PART 3 - PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS, NEXT STEPS & RECOMMENDATIONS (i) In this part of your work make a preliminary conclusion - based on your results, is it feasible to implement the idea you had? It does not matter whether it is feasible, or not, as long as you report on why you made such conclusion. Also, make some recommendations/suggestions and address limitations of your research. Perhaps your sample size is too small to decide whether a significant idea works? Perhaps you asked mainly males or females to respond? How could you make this research better and more reliable? Background Information:

3. Sample of Preliminary Conclusion According to the analysis above, it can be deemed that the business idea of promoting Home Replacement Meal products in the context of the Singapore market would be feasible. This could be clearly seen from the results gathered. In the survey, many respondents think that time and convenience are the two most important factors when it comes to preparing meals. This shows that many people are seeking time saving alternatives to allocate more time for other activities in their lives. 3.1 Limitation 1Ll'v'hen doing a surveyr there would be many limitations. The first limitation is that it is difcult to gather the most accurate results when doing the study as we cannot know the degree of truthfulness of the respondents when responding to the questions of the survey. Individual respondents have their own ways of interpreting the question which would result in unreliable EHS'L'I'E'FS. The second limitation is the absence of validity to give a complete conclusion detailed since there might be inadequate information for us to analyse the results accurately. This could be caused by the majority of our questions being close-ended questions as respondents were asked to choose the closest mthey think represents their choice. Even though there were two openended questions asked, the answers from respondents were not clear as the answers given by each respondent varied. The third limitation is the sample size. Since our sample is only 50, it is proposed to use the formula to calculate the preferred sample size. A small sample resulted in having issues trying to find the connection from the data. Therefore, having a bigger sample size will be better as it will reduce the degree of imperfection of representing the population data thus having a sample size of 5C! is a limitation. 3.2 Reoom mendations From the survey finding, HM R realized that our interviewees generally prepare their meals by themselves at least once a week. The recommendations are suggested to improve future survey research as mentioned below. To begin with, there were only 54 respondents who participated in this survey which limits the research results. Suppose the survey was sent to thousands of people. In that case, this could bring more accurate results to support the feasibility ofthis idea where we would have more significant numbers as data evidence. Nest, conducting faceto-face interviews would enable us to collect more apparent data regarding the opinion ofthe responders of the concept of Home Replacement Meals and its products. This would help us better understand whatthe consumers think about and enable us to put ourselves in their point of view and be able to present the desired products that the consumers wanted. Lastly, hosting events or webinars for respondenis to participate to learn and understand the concept of Home Meal Replacement and the products would be able to help in reducing time to their meal preparations in their lives. This is one way in explaining the benefits ofthe Home Meal Replacements products and the preparation methods. In this manner, it would be beneficial for both consumers and sellers as more we raise awareness of this concept and products to the public. Part 1 Summary: Figure 1 (Question: How old are you} As shown in figure 1 abover T996, which is 34 out of 43 responses ages 16-30 years old. Followed by 14% which is 5 responses from ages 46 and above. Then T95 which is 3 responses ages from 31-45 years old. Based on the gathered data, we can conclude that the majority of the respondents who avail station booths in MRT stations range from youngto-young adults. Figure 1 EL 3- [Question 5: if there was a Na pWork Booth available. how often would you make use of it? And how much are you willing to pay a Station Booth ?} A budgetfriendly Nap-Work booth should be sufficient since the respondents would only fully utilize the service 1-4 times a week. An inexpensive and quick solution shall be pla oed to cater potential consumers of the NapWork Pods. They should be available for shorttime utilization at a budget friendly price. The $5Sl price that they are willing to pay shall be exhausted to SIB for a quick stay to maintain the pods after each use and provide comfortable and cosy amenities that would make the customers co me back for more of this experience. Figure 4 St E (Questions: How many F'ods do you think is a better idea to place at different iviFtT stations? 3; If you were to utilize a Station Booth, please rank the options according to which you would most likely use it for.} 3 NapWork Pods should be sufficient per station since customers would only mainly want the feature for work; Wi-Fi, and ta king a rest mainly. Again; the respondents want a budgetfriendly and quick solution that can be provided by Nap-Work Pods. Three pods shall be plaoed each station and should still be expanded in the future should the customers react positively to it. The pods should be work and quick rest friendly. This means that tables should be provided with oosy chairs that can double as napping chairs and a 1lltilFl connection with competent speed. If the idea wanE to provide ease to commuters' hectic schedulesr then this should be constantly changing according to the needs of the users. Figure 5.? 8: 3 [uestionm How frequently do you travel via MRT?_ Have you ever get your workiassignments done while travelling via the I'vIRT'?I 5.. Please explain why or why you rather not get work done while travelling via ivtFtT?) Since majority of the commuters refuse to do work at an MRT because of the convenience of their homes, then Nap-Work Pods should be modelled aftera cosy and inviting home. BTW: ride the MRT daily. It should be sufficient for a project like this to thrive. There would be a market and at least an ROI can be expected after roll-out. The major reason for people who do not prefer to work at an MRT is the convenience offered by their homes. The said convenience should be considered in this project. There should be a calm ambiance despite the commuting anh, a competent WIFI connection to make surethat their digital needs are metr and access to food and cosy lounge should be considered. "A moving home office" is only sketchy because the commuters have had no experience working on one. If we offer them this experience first, and take their suggestions for change along the way, then this idea could be a beneficial solution to commutersr lives. Figure 10, 11 & 12 (Questions: What other services would you want, in the Pods? & What type of doors will you prefer? & What kind of pass codes would you more likely prefer to have?) From graphs 10, 11, and 12, we can get to know our customers. They like convenience, privacy, and security. Given these, we have to design our pods that will suit to our customer needs. The snacks and drinks will be provided so that customers do not have to go out when they get hungry or thirsty. This creates a pocket of space for people to grab a light bite and snacks as food and drinks aren't allowed to be consumed in MRTs. Additionally, the most favoured type of door is an opaque one which signifies that the customers would like privacy when they are using pods. And finally, when asked which passcode they would most likely want to have, pin sent via SMS was voted by most. This means that pin sent via SMS is what customers see as the most secure yet still convenient to use. More than these three features, we can add more and better that will match our client's preference in terms of convenience, privacy, and security. Figure 15 & 17 (Questions: Which entertainment resources will you prefer to have in the Pods? & What else do you want to have in the Pods?) The potential customers' preference of what should be put inside the Nap-Work Pods are centred around productivity and rest. Although majority of the responses suggest that no other additions shall be placed inside the pods to maintain a productive environment, there is a need for it to have comfort so that it may also be conducive for rest. Perhaps the respondents meant that they do not want any major distractions such as any other form of technology, but all that they need should be there. A cosy rest area, adjustable lighting, and accessible charging ports are the basic needs for a short-term stay at the Nap-Work Pod. Anything beyond the aforementioned would be too distracting and would only work if the pods are built for long stay.Figure 13, 14 & 16 (Questions:Would you prefer to have Loft Seats or a Micro Bed in the booths? (Includes a table for both options & Will you prefer to have a remote for air conditioning in the Pods? & How many Electrical Plug outlets do you think is a reasonable amount to place in the Pods?) Graphs 13, 14, and 16 tell us of client's preferences. Customers' majority choice of loft seats in graph 13 versus a micro bed proves that the client will use the pod for working and not napping. Further, in graph 14, the choice of individual remotes per pod means that customers want to feel comfortable in their own preference. And lastly, graph 16 shows that at least three plugs are sufficient to cater customers needs. Based on these three graphs, we can conclude that customers will use the pod for work (because of the loft seat choice and three plugs) and that they want the pods to be customizable based on their own preference. Even though most responders stated that they will use the pod for work, the company should not assume client's preferences. The pod should be as customizable as possible to allow customer's own adjustments. But still, the most important feature is that the pod will be comfortable enough to cater those who will use it for work.Figure 9,13, 19 s 20 (Questions: How popular do you think the Pods will be for people who do not travel via tv'lFtT? 3; Do you think that putting the Pods at different stations will benet commuters? {Please specify how sofwhy not) 8. 1Would you prefer to have Lott Seats, or a tvlicro Bed in the booths? 5: Lastly, will you ever want to have such Pods at any other places? LE3, Cinemasfhirportj Based on the responses gathered, most of the respondents who are commuters see Pods to be very convenient as it allows them to attend important meetings, finish urgent work or rest in a quiet place during instances when they are unable to reach their destination on time. Therefore, they have shared that placing Pods at different stations would be benecial in providing wider coverage which reduces the need for commuters to travel to the nearest station that has a Pod. Given the positive responses received on the Pods from l'v'lFtT commuters, 33% of them would recommend others to try out the Pods whenever they come across one while waiting for the next MRT to arrive. Seeing that the F'ods would gain a lot of attention from commuters, 44% or 19 out of 4-3- respondents believe that it could also possibly be popular with other people who do not travel via tv'l RT. :5. mixed number of responses were received on the idea of placing Pods at other locations such as Cinemas or Airports. Those in favour of the idea see Pods to be very accessible and convenient for those who like to study or worlc in a quiet, public area. It also serves as a way to pass the time while waiting for people they are meeting up with to arrive, or for them to board their flight which may have been delayed. [in the other hand, other respondents who are indifferent to the idea of placing Pods in other locations are worried about the hygiene and sanitation ofthe Pods likely due to the large number of people going to cinemas and airports. IZine respondent also mentioned that placing Pods in Cinemas won't be effective because it is a place meant strictly for entertainment purposes only which is why it wouldn't make sense for people to work or study there. In conclusion, the researchers can expect a high demand for Podsfron'l M RT commuters. Therefore, it would be a great idea for them to set up Pods in different stations for greater accessibility and convenience to commuters. Additionally, the researchers may also optimize the popularity and demand for Pods by expanding to other locations such as shopping malls, cinemas, and airports where many people can be spotted needing to find a quiet and spacious area to study, work or pass time. However, they must also take into consideration the sanitation and appropriateness of the Pods that are placed in certain locations. PART 1 SUMMRFW In an article written by Kohl {2019], he stated that a well-designed ofce creates a less stressful and more productive environment. It is critical to take into account the physical working environment. People need to feel at ease and tranquil in their physical work environments in orderto perform their best work. An individual's immediate surroundings where he does his task is a major influence of the quality of their work and their degree of productivity. Improper surroundings present dangers that make the working environment dangerous and reduce one's productivity. As a result, the workplace requires an environment in which an individual may work without interruption. An efcient workplace must provide an environment in which the desired goals can be attained comfortably [5atyendra, 2019]. Thus, our research focuses on the placement of Station boothsy'Nap- 1Ll'v'ork Pods at various le RT stations. The questionnaire was created to investigate the viability of station booths at MRT stations. The survey had 43 participants who were required to answer 20 questions. IEoogle Forms was used as a platform. The questionnaires were sent via various social media platforms such as WhaIsApp, Telegram, and lnstagram. The station booth aims to cater to the needs of the people who used the MRT as their mode oftransport. The information gathered will be used solely for academic reasons. The questionnaire focuses on a business concept to determine whether station booths might operate in I'vIRT stations in order to practice working when ever, anyplace, and taking brea ksy'naps. Each booth is outfitted with a desk, sofa, power outlet, and free Wi-Fi. Users will like the fact that the cubicles are also soundproof. The overall response rate is 86% as we sent out around 50 questionnaires and got back 43. Based from the results, majority of the respondents who answered this questionnaire ages from 10 - 30 years old l?9%] while others who answered ages 46 and above [1456} and 31-45 years old {T56}. Most of the participants would utilize the Na p-Work Pods at least 1 to 2 times a week {5896] while others would use it 5 - 4times a week {30%} and 5 5 times a week [1296}. The most suitable and budget- friendly rate of the NapWork Pods is deemed to be 55-510 per hour ll'i] while others would want it to be a donation only rate [33%] and the remaining voted for 511-520 per hour [T315]. Since BT36 of the sample population travel via le FtT every day, 32.65% of the respondents want each MRT station to at least have 3 Pods while 23% voted for at least 4 - 5 pods and the remaining 12% voted for 2 pods. Other services were also suggested to be included in the Nap-Work Pod such as: a snack shelf {51%}, drinks {40%} and others such as light music and comfort [9%]. The 2 top choices for the respondent's preferred passcodes were a pin [sent via EMS] and CIR codes. In terms of the nap area, 54% prefer to have loft seats and 4?% would rather have a micro bed. In addition, T996 wants to have an individual remote for the air conditioning of each pod while 2151': wants to have an office-controlled air conditioning. Lastly, the Na pWork Pods is deemed interesting to the commuters since it gives commuters a time to rest amidst their travel, it is convenient to a lot of commuters, and enables commuters who have rush meetings or online classes a peaceful place to conduct such. On the other hand, despite the positive feedback, 51% of the respondents stated that they would not get work done while travelling via MRT because they would rather work at home while 50% stated that they have WIFI at home and 14% voted for other reasons such as condentiality, inconducive work environment, too crowded, no tables, cannot concentrate and is inconvenient. The remaining 5% is in favour of working at Nap-Work Pods than working at home. All these information portrays the feasibility of station booths at I'vIRT stations