Market analysis of the point of sale systems through value ...

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 ........................................................................ 1.2.3.1 1 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 I 0 .................................................... 2.2 POS Market Structure In North America I I

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 1 3

................................................................................................ 3.2.3 InfoPOS 1 3

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 1 4 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 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4. Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24

............................................................................................ Correlation Matrix 48 Multiple Regression: Coefficients Table ........................................................... 49 Distribution of 3 Clusters .................................................................................. 50 POS Systems used by Respondents ............................................................... 69

............................................................ Current Company Satisfaction Ratings 70 Average Duration from the Purchase of the Last POS System ....................... 71

.......................................................................... Overall Company Experience 72 ................................................................................................ Overall Ratings 73

Service Ratings ............................................................................................... 74 .......................................................................................... Recommendation 75

Likelihood of Re-Purchase from Current Company ........................................ 76 Satisfaction with the Amount of Contacts ....................................................... 77 Satisfaction with the Quality of Sales Organization ........................................ 78 Price for a 4-terminal POS System ................................................................ 79 Preference in Contacting Customer Service .................................................. 80 Usage of more then One POS System .......................................................... 80 Likelihood of BuyingIUpgrading in next 3 Years ............................................. 81 Likelihood of Switching POS Manufacturer in Next 3 Years ........................... 82 Important Attributes ....................................................................................... 83

...................................................................... Attribute Importance by Cluster 83 Un-aided Recall of Companies ...................................................................... 84 Company Aided Recall .................................................................................. 84 Agree on Statement . Very Good Real Time Application ............................... 85 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.

1.2.3.1 0 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.

1.2.3.1 1 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 191 8, 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


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


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


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


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


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


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 $1 0,000 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


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

I Preferences ~ . ~ ~. ... - .. .- .. -

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


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


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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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

Extremely Like Neutral Dislike Extremely NIA Like Dislike

Trade Show

EI Trade Joumals

Newsletter

0 Web Adwrtising

Email Campaign

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

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Experience Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

rating Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

service Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

satisfaction Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

quality Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

purchase Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

upgrade Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

replace Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

.* . Correlation is significant at the

The factors comprise of past experience with the POS system manufacturer,

overall ratings of the POS system manufacturers, satisfaction with service from the

Experience 1

153 .579** .OOO 152

628" ,000 151

.449*^ ,000 153

.474" ,000 153 .540** .OOO

153 -.024 ,768 153

-.178' ,028 153

0.01 level

manufacturer, satisfaction with the amount of contact between respondents and

manufacturer, and the quality of the manufacturer's sales organization. Although all

rating ,579" .OOO 152

1

152 .484*" ,000 150

.358** ,000 152

.428^* ,000 152

.442** ,000 152

,034 ,679 152

-.I05 .I99 152

(2-tailed).

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

service .628** ,000 151

,484'' ,000 150

1

151 .509** ,000 151 .415** ,000 151

,557" ,000 151

.053 ,520 151

-. 145 ,076 151

manufacturer using the same factors. It was discovered that replacing manufacturers is

quality .47P ,000 153

.428** ,000 152

.415"

.OOO 151 ,497" .OOO 153

1

153 .374*' ,000 153

-.092 .258 153

,030 ,710 153

satisfaction .449" ,000 153 ,358" ,000 152

,509" ,000 151

1

153 ,497- .OOO 153 ,423'' .OOO

153 ,047 ,567 153

-.029 ,719 153

again strongly correlated with past experience and service satisfaction. The negative

replace -.178' ,028 153

-.I05 .I99 152

-.I45 ,076 151

-.029 ,719 153

.030

.710 153

-.024- .767 153 ,122 ,134 153

1

153

purchase 540" ,000 153 .442*" .OOO 152 ,557- ,000 151

.423*'

(000 153

,374'' ,000 153

1

153 ,023 .774 153

-.024 .767 153

upgrade -.024 ,768 153

,034 ,679 152

.053 ,520 151

.047 ,567 153

-.092 .258 153 ,023 ,774 153

1

153 .I22 .I34 153

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 61 Contact Satisfaction + 0.058Sales Quality

Table 2 Multiple Regression: Coefficients Table

Model + 1 (Constant)

service

2 (Constant) service Experience

3 (Constant)

service

Experience

satisfaction 4 (Constant)

service

Experience

satisfaction

rating

Unstandardized Coe

B

1.101

.778

.203 512 .458

-.I56

.439

.411

.203 -.624 .408

.322

.I89

,206

cients

Std. Error

.281

,075 .329 .091 .098 .357

.095

.098

.083

.412 ,095

.I06

.083

,094

Standardized Coefficients

Beta

Sig.

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

Cluster 1

2

3

Combined

Excluded Cases

Total

% of Total - 37.1%

18.3%

22.3%

77.7%

22.3%

1 06.0%

Combined

73

36

44

153

44

197

47.7%

23.5%

28.8%

100.0%

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 1 1-1 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 n i i~an i~s fu .ca

APPENDIX D

Table 4: POS Systems used by Respondents

POS Systems Used by

Respondents

Companies ABS Hello CASH REGISTER CAS I 0 DIGITAL PLANNING DILEVER PLUS FoodTec ITBMl

Number of Customers 1

InfoPos INTUIT ECLlP LIWSON Macros

Percent Per Company 1 O/o

2 1 1 1 1 1 2 4

MULTIFLEX NIA NCR SonicCap PAR

14% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3%

2 1 1

45

Peterpoint KTouch

1% 1% 1%

29%

1 17 5 5 1

Sunny SABLE SHAREWOOD SHARP

1% 11% 3% 3% 1%

4 4

POSuccess TEC

3% 3%

1 2 1 2

I I

1% 1% 1% 1%

25 3

Respondents

16% 2%

153

Table 5 Current Company Satisfaction Ratings

Current Com~anv Satisfaction I POSuccess Hello Macros

11 Duration > 11 yrs 4

Durltot. per comp.

Experience (Good+)

17%

20

Expltot.per comp.

Company Ratings (Good+)

Rateltot.per comp.

Service (VS+ES)

Serv1tot.per comp.

Recommendation (yes)

83%

22

92%

14

58%

19

Recomltot.per comp. 79%

Re-purchase (PB+DB)

Purchaseltot.per comp.

19

79%

Amount of Contact (S+VS) 20

Cont/tot.per comp. 83%

Quality1tot.per comp.

Price > 25K

I

67%

12

Switch (HC+VC)

Total Res~ondents Der Co.

1

Switchltot.per comp. 4%

Table 6: Average Duration from the Purchase of the Last POS System

Average Duration from the Purchase of the Last

PO-

Duration Period 1-3 years 4-5 years 6-1 0 years 1 1-1 5 years 15+ years <I year

Figure 32 Average Duration from the Purchase of the Last POS System

Number of Buyers per Period 38 38 38 14 16

All Companies - Average duration from the Purchase of the Last POS System

Percent Per Period 25% 25% 25% 9% 10%

9

1 I Respondents

1-3 4-5 6-10 11-15 15+ <Iyear years years years years years

6%

153

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 Good

Poor 2 1% I

24

Fair

16% 92

I I

Respondents I 153

6 0 O/O

34

Terrible Not sure

Figure 34 Average Overall Ratings

22%

All Companies - Average Overall Ratings

1 0

Ratings Excellent Good Fair Poor Terrible Not sure

Scale

1% 0%

Table 9 Service Ratings

Averaqe Service

I Extremely Dissatisfied / 0 0%

1 Ratings Extremely Satisfied Very satisfied Satisfied (ES + VS) Neutral Very dissatisfied

Number of Companies 18 74 92 55 4

NIA

Figure 35 Average Service Ratings

Percent Per Rating 12% 48% 60% 36% 3%

I Respondents

All Companies - Average Service Ratings

2

245

Scale

1%

Table 10 Recommendation

Figure 36 Recommendations

I

Respondents

All Companies - Recommendations

153

Yes No Response

Not Sure

Table 11 Likelihood of Re-Purchase from Current Company

Likelihood of Re- Purchase from

Current Company

Ratings Definitely would buy Probably would buy Would Buy (DWB + PWB) MightIMight not buy Probably would not buy I 14

Number of Companies

45 73

118 20

9% Definitely would not buy

Figure 37 Likelihood of Re-Purchase

Percent Per Rating

29% 48%

77% 13%

I I

All Companies - Likelihood of Re-Purchase

1

Respondents

Definitely Probably Would Buy MightIMight Probably Definitely would buy would buy (DWB + not buy would not would not

PWB) buy buy

1%

271

Scale

Table 12 Satisfaction with the Amount of Contacts

Satisfaction with 1 the Amount of Contacts

I I I

Ratings , Very satisfied

Number of Companies I Percent Per Rating

Satisfied 38

Satisfied (VS + S) I 126

Dissatisfied I 3 1 2 O/O I

25% 88

82% Neutral

58%

24

Not Sure

Figure 38

16%

I Respondents

Satisfaction with the Amount of Contacts

0

153

All Companies - Satisfaction with Amount of

0%

Contacts

Scale

Table 13 Satisfaction with the Quality of Sales Organization

I Quality of Sales / Organization

I I

1 Good 53 35%

Ratings Excellent Very good

Number of Companies 26 66

Good or Better (E + VG + G) Fair

Percent Per Rating 17% 43%

Poor

Figure 39 Quality of Sales Organization

145 7

I I

All Companies - Quality of Sales Organization

95% 5%

1

Respondents

Excellent Very good Good Good or Fair Better (E +VG+G)

1%

153

Scale

Poor

Table 14 Price for a 4-terminal POS System

Price for a 4- terminal POS

System

Price Ranges

10 to 15,000 15 to 20,000 20 to 25,000 25 to 30,000 More than 30,000 NIA

Figure 40 Price Willingness for a 4-Terminal POS System

Number of Companies 8

1 Respondents

All Companies - Price Willingness for a 4-Terminal POS System

Percent Per Range

5% 35 35 39 34 2

153

10 to 15 to 20 to 25 to More than NIA 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 30,000

23% 23% 2 5 O/O

22% 1%

Price Categories

Table 15 Preference in Contacting Customer Service

I Preference in ( Contacting

Customer Service

Preferences Fax Email Phone All the Preferences Email and Phone

Table 16 Usage of more then One POS System


I I

U s a ~ e of more then One POS

System

Percent Per Preference 0% 8%

1 13 10 18

Respondents

74% 7% 12%

153

I I

Respondents 1 153

Response YES NO


Percent Per Response 36% 64%

Table 17 Likelihood of BuyinglUpgrading in next 3 Years

Likelihood of Buying 1 Upgrade

in Next Three Years

I I

Likeliness Very likely Somewhat likely Likely (VL + SL) Not sure Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Unlikely (SU + VU)

Figure 41 All Companies - Average Likelihood of PurchasinglUpgrading POS System in

I I

Next 3 Years

Number of Companies 12 32 44 33 42 34 76

Respondents

All Companies - Average Likelihood of PurchasingIUpgrading in Next 3 Years

Percent Per Likeliness 8% 21 % 2 9 O/O

22% 27% 22% 50%

153

Scale

Table 18 Likelihood of Switching POS Manufacturer in Next 3 Years

Likelihood of Switching POS

Manufacturer in Next Three Years

/ No chance 30 20%

Likeliness Very certain High chance Likely (VC + HC) Not sure Low chance

I Unlikely (LC + NC) 1 87 57%

Number of Companies 3

27 30 36 57

Figure 42 All Companies - Average Likelihood of Replacing POS Manufacturer in Next 3

Percent Per Likeliness 2% 18% 20% 24% 37%

/ Respondents

Years

153

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 Real time application Ergonomically designed 24 hrs call centre Hardware support Custom design Upgrade agreement System reliability Ease of Use Ease of Upgrade Brand Name

Table 20 Attribute lmportance by Cluster

Importance (Value) 8 1 100 104 111

Appearance RO I

I Attributes Importance by Cluster I

Importance (Percentage) 53% 65% 68% 73%

135 133 151 151 132 60

88% 87% 99% 99% 86% 39%

48 143

31 % 93%

Attributes Real time application Ergonomically designed 24 hrs call centre Hardware support Custom design Upgrade agreement

Cluster 1 Low Med

System reliability

Med Low High High

Ease of Use Ease of Upgrade Brand Name

Cluster 2 Med Med

High

Appearance RO I

Cluster 3 High Low

Med Low High Low

High Low Low

High High Low High

Low

Low High

High Low Med High

High Med Med

Med Med

Med Low

APPENDIX F

Table 21 Un-aided Recall of Companies

Recall of

I Hello I 30

Company Macros

KTouch I 3

Number of Recalls

60

POSuccess InfoPos PeterPoint

Table 22 Company Aided Recall

I

Company Aided Recall

Respondents 1 34

Company Macros Hello POSuccess

Aided Recall 136 106

MaestroTech l nfoPos

Respondents 1 153

Recalled Percentage 89% 69%

108

KTouch Peterpoint

71 % 57 98

37% 64%

76 71

50% 46%

Table 23 Agree on Statement -Very Good Real Time Application

Agree on Statement -Very Good Real Time Application

Company Hello POSuccess Macros InfoPos Peterpoint KTouch

Num of Respondents Agreed 25

Tot. Hello Tot POSuccess Tot Macros Tot. InfoPos Tot. Peterpoint Tot. Ktouch

Table 24 Agree on Statement -Very Good Ergonomically Designed POS System

Percent Distribution 86%

22 38 4 2 4

29 43 60 4 3 4

I I

51 % 63% 100% 67% 100%

Respondents

( POSuccess 25 58%

143

Agree on Statement - Very Good Ergonomically Designed POS System

I Macros 40 67%

-

Company Hello

Num of Respondents Agreed 2 1

Peterpoint KTouch

Percent Distribution 72 %


0 1

29 43 60 4 3 4

1 Respondents

0% 25%

143

Table 25 Agree on Statement - Very Good 24x7 Call Centre

Aaree on Statement - Ven/ Good 24x7 Call Centre


Tot. Hello

Num of Respondents Agreed 20 30 43 4 0 4

29 Tot POSuccess Tot Macros Tot. lnfoPos

Percent Distribution 69% 70% 72% 100% 0%

100%

43 60 4

Tot. Peterpoint 1 3

Table 26 Agree on Statement - Hardware Support

Tot. Ktouch

I Respondents

Agree on Statement - Hardware Support

4

143

Company Hello

( Peterpoint 0 0%

POSuccess Macros InfoPos



2 1 53 4

KTouch

49% 88% 100%


4

29 43 60 4 3 4

1 Respondents

100%

143

Table 27 Agree on Statement - Very Good Custom Integration and Analysis

I POSuccess 24 56 %

Agree on Statement - Very Good Custom Integration and Analysis

I Macros I 52 I 8794 I

Company Hello


InfoPos Peterpoint KTouch

I Tot POSuccess 43

Percent Distribution 9 0 oh

I I

I Tot Macros I 60 I I

4 0 1

Tot. Hello

I Tot. InfoPos 4

100% 0%

25%

29

Tot. Peterpoint Tot. Ktouch

Table 28 Agree on Statement - Very Good Software Upgrade Agreement I

3 4

I Respondents

Agree on Statement - Software Upgrade Agreement

143




29 43 60 4 3 4

Respondents

Percent Distribution 79% 88% 83% 0% 0% 50 %

143

Table 29 Agree on Statement -Very Good Reliability of the System

1 Agree on statement - Very Good Reliability of the System

Company - Hello POSuccess Macros InfoPos Peterpoint KTouch

Table 30 Agree on Statement - Very Easy to Use


Agree on Statement - Very Easy to Use


29 43 60 4 3 4

Percent Distribution 100% 86% 87% 100% 100% 100%




29 43 60 4 3 4

Respondents

Percent Distribution 90% 91 % 98% 100% 100% 100%

143

Table 31 Agree on Statement -Very Easy to Upgrade

Agree on Statement - Very Easy to Upgrade



Table 32 Very Good Brand Name

Agree on Statement - Very Good Brand Name


29 43 60 4 3 4

I Respondents

Percent Distribution 86% 70% 75% 0% 0%

100%

143




29 43 60 4 3 4

I I

Percent Distribution 69 % 51 % 80% 100% 0%

100%

Respondents 143

Table 33 Agree on Statement -Very Good StylinglAppearance I

Agree on Statement - Very Good Styling I Appearance

Company Hello POSuccess Macros

Peterpoint KTouch

Num of Respondents Agreed 25 17 50

Tot. Hello Tot POSuccess

Percent Distribution 86% 40% 83%

3 1

29 43

Tot Macros Tot. InfoPos Tot. Peterpoint Tot. Ktouch

Table 34 Agree on Statement - Very Good ROI

100% 25%

60 4 3 4

1 Respondents

Agree on Statement - Very Good ROI

143

Company Hello POSuccess Macros InfoPos


Peterpoint KTouch


27 57 0


63% 95% 0%

3 4

29 43 60 4 3 4

I Respondents

100% 100%

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

Neutral Dislike

76

20

Extremely Dislike

NI A

38

( Respondents

I Neutral I 34 I 22% I 50 I 33% I

50%

13%

10

3

25%

153

Preference Scale Extremely Like Like

77

35

7%

2%

153

Trade Journals 4

59

Dislike Extremely Dislike

NIA

50%

23%

33

Web Advertising 4%

46%

Trade Journals 3% 39%

Respondents

22%

5

0

Web Advertising 6 71

44

12

0

Preference Scale Extremely Like Like

3%

0%

153

Neutral Dislike

Extremely Dislike

29%

8% 0%

153

Newsletter 2

25

NIA

73

40

12

Respondents

23

3

0

Newsletter 1 %

16%

1

15%

2%

0%

48%

26%

8%

153

Email Campaign 14

87

1 %

1 53

Email Campaign 9% 57%

27

24

0

18%

16%

0%

1 1 Yo

APPENDIX G

Table 36 Regression Model Summary with R Square

Model Summary(e)

I I I 1 Adiusted R 1 Std. Error of Model 1

Figure 43 P-P Plot of Regression on the Dependent Variable Purchase

4 I .672(d)

Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual

R

.596(a)

Dependent Variable: purchase

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

.452

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Observed Cum Prob

R Square

.355

.440

square

.352

.59962

the Estimate .64531


TwoStep Cluster - 2 Clusters Cluster Distribution

Cluster 1


TwoStep Cluster - 4 Clusters

2

Combined

Excluded Cases Total


N 1 14

Cluster 1

2

3

4

Combined

Excluded Cases

Total

39

153

44

197

N 2 Combined - % of Total 12 7.8% 6.1%

Combined 74.5%


TwoStep Cluster - 5 Clusters

O/O of Total

57.9%

25.5%

100.0%


19.8%

77.7%

22.3%

100.0%

2

3 4

5

Combined

Excluded Cases

Total

Cluster 1 N

11 Combined

7.2%

% of Total

5.6%

Table 40 Number of Respondents per Company within Attribute Clusters 1,2, and 3

Crosstabulation

companies 1 .OO Count Expected Count

% within 3 Attrib. Clusters

2.00 Count Expected Count


3.00 Count Expected Count


Total Count Expected Count


Chi-square Tests

Pearson Chi-square

Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Chi-square Tests

Asymp. Sig. 1 df 1 (2-side!Ao2 Value

2.740(a) 2.646 619

583 .409

dtrib. Cluste

2 12

12.6

42.9%

9

6.3

32.1%

7 9.1

25.0%

28

28.0

100.0%

3 17

14.9

51.5%

6

7.4

18.2O/0

10

10.7

30.3%

33

33.0

100.0%

Total

60

60.0

45.1%

30 30.0

22.6%

43 43.0

32.3%

133

133.0

100.0%

Table 41 Oneway ANOVA

Oneway Descriptives

2 3

Total

a6 1 2 3

Total

a7 1 2 3

Total

a8 1 2 3

a1 1

2 3 Total

a2 1 2 3

Total a3 1

2 3

Total a4 1

2 3

Total a5 1

Total

a9 1

N 73 36 44

153 73 36 44

153 73

36 44

153 73

36 44

153

73

2

3

Total

a10 1 2

3

Total

a l l 1 2

3 Total

a12 1 2 3 Total

Mean - 3.2603 3.5278

4.0000 3.5359 3.8493 3.9444 3.5682

3.7908 3.5205 3.5556 4.5000

3.8105

3.5890 3.8889

4.6591 3.9673 4.4795 4.5278

3.81 82 4.3007

4.3562 3.8333

4.3182

4.2222 4.9726

4.1667

5.0000 4.7908 4.7123

4.2222 4.6591 4.581 7 3.8767 4.4444

4.2727 4.1242

2.9863

3.4722 3.2727 3.1830

2.7260

3.2778 3.1136

2.9673

4.7671 4.4722 4.1136

4.5098

3d. Deviation ,76426 ,90982 ,80695 ,86622 ,79357

,71492 ,92504 ,82441

,88364 ,93944

,62877 ,93718

,87932

,66667

,52576 ,86920

,55552 ,55990

,75553 ,68906 ,71433

,65465 ,77077

,74536

,16437

,50709 .ooooo ,43910

,45581 ,48469 ,52576

,52081 ,72543 ,65222

,58523 ,71008

.92034

.65405

,78839 ,84634

1.07057 1.08525 ,78402

1.02224

,45706 ,55990 ,68932 ,61897

1 95% Confidence Interval for

Minimum 1 .oo 2.00 2.00 1 .oo 2.00 3.00 1 .oo 1 .oo 1 .oo 1 .oo 3.00

1 .oo 1 .oo

3.00 3.00 1 .oo

3.00 3.00

2.00 2.00 2.00

2.00

1 .oo 1 .oo

4.00

3.00

5.00 3.00

4.00 3.00

3.00 3.00 1 .oo

3.00

3.00 1 .oo

1 .oo 2.00

1 .oo 1 .oo 1 .oo 1 .oo 1 .oo 1 .oo 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Maximum 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

5.00 5.00

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

5.00 5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00 5.00

5.00 5.00

5.00 5.00

5.00 5.00 5.00

5.00 5.00

5.00

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

5.00 5.00

4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

ANOVA

a1 Between Groups Within Groups Total







Sum of Squares

15.025 99.027

114.052 3.280

100.027 103.307 29.395

104.108 133.503 31.723 83.113

1 14.837 14.433 57.737 72.1 70 7.159

77.285 84.444 18.362 10.945 29.307




a1 I Between Groups Within Groups Total

a1 2 Between Groups Within Groups Total

Mean Square 7.51 3

.660

1.640 .667

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, ~ 4 8

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 18-1 9, 1 1 1, 11 7.

"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:

~.ssui r re lsvstems.com (Accessed May 10, 2004)

www.rnicros.com (Accessed May 23, 2004)

www.aIohapos.com (Accessed July 01,2004)

www.ibm.com (Accessed July 1 1, 2004)

www.infoqenesis.com (Accessed July 12, 2004)

www.ncr.com (Accessed July 1 5,2004)

www.panasonic.com (Accessed July 15, 2004)

www.pixel~ointpos.com (Accessed July 16, 2004)

www.positouch.com (Accessed July 16, 2004)

Market analysis of the point of sale systems through value ...

Documents

Transcript of Market analysis of the point of sale systems through value ...