ASSESSMENT 2 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title HFR603BM Hotel Finance and Revenue
Assessment Revenue Management Scenario Evaluation
Individual/Group Individual
Length 1,500 words (+/- 10%)
Learning Outcomes The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below include:
a) Critically evaluate hotel, financial and industry analytics information for improved business decision-making.
b) Recommend strategies to achieve revenue targets.
c) Critically analyse the operational requirements of revenue management.
Submission Due by 11:55 pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of Week 7
Weighting 40%
Total Marks 100 marks
Assessment Task
Analyse and evaluate a dataset and provide recommendations for revenue generation.
Please refer to the Instructions for details on how to complete this task.
Context
Revenue Management (RM) takes its roots in understanding, analysing and evaluating hotel data in order to make tactical and strategic revenue-related decisions, including pricing, inventory controls, channel and distribution management, and so forth. The RM Scenario Evaluation assessment will provide you with the opportunity to have hands-on experience with RM data. It will help you to gain an understanding regarding what RM is, what its main functions are and how these can be used in hotel settings. Gaining this knowledge will assist you in becoming well versed in this interdepartmental topic and enable you to identify its application in any hotel department. To successfully complete this assessment, you will need to demonstrate strong research skills, as well as critical thinking and analysis.
Task Instructions
Please refer to the dataset handout provided in order to prepare your Revenue Management Scenario Evaluation.
When analysing and evaluating the dataset, ensure that your evaluation shows whether the current data is positive, negative, mixed or has no impact on the hotel’s performance. Positive evaluations would be reflected by increases in key performance indicators (KPIs), while negative evaluations stem from decreasing KPIs. A mixed evaluation will detail both positive changes and negative impacts to the hotel’s performance, whereas there may be no changes in KPIs with no impact to the hotel’s performance.
You must also provide recommendations for the hotel, based on your data analysis and evaluation, to improve the overall hotel RM performance. 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, identify the key problem(s) and report outline.
• Analysis and Evaluation – describe and explain the data set and its primary positive and negative issues; then defend your own perspective on the scenario hotel’s performance.
• Recommendations – use the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and TimeBound) acronym to ensure actionable recommendations.
• Conclusion – summarise the scenario, the key problem(s) identified and the key recommendation(s).
• References – a minimum of eight academic articles, plus others as required, are necessary in order to demonstrate competency in this assessment. Blogs and other unverifiable sources will not count as references.
• Appendices – to show calculations, and additional resources used in the report.
The total word count, excluding references and appendices, must be within 10% (+/-) of the assessment word count of 1,500 words.
Referencing
It is essential that you use appropriate APA 7th style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing in the Academic Skills webpage.
Submission Instructions
Submit this assessment via the Assessment link in the main navigation menu in HFR603BM – Hotel Finance & Revenue. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the Blackboard portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
Please ensure that your assessment is:
1. typed and formatted following the Academic Writing Guide and uploaded to Blackboard by the due date
2. submitted in electronic form as a Word-processed file to Blackboard, and
3. includes a TUA cover sheet attached to your paper.
Academic Integrity
All students are responsible for ensuring that all work submitted is their own and is appropriately referenced and academically written according to 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.
Special Consideration
To apply for special consideration for a modification to an assessment or exam due to unexpected or extenuating circumstances, please consult the Assessment Policy for Higher Education Coursework and ELICOS, and if applicable to your circumstance, submit a completed Application for Assessment
Special Consideration Form to your Learning Facilitat

Assessment Rubric
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49% Pass
(Functional)
50-64% Credit
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Calculation (accuracy and 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.
50-64% 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
knowledge
Percentage for this
criterion = 25%
Limited to no synthesis and analysis.
Confuses logic and emotion. Information taken from reliable sources but without a coherent analysis or synthesis.
Demonstrated minimal analysis and synthesis of new knowledge.
Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas.
Demonstrates limited ability to interpret information and literature.
Well-developed analysis and synthesis of new knowledge.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.
Questions viewpoints of experts.
Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis of new knowledge.
Well demonstrated capacity
to explain and apply relevant concepts.
Viewpoint of experts are subject to questioning.
Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge.
Strong application of relevant concepts to the argument.
Recommendations are
clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Knowledge applied to new situations/other cases.
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49% Pass
(Functional)
50-64% Credit
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
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 scenario.
Evaluation does not reflect expert judgement, intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability.
Limited synthesis and evaluation of RM scenario. Some use of RM concepts and illustrations.
Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Limited/minimal reflection of 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.
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.
Evaluation reflects 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.
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.
Recommendations are
linked to the data analysis, but could be developed in more depth.
Justified recommendations linked to analysis.
Recommendations are
clearly justified based on the analysis. Knowledge applied to new situations/other cases.
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49% Pass
(Functional)
50-64% Credit
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Effective
Communication
(Written)
Presents information.
Specialised language and terminology are 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.
Less than eight academic
references included
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.
Referencing resembles APA, with frequent or repeated errors.
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.
APA referencing is free from errors.
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 arguments and position statements.
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49% Pass
(Functional)
50-64% Credit
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Percentage for this
criterion = 10%
APA referencing is free from errors.