User-Assigned Ratings of the Importance of Various Features of Food and Nutrition Management Software Systems

Click here to be notified of future updates to this survey, or other related new features on this site!
 
Download this survey summary as a Microsoft Word 97 document.

(If you do not have Word 97, download a free viewer at the
Microsoft Download Center.)

The following is a summary of the degree of importance of various features and attributes of food and nutrition management software systems, as they were rated by users who responded to an online survey run through the Nu Connexions website from October 8, 1999 to February 29, 2000.  No information was gathered from respondents about specific nutrition and foodservice software systems which they were currently using or had used in the past.  Some of the features and attributes described in the questionnaire may not currently be present in the software of major vendors.
 

Survey Response Demographics and Related Limitations to Interpretation of Results

A total of 68 responses to the online survey were received between October 8, 1999 and February 29, 2000.  This response rate appears low, but given the specialized nature of the software being surveyed, and the fact that it was strictly an online survey (no print-based equivalent), the response rate is not surprising.

Responses to questions in sections three through six of the survey were not mandatory.  As a result, most questions in these sections were not answered by all 68 survey respondents.  The number of responses for each question is indicated in the response-summarizing tables on other pages of this survey summary.

The survey was publicized through links on pages of particular interest to nutrition and foodservice professionals on the Nu Connexions website.  An initial announcement, with approximately monthly reminders, were made through the following professional listservs:

  • Dietetics Online (dietetics-online@empnet.com) 
  • Food and Nutrition Professionals (fnspec_mg@ecn.purdue.edu) 
  • Nutrition Education (Nutr-Ed-l@usask.ca) 
  • Public Health Nutrition (phnutr-l@u.washington.edu) 
The vast majority of responses were received shortly after the initial and reminder postings made to these listservs.  (For further information about how to subscribe to these and other listservs, visit the Nu Connexions Directory listing of listservs and other sites of interest to professionals.)  Due to the fact that this survey was conducted and publicized solely using the online medium, results of the user-assigned desirability ratings pertaining to software integration with the Internet may be skewed.

Contact information of respondents was gathered for the purposes of a draw for a free copy of Food Smart Professional nutrient analysis software (donated courtesy of Sasquatch Software Inc.).  This information also served to ensure that response data was provided only once by any given individual, and to collect information about country of origin of responses (summarized below):

  • USA - 53 responses. 
  • Canada - 11 responses. 
  • Australia - 1 response. 
  • Peru - 1 response. 
  • Serbia - 1 response. 
  • U.K. - 1 response. 


Priorities Assigned to Computerizing Major Functional Areas of Nutrition & Foodservice Management

In the first section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to rate the level of priority they would assign to computerizing four major functional areas of nutrition care and foodservice management.  The responses are summarized in the table below:
 

  Nutrition Care Diet Office Food Production Inventory Control & Purchasing
First Priority 36/68
(52.9%)
24/68
(35.3%)
20/68
(29.4%)
20/68
(29.4%)
Second Priority 18/68
(26.9%)
16/68
(23.5%)
25/68
(36.8%)
21/68
(30.9%)
Third Priority 7/68
(10.3%)
18/68
(26.5%)
15/68
(22.1%)
11/68
(16.2%)
Fourth Priority 7/68
(10.3%)
10/68
(14.7%)
8/68
(11.8%)
16/68
(23.5%)
  • Nutrition care management clearly received the highest level of priority for computerization among respondents, and diet office management was second most likely to receive top priority. 
  • Food production management and inventory control/purchasing management functions were equally likely to receive top priority, but the latter functional area was twice as likely to receive lowest priority for computerization compared to food production. 
  • When results of first and second priority are combined for each of the functional areas, it is interesting to note that computerization of food production management receives a higher level of priority than diet office management.  In the same manner, inventory control/purchasing management is marginally more likely to receive either first or second priority than diet office management.  Nutrition care management computerization still maintains a clear lead for top priority when results of first and second priority are combined. 

To read more about how respondents rated the importance of various other features which apply to all or specified functional areas of nutrition and foodservice management, click on the links below.
 
 

Rating of Features Which Apply to
All Major Functional Areas of

Nutrition and Foodservice Management



 

Rating of Features Which Apply to
Specified Functional Areas of
Nutrition and Foodservice Management


 

 


This site is best viewed through version 4 or higher JavaScript-enabled Internet Explorer or Netscape web browsers, with your monitor set at 800x600 screen resolution or higher.
© Copyright Nu Connexions.
 

NuConnexions.com:  connecting people....with people....with nutrition information.