POS System Average Duration from the Purchase of the Last PO- PO-
Duration Period Number of Buyers per Period Percent Per Period 1-3 years 38 25% 4-5 years 38 25% 6-10 years 38 25% 11-1 5 years 14 9% 15+ years 16 10% I Respondents 153 1 Figure 32 Average Duration from the Purchase of the Last POS System All Companies - Average duration from the Purchase of the Last POS System 1-3 4-5 6-10 11-15 15+ Duration in Years Table 7 Overall Company Experience Ratings Number of Companies Percent Per Rating Excellent 41 27% I Good 89 58% Fair 22 14% Poor 1 1% Never Again 0 0% 1 Respondents I 153 Figure 33 Average Overall Experience All Companies - Average Overall Experience Excellent Good Fair Poor Never Again Ratings Table 8 Overall Ratings Average Overall Ratinqs Ratings I Number of Companies 1 Percent Per Rating Excellent 24 16% Good 92 60 O/O Fair 34 22% Poor 2 1% I Terrible 1 1% Not sure 0 0% I I Respondents I 153 Figure 34 Average Overall Ratings All Companies - Average Overall Ratings Ratings Excellent Good Fair Poor Terrible Not sure Scale Table 9 Service Ratings Averaqe Service 1 Ratings Number of Companies Percent Per Rating Extremely Satisfied 18 12% Very satisfied 74 48% Satisfied (ES + VS) 92 60% Neutral 55 36% Very dissatisfied 4 3% I Extremely Dissatisfied / 0 0% NIA 2 1% I Respondents 245 Figure 35 Average Service Ratings All Companies - Average Service Ratings Scale Table 10 Recommendation Respondents 153 Figure 36 Recommendations I All Companies - Recommendations Yes No Not Sure Response Table 11 Likelihood of Re-Purchase from Current Company Likelihood of Re- Purchase from Current Company Number of Percent Per Ratings Companies Rating Definitely would buy 45 29% Probably would buy 73 48% Would Buy (DWB + PWB) 118 77% MightIMight not buy 20 13% Probably would not buy I 14 9% Definitely would not buy 1 1% I I Respondents 271 Figure 37 Likelihood of Re-Purchase All Companies - Likelihood of Re-Purchase Definitely Probably Would Buy MightIMight Probably Definitely would buy would buy (DWB + not buy would not would not PWB) buy buy Scale Table 12 Satisfaction with the Amount of Contacts Satisfaction with 1 the Amount of Contacts I I I Ratings Number of Companies I Percent Per Rating , Very satisfied 38 25% Satisfied 88 58% Satisfied (VS + S) I 126 82% Neutral 24 16% Dissatisfied I 3 1 2 O/O I Not Sure 0 0% I Respondents 153 Figure 38 Satisfaction with the Amount of Contacts All Companies - Satisfaction with Amount of Contacts Scale Table 13 Satisfaction with the Quality of Sales Organization I Quality of Sales / Organization I I Ratings Number of Companies Percent Per Rating Excellent 26 17% Very good 66 43% 1Good 53 35% Good or Better (E + VG + G) 145 95% Fair 7 5% Poor 1 1% I I Respondents 153 Figure 39 Quality of Sales Organization All Companies - Quality of Sales Organization Excellent Very good Good Good or Fair Poor Better (E +VG+G) Scale Table 14 Price for a 4-terminal POS System Price for a 4- terminal POS System Price Ranges Number of Companies Percent Per Range 10 to 15,000 8 5% 15 to 20,000 35 23% 20 to 25,000 35 23% 25 to 30,000 39 2 5O/O More than 30,000 34 22% NIA 2 1% 1 Respondents 153 Figure 40 Price Willingness for a 4-Terminal POS System All Companies - Price Willingness for a 4-Terminal POS System 10 to 15 to 20 to 25 to More than NIA 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 30,000 Price Categories Table 15 Preference in Contacting Customer Service I Preference in ( Contacting Customer Service Preferences Number of Companies Percent Per Preference Fax 0 0% Email 12 8% Phone 1 13 74% All the Preferences 10 7% Email and Phone 18 12% I I Respondents 153 Table 16 Usage of more then One POS System Usa~eof more then One POS System Response Number of Companies Percent Per Response YES 55 36% NO 98 64% I I Respondents 1 153 Table 17 Likelihood of BuyinglUpgrading in next 3 Years Likelihood of Buying 1 Upgrade in Next Three Years I I Likeliness Number of Companies Percent Per Likeliness Very likely 12 8% Somewhat likely 32 21 % Likely (VL + SL) 44 29 O/O Not sure 33 22% Somewhat unlikely 42 27% Very unlikely 34 22% Unlikely (SU + VU) 76 50% I I Respondents 153 Figure 41 All Companies - Average Likelihood of PurchasinglUpgrading POS System in Next 3 Years All Companies - Average Likelihood of PurchasingIUpgrading in Next 3 Years Scale Table 18 Likelihood of Switching POS Manufacturer in Next 3 Years Likelihood of Switching POS Manufacturer in Next Three Years Likeliness Number of Companies Percent Per Likeliness Very certain 3 2% High chance 27 18% Likely (VC + HC) 30 20% Not sure 36 24% Low chance 57 37% / No chance 30 20% I Unlikely (LC + NC) 1 87 57% / Respondents 153 Figure 42 All Companies - Average Likelihood of Replacing POS Manufacturer in Next 3 Years All Companies - Average Likelihood of Switching POS Manufacturer in Next 3 Years Very High Likely Not sure Low No Unlikely certain chance (VC + chance chance (LC+ HC) NC) Likeliness Scale APPENDIX E Table 19 lmportant Attributes lmportant Attributes (Vitally lmportant + Important) Attributes Importance (Value) Importance (Percentage) Real time application 8 1 53% Ergonomically designed 100 65% 24 hrs call centre 104 68% Hardware support 111 73% Custom design 135 88% Upgrade agreement 133 87% System reliability 151 99% Ease of Use 151 99% Ease of Upgrade 132 86% Brand Name 60 39% Appearance 48 31 % RO I 143 93% Table 20 Attribute lmportance by Cluster I Attributes Importance by Cluster I Attributes Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Real time application Low Med High Ergonomically designed Med Med Low 24 hrs call centre Med Med High Hardware support Low Low High Custom design High High Low Upgrade agreement High Low High System reliability High Low High Ease of Use High Low High Ease of Upgrade Low Med Med Brand Name Low High Med Appearance Low Med Med ROI High Med Low APPENDIX F Table 21 Un-aided Recall of Companies Recall of Number of Company Recalls Macros 60 I Hello I 30 KTouch I 3 POSuccess InfoPos PeterPoint I Respondents 134 Table 22 Company Aided Recall Company Aided Recall Company Aided Recall Recalled Percentage Macros 136 89% Hello 106 69% POSuccess 108 71 % MaestroTech 57 37% lnfoPos 98 64% KTouch 76 50% Peterpoint 71 46% Respondents 1 153 Table 23 Agree on Statement -Very Good Real Time Application Agree on Statement -Very Good Real Time Application Company Num of Respondents Agreed Percent Distribution Hello 25 86% POSuccess 22 51% Macros 38 63% InfoPos 4 100% Peterpoint 2 67% KTouch 4 100% Tot. Hello 29 Tot POSuccess 43 Tot Macros 60 Tot. InfoPos 4 Tot. Peterpoint 3 Tot. Ktouch 4 I I Respondents 143 Table 24 Agree on Statement -Very Good Ergonomically Designed POS System Agree on Statement - Very Good Ergonomically -Designed POS System Company Num of Respondents Agreed Percent Distribution Hello 2 1 72 % ( POSuccess 25 58% I Macros 40 67% Peterpoint 0 0% KTouch 1 25% Tot. Hello 29 Tot POSuccess 43 Tot Macros 60 Tot. InfoPos 4 Tot. Peterpoint 3 Tot. Ktouch 4 1 Respondents 143 Table 25 Agree on Statement - Very Good 24x7 Call Centre Aaree on Statement - Ven/ Good 24x7 Call Centre Company Num of Respondents Agreed Percent Distribution Hello 20 69% POSuccess 30 70% Macros 43 72% InfoPos 4 100% Peterpoint 0 0% KTouch 4 100% Tot. Hello 29 Tot POSuccess 43 Tot Macros 60 Tot. lnfoPos 4 Tot. Peterpoint 1 3 Tot. Ktouch 4 I Respondents 143 Table 26 Agree on Statement - Hardware Support Agree on Statement - Hardware Support Company Num of Respondents Agreed Percent Distribution Hello 4 14% POSuccess 2 1 49% Macros 53 88% InfoPos 4 100% ( Peterpoint 0 0% KTouch 4 100% Tot. Hello 29 Tot POSuccess 43 Tot Macros 60 Tot. InfoPos 4 Tot. Peterpoint 3 Tot. Ktouch 4 1 Respondents 143 Table 27 Agree on Statement - Very Good Custom Integration and Analysis Agree on Statement - Very Good Custom Integration and Analysis Company Num of Respondents Agreed Percent Distribution Hello 26 90 oh I POSuccess 24 56 % I Macros I 52 I 8794 I InfoPos 4 100% Peterpoint 0 0% KTouch 1 25% I I Tot. Hello 29 I Tot POSuccess 43 I Tot Macros I 60 I I I Tot. InfoPos 4 Tot. Peterpoint 3 Tot. Ktouch 4 I Respondents 143 Table 28 Agree on Statement - Very Good Software Upgrade Agreement I Agree on Statement - Software Upgrade Agreement Company Num of Respondents Agreed Percent Distribution Hello 23 79% POSuccess 38 88% Macros 50 83% InfoPos 0 0% Peterpoint 0 0% KTouch 2 50 % Tot. Hello 29 Tot POSuccess 43 Tot Macros 60 Tot. InfoPos 4 Tot. Peterpoint 3 Tot. Ktouch 4 Respondents 143 Table 29 Agree on Statement -Very Good Reliability of the System 1 Agree on statement - Very Good Reliability of the System - Company Num of Respondents Agreed Percent Distribution Hello 29 100% POSuccess 37 86% Macros 52 87% InfoPos 4 100% Peterpoint 3 100% KTouch 4 100% Tot. Hello 29 Tot POSuccess 43 Tot Macros 60 Tot. InfoPos 4 Tot. Peterpoint 3 Tot. Ktouch 4 Table 30 Agree on Statement - Very Easy to Use Agree on Statement - Very Easy to Use Company Num of Respondents Agreed Percent Distribution Hello 26 90% POSuccess 39 91 % Macros 59 98% InfoPos 4 100% Peterpoint 3 100% KTouch 4 100% Tot. Hello 29 Tot POSuccess 43 Tot Macros 60 Tot. InfoPos 4 Tot. Peterpoint 3 Tot. Ktouch 4 Respondents 143 Table 31 Agree on Statement -Very Easy to Upgrade Agree on Statement - Very Easy to Upgrade Company Num of Respondents Agreed Percent Distribution Hello 25 86% POSuccess 30 70% Macros 45 75% InfoPos 0 0% Peterpoint 0 0% KTouch 4 100% Tot. Hello 29 Tot POSuccess 43 Tot Macros 60 Tot. InfoPos 4 Tot. Peterpoint 3 Tot. Ktouch 4 I Respondents 143 Table 32 Very Good Brand Name Agree on Statement - Very Good Brand Name Company Num of Respondents Agreed Percent Distribution Hello 20 69 % POSuccess 22 51 % Macros 48 80% InfoPos 4 100% Peterpoint 0 0% KTouch 4 100% Tot. Hello 29 Tot POSuccess 43 Tot Macros 60 Tot. InfoPos 4 Tot. Peterpoint 3 Tot. Ktouch 4 I I Respondents 143 Table 33 Agree on Statement -Very Good StylinglAppearance I Agree on Statement - Very Good Styling I Appearance Company Num of Respondents Agreed Percent Distribution Hello 25 86% POSuccess 17 40% Macros 50 83% Peterpoint 3 100% KTouch 1 25% Tot. Hello 29 Tot POSuccess 43 Tot Macros 60 Tot. InfoPos 4 Tot. Peterpoint 3 Tot. Ktouch 4 1 Respondents 143 Table 34 Agree on Statement - Very Good ROI Agree on Statement - Very Good ROI Company Num of Respondents Agreed Percent Distribution Hello 26 90% POSuccess 27 63% Macros 57 95% InfoPos 0 0% Peterpoint 3 100% KTouch 4 100% Tot. Hello 29 Tot POSuccess 43 Tot Macros 60 Tot. InfoPos 4 Tot. Peterpoint 3 Tot. Ktouch 4 I Respondents 143 Table 35 Preference in Receiving lnformation Preference in Receivin~lnformation I Preference Scale I Trade Show I Trade Show ( Mr.Mail Campaign I Dir.Mail Campaign I I Extremely Like 6 4% 3 2% Like 76 50% 77 50% Neutral 20 13% 35 23% Dislike 38 25% 33 22% Extremely Dislike 10 7% 5 3% NIA 3 2% 0 0% ( Respondents 153 153 Preference Scale Trade Journals Trade Journals Web Advertising Web Advertising Extremely Like 4 3% 6 4% Like 59 39% 71 46% I Neutral I 34 I 22% I 50 I 33% I Dislike 44 29% 23 15% Extremely Dislike 12 8% 3 2% NIA 0 0% 0 0% Respondents 153 153 Preference Scale Newsletter Newsletter Email Campaign Email Campaign Extremely Like 2 1 % 14 9% Like 25 16% 87 57% Neutral 73 48% 27 18% Dislike 40 26% 24 16% Extremely Dislike 12 8% 0 0% NIA 1 1 % 1 1 Yo Respondents 153 1 53 APPENDIX G Table 36 Regression Model Summary with R Square Model Summary(e) I I I 1 Adiusted R 1 Std. Error of Model R R Square square the Estimate 1 .596(a) .355 .352 .64531 4 I .672(d) .452 .440 .59962 a Predictors: (Constant), service b Predictors: (Constant), service, Experience c Predictors: (Constant), service, Experience, satisfaction d Predictors: (Constant), service, Experience, satisfaction, rating e Dependent Variable: purchase Figure 43 P-P Plot of Regression on the Dependent Variable Purchase Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual Dependent Variable: purchase 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Observed Cum Prob Table 37 Distribution of 2 Clusters TwoStep Cluster - 2 Clusters Cluster Distribution N Combined O/O of Total Cluster 1 1 14 74.5% 57.9% 2 39 25.5% 19.8% Combined 153 100.0% 77.7% Excluded Cases 44 22.3% Total 197 100.0% Table 38 Distribution of 4 Clusters TwoStep Cluster - 4 Clusters Cluster Distribution 2N Combined -% of Total Cluster 1 12 7.8% 6.1% 2 3 4 Combined Excluded Cases Total Table 39 Distribution of 5 Clusters TwoStep Cluster - 5 Clusters Cluster Distribution N Combined % of Total Cluster 1 11 7.2% 5.6% 2 3 4 5 Combined Excluded Cases Total Table 40 Number of Respondents per Company within Attribute Clusters 1,2, and 3 Crosstabulation dtrib. Cluste 2 3 Total companies 1.OO Count 12 17 60 Expected Count 12.6 14.9 60.0 % within 3 42.9% 51.5% 45.1% Attrib. Clusters 2.00 Count 9 6 30 Expected Count 6.3 7.4 30.0 % within 3 32.1% 18.2O/0 22.6% Attrib. Clusters 3.00 Count 7 10 43 Expected Count 9.1 10.7 43.0 % within 3 25.0% 30.3% 32.3% Attrib. Clusters Total Count 28 33 133 Expected Count 28.0 33.0 133.0 % within 3 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Attrib. Clusters Chi-square Tests Chi-square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-side!Ao2 Pearson Chi-square 2.740(a) 1 1 Likelihood Ratio 2.646 619 Linear-by-Linear 583 .409 Association N of Valid Cases Table 41 Oneway ANOVA Oneway Descriptives 1 95% Confidence Interval for N -Mean 3d. Deviation Minimum Maximum a1 1 73 3.2603 ,76426 1.oo 5.00 2 36 3.5278 ,90982 2.00 5.00 3 44 4.0000 ,80695 2.00 5.00 Total 153 3.5359 ,86622 1.oo 5.00 a2 1 73 3.8493 ,79357 2.00 5.00 2 36 3.9444 ,71492 3.00 5.00 3 44 3.5682 ,92504 1.oo 5.00 Total 153 3.7908 ,82441 1.oo 5.00 a3 1 73 3.5205 ,88364 1.oo 5.00 2 36 3.5556 ,93944 1.oo 5.00 3 44 4.5000 ,62877 3.00 5.00 Total 153 3.8105 ,93718 1.oo 5.00 a4 1 73 3.5890 ,87932 1.oo 5.00 2 36 3.8889 ,66667 3.00 5.00 3 44 4.6591 ,52576 3.00 5.00 Total 153 3.9673 ,86920 1.oo 5.00 a5 1 73 4.4795 ,55552 3.00 5.00 2 4.5278 ,55990 3.00 5.00 3 3.81 82 ,75553 2.00 5.00 Total 4.3007 ,68906 2.00 5.00 a6 1 4.3562 ,71433 2.00 5.00 2 3.8333 ,65465 2.00 5.00 3 4.3182 ,77077 1.oo 5.00 Total 4.2222 ,74536 1.oo 5.00 a7 1 4.9726 ,16437 4.00 5.00 2 4.1667 ,50709 3.00 5.00 3 5.0000 .ooooo 5.00 5.00 Total 4.7908 ,43910 3.00 5.00 a8 1 4.7123 ,45581 4.00 5.00 2 4.2222 ,48469 3.00 5.00 3 4.6591 ,52576 3.00 5.00 Total 4.581 7 ,52081 3.00 5.00 a9 1 3.8767 ,72543 1.oo 5.00 2 4.4444 ,65222 3.00 5.00 3 4.2727 ,58523 3.00 5.00 Total 4.1242 ,71008 1.oo 5.00 a10 1 2.9863 .92034 1.oo 5.00 2 3.4722 .65405 2.00 5.00 3 3.2727 ,78839 1.oo 5.00 Total 3.1830 ,84634 1.oo 5.00 all 1 2.7260 1.07057 1.oo 5.00 2 3.2778 1.08525 1.oo 5.00 3 3.1136 ,78402 1.oo 4.00 Total 2.9673 1.02224 1.oo 5.00 a12 1 4.7671 ,45706 3.00 5.00 2 4.4722 ,55990 3.00 5.00 3 4.1136 ,68932 3.00 5.00 Total 4.5098 ,61897 3.00 5.00 ANOVA Sum of Squares Mean Square a1 Between Groups 15.025 7.51 3 Within Groups 99.027 .660 Total 114.052 a2 Between Groups 3.280 1.640 Within Groups 100.027 .667 Total 103.307 a3 Between Groups 29.395 Within Groups 104.108 Total 133.503 a4 Between Groups 31.723 Within Groups 83.113 Total 114.837 a5 Between Groups 14.433 Within Groups 57.737 Total 72.1 70 a6 Between Groups 7.159 Within Groups 77.285 Total 84.444 a7 Between Groups 18.362 Within Groups 10.945 Total 29.307 a8 Between Groups Within Groups Total a9 Between Groups Within Groups Total a10 Between Groups Within Groups Total a1 I Between Groups Within Groups Total a12 Between Groups Within Groups Total REFERENCE LIST Adams, Bruce. "Wireless point-of-sale option offers speed, flexibility". Hotel & Motel Management, 0611 912000, Vol. 21 5 lssue 1 1, p82 Allegon, Jeff. "New Frontiers in POS". Lodging Hospitality, 5/15/2004, Vol. 60 Issue 7, p78, 314p Bertagnoli, Lisa. "POS-itively Remarkable". Restaurants & Institutions, 811 5/95, Vol. 105 lssue 20, p114 Greengard, Samuel. "Wireless Point of Sale". Internet World, Nov2001, Vol. 7 lssue 19, ~48 Kaschyk, Howard. "A Survey of Systems on The Show Floor". American Drycleaner, Sep2003, Vol. 70 lssue 6, p32 Lavrakas, Paul J. "Telephone Survey Methods - Sampling, Selection, and Supervision", Sage Publications, Inc., c. 1987, pp 18-19, 11 1, 117. "Market for POS Application Software Nearing $1 Billion". Jul. 13, 2004, Chain Store Age Online, Payment Systems,Technology "Point of Returns". Restaurants & Institutions, 1/15/2004, Vol. 114 lssue 2, p20, 2/3p "Powering the Point of Sale". Nation's Restaurant News, 05/22/2000, Vol. 34 lssue 21, TECH TRENDS p16, 4p Romanow, Kara. "Bringing POS Data into Focus". Food Logistics, Mar2004 lssue 66, p46 Scheraga, Dan. "Positively POS". May. 1, 2004, Chain Store Age, Focus On, Page: IOA-I 1A Websites: ~.ssuirrelsvstems.com(Accessed May 10, 2004) www.rnicros.com (Accessed May 23, 2004) www.aIohapos.com (Accessed July 01,2004) www.ibm.com (Accessed July 11, 2004) www.infoqenesis.com (Accessed July 12, 2004) www.ncr.com (Accessed July 15,2004) www.panasonic.com (Accessed July 15, 2004) www.pixel~ointpos.com(Accessed July 16, 2004) www.positouch.com (Accessed July 16, 2004)