He is impressed that Farmer$$s Kitchen has established such an extensive menu, despite being in business for only $16$ months. He has tried a few samples and liked what he tasted, though he admits he wasn$$t blown away. Though the company has billed itself as a $$budget$$ choice, Aslan notes its prices are actually a little higher than those of other vendors. He attributes the higher prices to the extra servers, two starter courses, and their locally hand$-$glazed serving plates and bowls. While they are beautiful and crafted by local artisans, they may not be worth the expense.

Fiona found Hearty Plate through a friend who chose them for his own wedding. They offer a wide selection of cuisines$$from seafood to flank steak$$and can accommodate vegan eaters and others with food allergies. Online reviews indicate they can handle multiple events in a single weekend, but this can impact the level of service quality. She$$s impressed with the tasting menu samples she has tried$$the food is rated as $$better than average$$ by most. Hearty Plate$$s tiered pricing also allows her to select from multiple inexpensive catering options. One option includes basic linens, cutlery, and self$-$serve carving stations.

The following product evaluation table shows the numerical importance weights and performance scores that Marcus applied to each of the selection criteria he identified. Note that the total weight of all four criteria equals $1\mathrm{.}0,$ where $0\mathrm{.}1$ is the least important and $0\mathrm{.}4$ is the most important. The performance scores fall on a scale of $1$ to $10,$ where $1$ is the lowest score and $10$ is the highest. The total performance scores vary across each vendor.

PRODUCT EVALUATION

Farmer's Kitchen Hearty Plate

Importance Weights Performance Score Weighted Performance Score Weighted

Quality Food $0\mathrm{.}452104$

Presentation $0\mathrm{.}271\mathrm{.}451$

Price $0\mathrm{.}110\mathrm{.}110\mathrm{.}1$

Quality Service $0\mathrm{.}310330\mathrm{.}9$

TOTAL $1236\mathrm{.}5246$