De La Salle–College of Saint Benilde

2544 Taft Ave, Malate, Manila, 1004 Metro Manila

A comparative study between Uber and Grab as the preferred transport network
vehicle (TNV) service provider by Junior Human Resource Management students of
De La Salle- College of Saint Benilde.

A Final Paper

Presented to

The Faculty of the School of Management and Information Technology

Human Resource Management Program
De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

In ELEMSTA TH301 under
GARCIA, MARK ANTHONY

By

Benigno, Angelouh
Castañeda, Julio
Sia, Vince
Simbulan, Skyler
ABSTRACT

As of 2017, the Philippines as improved their transportation services with the development and

new installment of Uber and Grab, two applications that has been favored by many Filipinos

because of its convenience, safety and economical reasons. Both of these service providers has

gone toe-to-toe, with the new features and promos offered to give the best price which works for

the customer. Grab is the first e-hailing company in the Philippines. It is a subsidiary of

Malaysia’s MyTeksi, and uses smartphones to book a taxi in an efficient and safe manner. It

started running operations early 2013, while Uber Technologies Inc., a global transportation

technology company based in San Francisco, California, became available in the Philippines a

year after. With the two options being available for use, and the offers and promos these two

companies give, it would make an individual have a preferred service provider. The objective of

this study is to see whether there is indeed a preferred transport network vehicle (TNV) service

provider by fellow Junior Human Resource Management students of De La Salle- College of

Saint Benilde. The study was conducted by issuing a survey to 40 Junior HRM Students.

After the collection and collation of the survey forms, the data was encoded and analyzed

further using the statistics software, PHStat to see if there is a pattern and a preferred

service provider, which was seen to be more comfortable than the other.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

I. INTRODUCTION

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

III. MATERIALS AND METHODS

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

a. DESCRIPTIVE- UBER

b. DESCRIPTIVE- GRAB

c. INFERENTIAL

i. ESTIMATE OF ONE POPULATION MEAN

1. UBER

2. GRAB

ii. ESTIMATE OF ONE POPULATION PROPORTION

1. UBER

2. GRAB

iii. HYPOTHESIS TESTING OF ONE POPULATION MEAN

1. UBER

2. GRAB

iv. HYPOTHESIS TESTING OF ONE POPULATION PROPORTION

1. UBER

2. GRAB

v. HYPOTHESIS TESTING OF TWO POPULATION MEAN

vi. HYPOTHESIS TESTING OF TWO POPULATION PROPORTION

vii. REGRESSION & CORRELATION

V. CONCLUSION

VI. REFERENCES
I. INTRODUCTION

Today, getting around is made easy with just a click of a button and some patience. Two notable

transportaion network serivces, Uber and Grab has made it possible for any individual to get to a

destination hassle-free and also paying the most reasonable price for doing so. These services can

be availed by downloading these applications on your cellular devices (e.g. iOS, android, etc.).

These applications are very easy to use and it offers you the choice to pay using cash, debit/credit

card. Both services allows you to choose options like “pooling” which is bascially riding with

strangers to a destination together to lessen your travel expenses. With that said, Uber and Grab

both have something interesting to offer which would be very appealing to students for its cost

efficiency reasons.

Given this predicament, this study aims to see whether there is indeed a preferred transport

network vehicle (TNV) service provider by fellow Junior Human Resource Management

students of De La Salle- College of Saint Benilde. In addition to this, this study

aims to determine the main reasons that lead to the perception of this

transportation service provider to be more preferable to the other.

With the overwhelming number of students in De La Salle-College of Saint

Benilde in their respective courses, we limited our study to Junior Human

Resource Management students. The 40 respondents were given an online survey

to answer questions that pertained to the things they take into consideration when

they think of transporation convenience. This data will be further evaluated using

statistic tools and learnings from this ELEMSTA class.

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The concept of the Transportation Network Company (TNC) like Uber and
GrabCar originated in Car-Sharing idea, also known as Ride-Sharing, Ride-
Resourcing and mobile app based taxi. TNC’s are evolving as it directly competes
to the taxi industry.

 2.1. Uber Experience in the U.S.A.----- In the USA (Frizell 2015), most of
the Uber Drivers are male, only 13.8% are female. They are also younger
than the U.S. worker and Taxi driver with an age between 30 to 39 years
old compared with 22.5% in the regular work force and 19.9% among
regular taxi drivers and chauffeurs. About 37% of Uber drivers have a
college degree, versus 25.2% in the general work pool. About one-third of
the Uber drivers started with Uber to earn money while looking for a
steady, full-time job. Over 62% of the Uber drivers are working fulltime or
part-time on another job. Majority (51%) of Uber drivers work 15 hours a
week or fewer. Only 19% are driving full-time (35 hours per week or more)
compared to regular taxi drivers with 81%. Uber in the U.S.A. performs
like a ride sharing in a form of additional income.

 2.2.Surge Pricing Deep (2015)-----, whenever the demand increase, per

mile prices are automatically increased resulting to surge pricing. The new
fare will depend on the number of drivers and the number of request made
by people who want to ride Uber. Price surge technology was patent by
Uber in the U.S. Pullen (2014), Uber’s pricing can be subject to “surge”
pricing in addition to operating on supply and demand which increase the
rates in return. Uber uses surge to pricing to encourage more drivers to get
out and drive during busy times. Some critics called it price gouging during
natural calamities and bad weather. However, Uber amended its policy
saying it will no longer charge surge rates during natural emergencies. Toor
(2016), On April 21, 2016 the government of Delhi India suspend the surge
pricing of Uber and local ride-hailing company Ola. Chief Minister of
Delhi Arvind Kejriwal described the practice of surge pricing as “highway
robbery” and strict action would be taken against drivers who raise their
fares.
 Figure 2 shows a Sample Surge Pricing in Metro Manila. Surge usually
happens during rush hours, a bad weather or during special occasions

Figure 2. Sample Surge Pricing in Metro Manila

 2.3.Sustainable Urban Transport Evans (2011)----- defines sustainable

transport as green transport and it does not use or rely on decreasing natural
resources. It relies on renewable or regenerated energy rather than fossil
fuels and it has low effect on the environment. Examples of sustainable
transport includes walking, cycling and sailing. Sustainable Transport is
“Transport that meets the current transport and mobility needs without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet these needs.” Black
(1996) Avoid, Shift, Improve Strategies in Sustainable Urban Transport,
UNDESA (2012) Avoid: This first strategy seeks to avoid unnecessary
travel and reduce trip distances. Shift: This strategy seeks to shift
passengers towards more sustainable transport modes. Encourage to use
start using more public and non-motorized transport. Improve: The third
strategy focuses on policies that aim to improve transport practices and
technologies.
 2.4.Sharing Economy----- As shown in Table 1, Wallsten (2015)
compared Uber, Lyft and other taxi-like service to Airbnb. Airbnb makes
the empty homes or empty rooms possible for rent, on the other hand, cars
sit parked and depreciate maybe utilized in Uber. Unemployed and
underemployed people represents wasted productive assets.

Table 1. THE “SHARING ECONOMY” AND RIDE-SHARING

SERVICES WALLSTEN (2015)

 2.5 Dynamic Pricing----- Uber shows that both supply curve and demand
curve are highly elastic (Bill Gurley, 2014). When price surge, an
immediate reduction in open-to-order ratios. As expected, higher prices will
reduce demand. Uber’s decrease in price will result materially to increased
demand. Dynamic pricing policies are well applied also in hotels, airlines
and rentals. Same as other Internet marketplace companies, when scarcity
of supply is experienced, dynamic pricing is the solution (Bill Gurley,
2014). Some of the examples that use dynamic prices are Ebay’s original
auction model, Airbnb and Homeaway, and Google’s core Adwords
offering.

 2.6.Ridesharing-----In 2011, Amey, A. Et al, defines “real-time”

ridesharing “A single, or recurring rideshare trip with no fixed schedule,
organized on a one-time basis, with matching of participants occurring as
little as a few minutes before departure or as far in advance as the evening
before a trip is scheduled to take place”. Although Uber and GrabCar
originated in the concept of ridesharing and car-sharing, in Metro Manila it
became an evolve taxi with premium service. Ridesharing still exist here
through android/IOS apps, but they are not registered in Land
Transportation Franchise and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). Carpooling on
the other hand is still practiced in some offices.
 2.7. Car-Sharing----- Car-Sharing provides access to a fleet of vehicles
by reservation either online, by phone, walk to nearest parking space,
open the doors via electronic keycard and drive off. It can be a
substitute for car ownership at home and provides access to vehicles for
business use and personal errands at the workplace. Being a car-sharing
operator has a different purpose, it can be for profit companies, non-
profits with environmental and social change mission.
It is also called the “missing link” being an alternative to private cars.
Users can ride transit, cycle and walk for most of their trips, but have
access to a car when needed. Car-sharing also complements taxis, which
is better for one-way trip, for those who cannot drive, and car rental
which is cheaper for long journeys. (Ball A., Et. Al, Transportation
Research Board, TCRP Report 108, Car-Sharing: Where and How It
Succeeds, 2005)
Car-sharing provides options for mid-distance trips where destinations
may not be accessible by public transportations as shown in Figure 5.
Relationship to other modes (TCRP Report 108, 2005).
Impacts of Car-sharing (TCRP Report 108, 2005)
a) Vehicle Ownership – reduced vehicle ownership can lead to
increased parking availability
b) Vehicle Travel – reduced vehicle travel, strong financial incentive to
drive less, non-car owners can use service to make vehicle trips,
improves mobility
c) Other Impacts o Lower emission, – car-sharing reduces emissions by
cutting vehicle travel and the use of newer, fuel-efficient vehicles.
o Increased transit ridership – by reduction of vehicle travel, car-
sharing shifts some trips to transit.
o Cost Savings – saving money on transportation is the reasons why
many households and business joins car-sharing.
o Greater Mobility – car-sharing allows people without a car to get to
new places.
Layered Benefits (TCRP Report 108, 2005)
a) Environment/Community
 Lower Emissions  Cost Savings for development  Less congestion 
Better urban design  More compact development  Less energy
resources for vehicle manufacturing
b) Transportation Systems  Lower parking demand  More fuel-
efficient vehicles  Less vehicle travel  More transit ridership
c) Individual/Business  Cost savings  Greater mobility  Convenience
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study aims to see whether there is indeed a preferred transport network vehicle (TNV)

service provider by fellow Junior Human Resource Management students of De La

Salle- College of Saint Benilde. In addition to this, this study aims to determine

the main reasons that lead to the perception of this transportation service provider

to be more preferable to the other.

In order to acquire the necessary information for this study and to have an

understanding of the perception of these 40 respondents, an online survey has been

administered to the 40 Junior Human Resource Management students of De La Salle-

College of Saint Benilde. They were tasked to answer questions that would

determine their transportation means, and ultimately, their preferred transportation

service provider. Situated below is the survey from we have administered to the

respondents.

Good day!

We are students of Elementary Statistics from section TH301. As part of the requirements in this course,
we need to conduct a survey with regards to Uber or Grab as the preferred transport network vehicle
(TNV) service provider by Junior Human Resource Management students of De La Salle- College of Saint
Benilde.

As we ask for your help in accomplishing our research by answering a simple survey below. Rest assured
that your answers would be taken with utmost confidentiality. We are hoping for your most honest
answers. Thank you very much for your time.

Group Members:

SIMBULAN, Skyler (LEADER)

BENIGNO, Angelouh Djannarah

CASTAÑEDA, Julio

SIA, Vince Justinn

Noted By:

Prof. Mark Anthony Garcia

ELEMSTA PROFESSOR

BASIC INFORMATION:

I.D. Number: ______________________ Age: _______ Gender: M / F

1. How often do you commute using TNVs?

Daily Weekly Monthly Others (specify) _____

2. Have you experienced the service of both Uber and Grab?

YES NO

3. What is your average waiting time after booking a ride?

≤ 3 mins 4-7 mins 8-12 mins ≥ 13 mins

4. Approximately how far do you often travel per ride?

≤ 4 KM 5-8 KM 9-12 KM ≥ 13 KM

5. How much do you often pay per ride?

≤ P100 P101-200 P201-300 ≥ P301

6. Which service do you often use?

UberX/GrabCar Pool/Share Premium

7. Do you travel during peak hours?

YES NO

8. Which do you think has a greater value for money during regular hours?
UBER GRAB SAME

9. From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your perceived value for money in terms of their
rate during regular hours.
5 4 3 2 1

10. Which do you think has a greater value for money during peak hours?
UBER GRAB SAME
11. From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your perceived value for money in terms of their
rate during peak hours.
5 4 3 2 1

12. Which has the least count of cancellations by drivers?

UBER GRAB SAME

13. From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your satisfaction in terms of the pick-up rate of
drivers from your chosen TNV.
5 4 3 2 1

14. Which do you think has more professional drivers?

UBER GRAB SAME

15. From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your satisfaction in terms of the drivers’ general
behavior from the start until the end of your trip.
5 4 3 2 1

16. Which do you think has more knowledgeable drivers in terms of route?
UBER GRAB SAME

17. From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate the drivers’ perceived dependence to GPS apps
such as Waze.
5 4 3 2 1

18. Which do you feel safer when travelling?

UBER GRAB SAME

19. From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your perceived feeling of safety when riding your
chosen TNV.
5 4 3 2 1

20. Which do you feel more comfortable when travelling?

UBER GRAB SAME

21. From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your perceived feeling of comfort when riding your
chosen TNV.
5 4 3 2 1

22. Which provides better response to customer complaints?

UBER GRAB SAME
 23. From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate their effectiveness when responding to customer
complaints.
5 4 3 2 1

24. Which service do you prefer to use the most?

UBER GRAB SAME

25. From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your overall experience from using your chosen
TNV.
5 4 3 2 1

Upon collecting and compiling the surveys, the responses were encoded and analyzed. Hypothesis Test
on One Population Mean and Hypothesis Test on Two Population Proportion were used to answer the
problem. The program PHStat was used to aid the process of analyzation.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Descriptive

Population: Junior Human Resource Management students of De La Salle- College of Saint Benilde

Sample Size: 45

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 24 53.33%
Female 21 46.67%

Frequency

47% Male

53% Female

Q1: How often do you commute using TNVs?

Table 1A. Respondents’ Response as to their frequency in commuting via TNVs

Frequency Percentage
Daily 27 55.60%
Weekly 17 37.80%
Monthly 3 6.60%

Graph 1A. Respondents’ Response as to their frequency in commuting via TNVs

Frequency

6%

Daily
36% Weekly
58% Monthly

Q2: Have you experienced the service of both Uber and Grab?
Table 2A. Respondents’ Response as to whether they have experienced Uber/Grab’s service

Category Frequency Percentage

Yes 43 95.60%
No 2 4.40%

Graph 2A. Respondents’ Response as to whether they have experienced Uber/Grab’s service

Frequency

4%

Yes
No

96%

Q3: What is your average waiting time after booking a ride?

Table 3A. Respondents’ Response as to their average waiting time when booking a ride

Frequency Percentage
3 mins 7 15.56%
4-7 mins 34 75.56%
8-12 mins 4 8.89%
13 mins 0 0%

Graph 3A. Respondents’ Response as to their average waiting time when booking a ride

Frequency
0%

9%
15%

3 mins
4-7 mins
8-12 mins
13 mins

76%

Q4: Approximately how far do you often travel per ride?

Table 4A. Respondents’ Response as to their travel distance per ride

Frequency Percentage
4 KM 6 13.33%
 5-8 KM 23 51.11%
9-12 KM 14 31.11%
13 KM 2 4%

Graph 4A. Respondents’ Response as to their travel distance per ride

Frequency

5%
13%

4 KM
31%
5-8 KM
9-12 KM
13 KM
51%

Q5: How much do you often pay per ride? Give a particular amount.

Table 5A. Respondents’ Response as to their average payment per ride

95 100 120 140 150 155 160 160 160

160 160 165 170 170 175 175 180 180
180 180 180 180 180 180 190 190 200
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
225 250 250 250 160 300 300 300 300

Sample Mean: Sample Standard Deviation:

x̄ = ( Σ x ) / n
= 190.44 or 190 = 46.91 or 47

Q6: Which service do you often use?

Table 6A. Respondents’ Response as to the frequency in using TNVs

Frequency Percentage
Uber X / Grabcar 15 33.33%
Pool / Share 30 66.67%
Premium 0 0.00%

Graph 6A. Respondents’ Response as to the frequency in using TNVs

 Frequency
0%

33%
Uber X/ Grabcar
Pool/ Share
Premium
67%

Q7: Do you travel during peak hours?

Table 7A. Respondents’ Response as to whether they travel during peak hours

Category Frequency Percentage

Yes 38 84.44%
No 7 15.56%

Graph 7A. Respondents’ Response as to whether they travel during peak hours

Frequency

16%

Yes
No

84%

Q8: Which do you think has a greater value for money during regular hours?

Table 8A. Respondents’ Response as to which has greater value for money on regular hours

Frequency Percentage
Grab 9 20.00%
Uber 30 66.67%
Same 6 13.33%

Graph 8A. Respondents’ Response as to which has greater value for money on regular hours
 Frequency

13%
20%

Grab
Uber
Same

67%

Q9: From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your perceived value for money in terms of
their rate during regular hours.

Table 9A. Respondents’ Response as to their perceived value for money during regular hours

Scale Uber Grab Other

5 34 18 7
4 7 19 7
4 4 5 7
2 0 2 4
1 0 1 17

Graph 9A. Respondents’ Response as to their perceived value for money during regular
hours

Rating
40
35
30
5
25
4
20
4
15
2
10
1
5
0
Uber Grab Other

Q10: Which do you think has a greater value for money during peak hours?

Table 10A. Respondents’ Response as to their perceived value for money during peak hours

Frequency Percentage
Grab 10 22.22%
Uber 27 60.00%
Same 8 17.78%

Graph 10A. Respondents’ Response as to their perceived value for money during peak hours
 Frequency

18%
22%

Grab
Uber
Same

60%

Q11: From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your perceived value for money in terms
of their rate during peak hours.

Table 11A. Respondents’ Response as to their as to their perceived value for money during
peak hours

Scale Uber Grab Other

5 32 16 6
4 8 17 9
4 3 9 8
2 2 2 2
1 0 1 16

Graph 11A. Respondents’ Response as to their as to their perceived value for money during
peak hours

Rating
35

30

25 5
20 4

15 4
2
10
1
5

0
Uber Grab Other

Q12: Which has the least count of cancellations by drivers?

Table 12A. Respondents’ Response as to the least count of ride cancellations

Frequency Percentage
Grab 10 22.22%
Uber 28 62.22%
Same 7 15.56%

Graph 12A. Respondents’ Response as to the least count of ride cancellations

 Frequency

16%
22%

Grab
Uber
Same

62%

Q13: From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your satisfaction in terms of the pick-up
rate of drivers from your chosen TNV.

Table 13A. Respondents’ Response as to their satisfaction in terms of pick-up rate

Scale Uber Grab Other

5 34 18 7
4 8 19 7
4 3 6 10
2 0 2 4
1 0 0 14

Graph 13A. Respondents’ Response as to their satisfaction in terms of pick-up rate

Rating
40
35
30
5
25
4
20
4
15
2
10
1
5
0
Uber Grab Other

Q14: Which do you think has more professional drivers?

Table 14A. Respondents’ Response as to the professionality of TNV drivers

Frequency Percentage
Grab 7 15.56%
Uber 28 62.22%
Same 10 22.22%

Graph 14A. Respondents’ Response as to the professionality of TNV drivers

 Frequency

16%
22%

Grab
Uber
Same

62%

Q15: From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your satisfaction in terms of the drivers’
general behavior from the start until the end of your trip.

Table 15A. Respondents’ Response as to their satisfaction in terms of drivers’ general

behavior during the trip

Scale Uber Grab Other

5 31 21 6
4 10 17 10
4 3 5 11
2 1 1 3
1 0 1 12

Graph 15A. Respondents’ Response as to their satisfaction in terms of drivers’ general

behavior during the trip

Rating
35

30

25 5
20 4

15 4
2
10
1
5

0
Uber Grab Other

Q16: Which do you think has more knowledgeable drivers in terms of route?

Table 16A. Respondents’ Response as to the drivers’ knowledge in terms of route

Frequency Percentage
Grab 9 20.00%
Uber 28 62.22%
Same 8 17.78%

Graph 16A. Respondents’ Response as to the drivers’ knowledge in terms of route

 Frequency

18% 20%

Grab
Uber
Same

62%

Q17: From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate the drivers’ perceived dependence to GPS
apps such as Waze.

Table 17A. Respondents’ Response as to the drivers’ dependence to GPS apps

Scale Uber Grab Other

5 31 21 5
4 10 27 12
4 4 5 12
2 0 0 2
1 0 1 11

Graph 17A. Respondents’ Response as to the drivers’ dependence to GPS apps

Rating
35

30

25 5
20 4

15 4
2
10
1
5

0
Uber Grab Other

Q18: Which do you feel safer when travelling?

Table 18A. Respondents’ Response as to their safety when travelling

Frequency Percentage
Grab 12 26.67%
Uber 23 51.11%
Same 9 20.00%

Graph 18A. Respondents’ Response as to their safety when travelling

 Frequency

21%
27%
Grab
Uber
Same

52%

Q19: From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your perceived feeling of safety when
riding your chosen TNV.

Table 19A. Respondents’ Response as to their perceived feeling of safety

Scale Uber Grab Other

5 30 11 4
4 13 28 10
4 2 5 16
2 0 0 2
1 0 1 10

Graph 19A. Respondents’ Response as to their perceived feeling of safety

Rating
35

30

25 5
20 4

15 4
2
10
1
5

0
Uber Grab Other

Q20: Which do you feel more comfortable when travelling?

Table 20A. Respondents’ Response as to their comfortability when travelling

Frequency Percentage
Grab 12 26.67%
Uber 24 53.33%
Same 9 20.00%

Graph 20A. Respondents’ Response as to their comfortability when travelling

 Frequency

20%
27%
Grab
Uber
Same

53%

Q21: From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your perceived feeling of comfort when
riding your chosen TNV.

Table 21A. Respondents’ Response as to their perceived feeling of comfortability when

travelling

Scale Uber Grab Other

5 34 13 3
4 7 20 8
4 2 8 12
2 0 3 5
1 1 1 14

Graph 21A. Respondents’ Response as to their perceived feeling of comfortability when

travelling

Rating
40
35
30
5
25
4
20
4
15
2
10
1
5
0
Uber Grab Other

Q22: Which provides better response to customer complaints?

Table 22A. Respondents’ Response as to the TNV that provides better response to
complaints

Frequency Percentage
Grab 12 26.67%
Uber 24 53.33%
Same 9 20.00%

Graph 22A. Respondents’ Response as to the TNV that provides better response to
complaints
 Frequency

20%
27%
Grab
Uber
Same

53%

Q23: From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate their effectiveness when responding to
customer complaints

Table 23A. Respondents’ Response as to their perceived effectiveness of TNVs responding to

complaints

Scale Uber Grab Other

5 32 20 9
4 10 16 10
4 2 6 10
2 1 1 5
1 0 2 8

Graph 23A. Respondents’ Response as to their perceived effectiveness of TNVs responding

to complaints

Rating
35

30

25 5
20 4

15 4
2
10
1
5

0
Uber Grab Other

Q24: Which service do you prefer to use the most?

Table 24A. Respondents’ Response as to their preferred TNV

Category Frequency Percentage

Uber 28 62.22%
Grab 17 37.78%

Graph 24A. Respondents’ Response as to their preferred TNV

 Frequency

38%
Uber
Grab
62%

Q25: From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your overall experience from using your
chosen TNV.

Table 25A. Respondents’ Response as to their perceived overall experience from using
preferred TNV

Scale Uber Grab Other

5 26 14 7
4 13 21 6
4 5 6 12
2 1 2 4
1 0 2 13

Graph 25A. Respondents’ Response as to their perceived overall experience from using
preferred TNV

Rating
30

25

20 5
4
15
4
10 2
1
5

0
Uber Grab Other

B. Inferential

Q2: Have you experienced the service of both Uber and Grab?

Claim: Male Junior Human Resource Management students of De La Salle- College of Saint
Benilde (P1) have experienced the service of both Uber and Grab more than Female
students (P2).

Null Hypothesis: P1 ≤ P2     

Alternative Hypothesis: P1 > P2 (claim) 

 PHStat Table for Two Population Proportion

Z Test for Differences in Two Proportions

Data
Hypothesized Difference 0
Level of Significance 0.05
Group 1
Number of Items of Interest 22
Sample Size 45
Group 2
Number of Items of Interest 21
Sample Size 45

Intermediate Calculations
Group 1 Proportion 0.488888889
Group 2 Proportion 0.466666667
Difference in Two Proportions 0.022222222
Average Proportion 0.4778
Z Test Statistic 0.2110

Upper-Tail Test
Upper Critical Value 1.6449
p-Value 0.4164
Do not reject the null hypothesis

Conclusion:

Male Junior Human Resource Management students of De La Salle- College of Saint Benilde
(P1) have experienced the service of both Uber and Grab less than or equal to Female
students (P2).

Q5: How much do you often pay per ride? Give a particular amount.

Claim: Junior Human Resource Management students of De La Salle- College of Saint Benilde
often pay less than 200php per ride.

Null Hypothesis:  ≥ 200 

Alternative Hypothesis:  < 200 (claim) 

PHStat Table for One Population Mean

Z Test of Hypothesis for the Mean

Data
Null Hypothesis = 0
Level of Significance 0.05
Population Standard Deviation 46.91
Sample Size 45
Sample Mean 190.44

Intermediate Calculations
Standard Error of the Mean 6.9929
Z Test Statistic 27.2332

Lower-Tail Test
Lower Critical Value -1.6449
p-Value 1.0000
Do not reject the null hypothesis
Conclusion:

Junior Human Resource Management students of De La Salle- College of Saint Benilde often
pay more than or equal to 200php per ride.

Q25: From a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, rate your overall experience from using your
chosen TNV.

Claim: Uber (P1) has a higher rating in terms of overall experience as compared to Grab.

Null Hypothesis: P1 ≤ P2 

Alternative Hypothesis: P1 > P2 (claim) 

PHStat Table for Two Population Mean

Z Test for Differences in Two Means

Data
Hypothesized Difference 0
Level of Significance 0.05
Population 1 Sample
Sample Size 45
Sample Mean 4.42
Population Standard Deviation 0.73
Population 2 Sample
Sample Size 45
Sample Mean 3.96
Population Standard Deviation 1.02

Intermediate Calculations
Difference in Sample Means 0.46
Standard Error of the Difference in Means 0.1870
Z Test Statistic 2.4601

Upper-Tail Test
Upper Critical Value 1.6449
p-Value 0.0069
Reject the null hypothesis

Conclusion:

Uber (P1) has a higher rating in terms of overall experience as compared to Grab.