Management trainee in the hotel operations

1	Programme validated by London Metropolitan University.

ASSESSMENT BRIEF 1 (AS1)

PROGRAMME TITLE:	Foundation Degree in Hospitality Management
MODULE TITLE:	Rooms Division Operations Management
MODULE CODE:	LT4F15GN
INTAKE/SEMESTER:	January 2023 / Spring 2023
MODULE LEADER:	Sheikh Ziaul Haque
MODULE LECTURERS
Sheikh Ziaul Haque

ASSESSMENT TYPE:	Individual essay writing
ASSESSMENT TITLE:	Management trainee in the hotel operations
WEIGHTING:	60%
WRITTEN BY:	Sheikh Ziaul Haque
MODERATED BY:	Bhaskar Bhattacharjee
DATE OF ISSUE:	30th January 2023
SUBMISSION DEADLINE:	21.04.2023

Learning Outcomes Covered:
LO2: Demonstrate understanding of the factors that contribute to effective management
and business performance in the accommodation service function, including the key legal
and statutory requirements.

Maximum word length: 2,500 words

2	Programme validated by London Metropolitan University.

Assessment Descriptions:
This assessment is for individual essay writing with a maximum word limit of 2,500
words plus or minus 10%. Words in tables, diagrams and appendices including
reference lists will not be counted. Students should note that there may be penalties
for assessments which are over or under the permitted word count.

Assessment Submission Guidance:
i) Students must provide a completed Assessment cover sheet with all the
essential details including module name, student name and ID numbers.
ii) All Assessments should be submitted in electronic format via college systems
(VLE) before the submission deadline.
iii) The e-submission system will not allow any late submissions.
iv) All late submissions will be capped to ‘PASS’.
NB: Submit the Essay in MS Word only.

Assessment Aim
After the completion of this assessment students will be able to understand hotel rooms
division operations, roles and responsibilities of rooms division personnel, legal and
statutory regulations within the hotel operations and finally yield management activities
within the hotel revenue department.
Assessment Scenario:
Management trainee in the Hotel operations
Assume that you have been selected as a Management Trainee in one of the reputed
hotel chains in London (For example Hilton, Marriott, Sheraton, Four Seasons, Le
Meridian, Sofitel, Intercontinental, Savoy and Lanesborough hotel etc). You are working
under the Executive office department and you are reporting to the hotel’s Director of
Operations.
As part of your career development programme, your reporting Director requested you to
write an essay about the following questions. This answer will be assessed at the time of
your yearly performance review.

3	Programme validated by London Metropolitan University.

Assessment Questions
You must answer all the questions in this section.
1. Research the key sub-departments of Rooms Division (Front Office &
Housekeeping) operations management within your selected hotel chain.
(LO2, 25 marks)
2. Demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of the roles and responsibilities of
two Rooms Division positions (one from the Front Office and another one from
the housekeeping department) within your selected hotel chain.
(LO2, 20 marks)
3. Analyse the key legal and statutory regulations (minimum four) within your
selected hotel chain.
(LO2, 20 marks)
4. Critically analyse Yield Management / Revenue Management, including elements
of Yield Management. What are the high-demand tactics of yield Management that
the Revenue Manager can apply within your selected hotel chain to increase the
Occupancy and Average Daily Room rate (ADR)?
(LO2, 25 marks)
Note:
1. 10% of the marks will be allocated for essay style and presentation including
spelling, grammar and punctuation.
2. The work presented should be well referenced and include hospitality industry
examples used as evidence, and the work is well structured with the evidence
presented in a logical and clear structure with good use of language, cited and
presented according to the convention. Marks will be adjusted accordingly for good
and poor work in this respect

4	Programme validated by London Metropolitan University.

Assessment Format Guidance

You are advised to use the following format:
Title page – Please use the London Met Assessment cover page.
Contents page – Should be provided with page numbers.
Introduction – The background, the context and the aim of the report. Starts on Page 1.
Sections – As many as necessary in line with the tasks required by you.
(For answers to all four questions).
Conclusion – Overall findings of the investigation: the overall picture that has emerged and
the implications for the module.
References – Identification of literature and other sources used and referred in the text.
Ensure that all references are quoted for definitions, web-sourced and other materials.
Submission of a report without references will not be allowed. Use Harvard Reference
System for in-text references and Bibliography.
Appendices – Do not provide appendices, unless agreed with your module tutor.

5	Programme validated by London Metropolitan University.

Appendix A: Plagiarism and Collusion:
Any act of plagiarism and collusion will be seriously dealt with according to the regulations.
In this context the definition and scope of plagiarism are presented below:
Plagiarism is defined as the act of using the work of others, intentionally or unintentionally,
without acknowledging the source of that information or inspiration. “Even if the words are
changed or sentences are put in a different order, the result is still plagiarism” (Cortell
2003).
Collusion is described as the submission of work produced in collaboration with others for
any given assessment based on the assessment of individual work when one person
shares his/her work with others who submit part or all of that work as their own work. In
this assessment, it is acceptable to discuss various ideas and concepts with others, but
the substantive application and coverage in your submission must be your own work.
Appendix B: Harvard Referencing System (HRS):
Any information or work that is not yours needs to be referenced or else may be
considered as plagiarism. Copying from someone’s work can be unintentionally done if
you are unaware of the rules for acknowledging and referencing direct quotations.
The Harvard system of citation requires you to use a given convention which places
primarily the authors’ surnames and year of publication within the text.
For example:
According to Bell (1999), as you write your report, you will use a citation to indicate in your
text the source of the information. This is called in-text referencing.
The authors and publication information cited within the main body of your work must be
listed in the reference list. For example:
Bell, J.; (1999), ‘Doing your Research Project’, (3rd Ed), Buckingham: Open University
Press, pp.1-5.
Detailed guidance on the Harvard Referencing System (HRS) is available on the Virtual
Learning Environment (VLE).
GSBL GENERAL GRADE DESCRIPTORS

6	Programme validated by London Metropolitan University.

General	Level 3/4 o Acquisition of broad knowledge o Evaluate information o Use information to plan, develop and problem solve	Level 5 o Generate ideas through analysing concepts o Demonstrate a command of specialised skills o Formulate responses to well defined and abstract o Analyse and evaluate information	Level 6 o Critically review, consolidate and extend a body of knowledge using specialised skills o Critically evaluate concepts and evidence from a range of sources o Transfer and apply skills and exercise significant judgement in a range of situations
70-100 (A)	Very good Demonstration of very good comprehension of the task with evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal Use of a wide variety of appropriate sources Transformation of knowledge Independent thinking and development of ideas Ability to communication very clearly and effectively Very good evidence of preparation Very good organisation, structure and presentation of work – minimal errors Good references, appropriate sources (quality and quantity). No errors in reference list or citations.	Excellent Advanced scholarship Goes beyond the material provided Excellent link to research Excellent analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal Excellent evidence of preparation Comprehensive and critical understanding of the topic Excellent ability to communicate clearly and effectively Excellent organisation, structure and presentation of work Good references, appropriate sources (quality and quantity). No errors in reference list or citations.	Excellent – Outstanding (for use at far end of range) Outstanding understanding, exploration and insight Strong evidence of originality and development of own ideas Develop a highly complex argument Outstanding ability to communicate topics clearly and concisely Advanced organisation, structure and presentation of work Good references, appropriate sources (quality and quantity). No errors in reference list or citations. References well utilised and critiqued
60-69 (B)	Very good Demonstration of very good comprehension of the task with evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation Use of a wide variety of appropriate sources Transformation of knowledge Independent thinking and development of ideas Ability to communication clearly and effectively Very good evidence of preparation Very good organisation, structure and presentation of work – minimal errors	Very good Demonstration of very good comprehension of the task with evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation Use of a wide variety of appropriate sources Transformation of knowledge Independent thinking and development of ideas Ability to communication clearly and effectively Very good evidence of preparation Very good organisation, structure and presentation of work – minimal errors	Very Good Advanced scholarship Goes beyond the material provided Very good link to research Very good analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal Very good evidence of preparation Comprehensive and critical understanding of the topic Very good ability to communicate clearly and effectively Very good organisation, structure and presentation of

7	Programme validated by London Metropolitan University.

Good references, appropriate sources (quality and quantity). Minimal or no errors in reference list or citations.	Good references, appropriate sources (quality and quantity). Minimal or no errors in reference list or citations.	work Good references, appropriate sources (quality and quantity). No errors in reference list or citations.
50-59 (C)	Adequate – Satisfactory Some analysis but limited Some insight and exploration of ideas Sound conclusions No significant inaccuracies or omissions Some analysis, evaluation or synthesis of information Lacking clarity at times Some evidence of preparation Referencing is sound. Mostly appropriate sources. Numerous errors or inconsistencies	Adequate – Satisfactory Some evidence of thinking independently to develop own ideas Evaluation of relevant theories or literature Reasonable ability to communicate clearly and effectively Report information in a structured way Use of an appropriate format Quite comprehensive knowledge Satisfactory evidence of preparation Satisfactory referencing, appropriate sources. Numerous but minor errors in references	Adequate- Satisfactory Evidence of thinking independently to develop own ideas Evaluation of relevant theories or literature Ability to communicate clearly and effectively Report information in a structured way Use of an appropriate format Reasonably Accurate, quite comprehensive knowledge Satisfactory evidence of preparation Coherent and well presented – minor errors Satisfactory referencing, appropriate sources. Minor errors in references
40-49 (D)	All learning outcomes met Competent (practical) May be incomplete in knowledge (some errors or omissions) Insufficient analysis, evaluation or synthesis Limited application of theories/knowledge An awareness of appropriate principles/theories/techniques Irrelevance to the task at times Disorganised work with weak standard of presentation Numerous aberrations from the requirements of the task Referencing is attempted although may be inconsistent, many errors, weak sources	All learning outcomes met Competent (practical) May be incomplete in knowledge (some errors or omissions) Weak or no analysis, evaluation or synthesis Some application of theories/knowledge An awareness of appropriate principles/theories/techniques Irrelevance to the task at times Disorganised work with weak standard of presentation Aberrations from the requirements of the task Referencing is attempted although may be inconsistent, many errors, weak sources	All learning outcomes met Competent (practical) May be incomplete in knowledge (some errors or omissions) Weak or no analysis, evaluation or synthesis Some application of theories/knowledge An awareness of appropriate principles/theories/techniques Irrelevance to the task at times Disorganised work with weak standard of presentation Aberrations from the requirements of the task Referencing is attempted although may be inconsistent, many errors, weak sources
Condoned Pass 30- 39 (F1)	Learning outcomes not met Little relevant knowledge Lacking structure Numerous errors in structure	Learning outcomes not met Little relevant knowledge Lacking structure Numerous errors in structure	Learning outcomes not met Little relevant knowledge Lacking structure Numerous errors in structure

8	Programme validated by London Metropolitan University.

and form Limited understanding of concepts/theories No appropriate analysis, evaluation or synthesis Significant inaccuracies/omissions Not competent Little or no attempt to use references and if so very weak with errors	and form Limited understanding of concepts/theories No appropriate analysis, evaluation or synthesis Significant inaccuracies/omissions Not competent Little or no attempt to use references and if so very weak with errors	and form Limited understanding of concepts/theories No appropriate analysis, evaluation or synthesis Significant inaccuracies/omissions Not competent Little or no attempt to use references and if so very weak with errors
Under 30 (F2)	Little engagement with the task No basic understanding of the subject matter Poor communication (written or verbal) Lacking or no structure Significant errors in structure and form Many significant inaccuracies/omissions – very little correct Little or no attempt to use references and if so very weak with many significant errors	Little engagement with the task No basic understanding of the subject matter Poor communication (written or verbal) Lacking or no structure Significant errors in structure and form Many significant inaccuracies/omissions – very little correct Little or no attempt to use references and if so very weak with many significant errors	Little engagement with the task No basic understanding of the subject matter Poor communication (written or verbal) Lacking or no structure Significant errors in structure and form Many significant inaccuracies/omissions – very little correct Little or no attempt to use references and if so very weak with many significant errors
(0%)	No submission Nothing of relevance in the work submitted	No submission Nothing of relevance in the work submitted	No submission Nothing of relevance in the work submitted