the assessment is based on the Sydney trend report
and the data set for Sydney hotels.
ASSESSMENT 2 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title HFR603 Hotel Finance and Revenue
Assessment Revenue Management Scenario Evaluation
Length 1,500 words (+/- 10%)
Learning Outcomes The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below include:
a) Generate, analyse and critically evaluate financial information for improved business decision-making.
b) Compose recommendations to achieve revenue management targets.
c) Critically evaluate the operational requirements of revenue management.
Submission Due by 11:55 PM AEST/AEDT/ACST/ACDT Sunday (Week 8)
Total Marks 100 marks
This task will present a set of data of revenue-related content. Students will be required to analyse and evaluate the content, and offer recommendations. The data set might cover any topic areas covered in the lectures and tutorials of the previous weeks and any readings given in the previous topics. Students will be required to write a 1,500-word report in Week 8.
Revenue Management takes its roots in understanding, analysing and evaluating data to make decisions. The RM scenario evaluations is an assignment which will allow students a hands-on experience with RM data. It will help you to understand what RM is, what its main functions are and how these are used in hotels today. With this knowledge in hand, you will become more versed in this interdepartmental topic and be able to see its application in any hotel department. You must demonstrate strong research skills, as well as critical thinking and analysis.
Please refer to the data set handout provided to prepare your Revenue Management Scenario Evaluation.
When analysing and evaluating the data set, ensure to show how the data is positive, negative or with no impact to the scenario hotel.
You must also provide recommendations for the scenario hotel on how to improve the data set provided, into generating further revenues. Refer to your handout to know how many recommendations are necessary and for which aspects of the data set.
The recommended structure of the report is as follow:
• Introduction – introduce the context, key problem identified and report plan.
• Analysis – describe and explain the data set and its main positive/negative issues.
• Evaluation – defend your own perspective on the scenario hotel’s performance.
• Recommendations – use the SMART acronym to ensure actionable recommendations.
• Conclusion – summarise the scenario, key problem identified and key recommendation.
• Appendices – to show calculations.
You must refer to a minimum of 8 academic articles, plus others as required, in order to show competency in the assessment. Blogs and other unverifiable sources will not count as references. It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing here in the Academic Writing Guide found via the Academic Skills website.
1. Typed and formatted following the Assessment Structure Style Guide and uploaded to BlackBoard on the due date.
2. To be submitted in electronic form as a word-processed file to BlackBoard.
PDF-PROCESSED FILES WILL INCUR AN AUTOMATIC FAIL WITH A ZERO GRADE.
3. All referencing must be in accordance with the Academic Writing Guide: APA 7th Edition on SharePoint.
4. A TUA cover sheet to be attached to your paper (Individual cover sheet).
5. The total word count, excluding references and appendices, must be within 10% (+/-) of the assessment word count.
All students are responsible for ensuring that all work submitted is their own and is appropriately referenced and academically written according the Academic Writing Guide. Students also need to have read and be aware of Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure and subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. These are viewable online.
Students also must keep a copy of all submitted material and any assessment drafts.
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49% Pass
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
75-84% High Distinction
Calculation (accuracy & level of completion)
Percentage for this criterion = 10%
Less than 50% of calculations are successfully completed.
Calculations steps required in questions are inadequate and unclear.
50% of calculations are successfully completed.
Calculation steps required in questions are adequate, but not entirely clear.
65-75% of calculations are successfully completed.
Calculation steps required in questions are clear.
75 – 84% of calculations are successfully completed.
Calculation steps required in questions demonstrate a clear knowledge of formulae.
85-100% of calculations are successfully completed.
Calculation steps required in questions demonstrate a clear and thorough knowledge of formulae and rounding.
Analysis and application with synthesis of new
Percentage for this
criterion = 25%
Limited synthesis and analysis.
Limited application/ recommendations based upon analysis.
Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application.
Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature.
Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis.
Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis.
Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge.
Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations are
clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases.
Evaluation (defence of own perspective on positive/negative performance of business)
Percentage for this criterion = 25%
Minimal to no evaluation of RM scenario.
Limited understanding of key concepts required to support the case study.
Confuses logic and emotion. Information taken from reliable sources but without a coherent analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact with little questioning.
Limited synthesis and evaluation of RM scenario. Some use of RM concepts and illustrations.
Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas.
Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Analysis and evaluation do not reflect expert judgement, intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability.
Can synthesise and
evaluate RM scenario using RM concepts and illustrations, though often not related to the topic at hand.
Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.
Identifies logical flaws.
Questions viewpoints of experts.
Can synthesise and defend own position of the RM scenario, using RM concepts and illustrations, often related to the topic at hand.
Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Well demonstrated capacity
to explain and apply relevant concepts.
Viewpoint of experts are subject to questioning.
Analysis and evaluation reflect growing judgement, intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability.
Can analyse, synthesise and defend own position on RM scenario, using RM concepts and illustrations relevant to the topic.
Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Information is taken from sources with a high level of interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive critical analysis or synthesis.
Identifies gaps in knowledge.
Exhibits intellectual independence, rigour, good
judgement and adaptability.
Recommendations (application of RM concepts)
Percentage for this
criterion = 30%
No recommendations, unfeasible or non-viable recommendations, or undeveloped recommendations.
Recommendations are underdeveloped and show limited application of the data analysis.
linked to the data analysis, but could be developed in more depth.
Justified recommendations linked to analysis.
clearly justified based on the analysis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases.
Percentage for this
criterion = 10%
Specialised language and terminology is rarely or inaccurately employed.
Meaning is repeatedly obscured by errors in the communication of ideas, including errors in structure, sequence, spelling, grammar, punctuation and/or the acknowledgment of sources.
Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.
Referencing is omitted or does not resemble APA.
Communicates in a readable manner that largely adheres to the given format.
Generally employs specialised language and terminology with accuracy.
Meaning is sometimes difficult to follow.
Information, arguments and evidence are structured and sequenced in a way that is not always clear and logical.
Some errors are evident in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation.
Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed.
Communicates in a coherent and readable manner that adheres to the given format.
Accurately employs specialised language and terminology.
Meaning is easy to follow. Information, arguments and evidence are structured and sequenced in a way that is clear and logical.
Occasional minor errors
present in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation.
Demonstrates use of credible resources to support and develop ideas.
Referencing resembles APA, with occasional errors.
Communicates coherently and concisely in a manner that adheres to the given format.
Accurately employs a wide range of specialised language and terminology.
Engages audience interest. Information, arguments and evidence are structured and sequenced in a way that is, clear and persuasive.
Spelling, grammar and punctuation are free from errors.
Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements.
Communicates eloquently. Expresses meaning coherently, concisely and creatively within the given format.
Discerningly selects and precisely employs a wide range of specialised language and terminology.
Engages and sustains audience’s interest. Information, arguments and evidence are insightful, persuasive and expertly presented.
Spelling, grammar and punctuation are free from errors.
Demonstrates use of highquality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop
Referencing resembles APA, with frequent or repeated errors. APA referencing is free from errors.
arguments and position statements.
APA referencing is free from errors.
The following Subject Learning Outcomes are addressed in this assessment
SLO a) Generate, analyse and critically evaluate financial information for improved business decision-making.
SLO b) Compose recommendations to achieve revenue management targets.
SLO c) Critically evaluate the operational requirements of revenue management.
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS