Looking for Plagiarism-Free Answers for Your US, UK, Singapore, New Zealand, and Ireland College/University Assignments?
Talk to an Expert| Category | Assignment | Subject | Management |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | University of Sundarland | Module Title | MGT1002: Hotel Operations and Systems Management |
By the end of this module successful students will be able to do the following:
1. Interpret the development and classification systems of the accommodation industry and their impact on operational decision-making.
2. Examine front office and housekeeping operations, including their roles, processes, and contributions to guest satisfaction and overall operational success.
3. Discuss revenue management principles, distribution strategies, and the role of sustainability practices within the hospitality industry.
Get Help with 100% Original MGT1002: Hotel Operations and Systems Management Assessment Answer– Order Now!
Order Assignment on WhatsAppValue: 30%
Assessment Description
This assessment tests Learning Outcomes 1, 2 and 3.
As a group of hotel consultants, you are required to study guest reviews for TWO hotels in London. By studying those comments, you should try to study the good practices and areas for improvement respectively; and compare their performance accordingly. Summarize all your findings into responsible operational departments. Hotel comments are easily found online at various websites including official hotel websites, Trip Advisor, Hotels.com, Booking.com, Agoda.com, etc.
Each project team (ranging from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 6 members) will be responsible for a hotel consultancy presentation. The presentation contents should include:
Each student team will have maximum 15 minutes, no less than 10 minutes to present the findings to the class.
Data Collection & Research
Operational Categorization
To organize your findings, map reviews to the following departments, try to:
Presentation Innovation & Delivery
Each team assignment must be presented by all students in the same group. Students must submit the presentation PowerPoint by the submission date specified. Student full names and student numbers should be printed clearly on the cover page of the PowerPoint slide.
| Criteria | Fail / Marginal Fail (<40%) | Pass (40% - 49%) | Good (50% - 59%) | Very Good (60% - 69%) | Excellent (70% - 100%) |
|
Introduction & Context 10% |
Missing or incoherent introduction. No mention of the consultancy firm or hotel background. |
Basic introduction of the team and the two London hotels. Lacks professional Consultancy branding. |
Clear introduction. Provides brief, accurate background information on both London properties. | Professional opening. Sets a clear Consultancy stage and provides a strategic overview of the properties' market niche. | High-impact introduction. Establishes a sophisticated consultancy persona with a clear roadmap of the audit objectives. |
|
Analysis- Departmental 40% |
Fails to categorize findings. No understanding of hotel departments | Identifies departments but links them poorly to the data. Analysis is on very surface level. | Correctly maps reviews to specific departments. Identifies clear "Good Practices" vs "Areas for Improvement." | Detailed departmental audit. Connects guest friction points to potential management or workflow failures. | Expert operational audit. Links guest feedback to specific Systems Management structural solutions. |
|
Recommendation- The "Three areas of improvement" 30% |
Missed the requirement to highlight three key areas of the guest experience. | Lists three areas, but they are generic and not directly supported by the research findings. | Three areas are identified and logically linked to the specific findings of the two hotels. | High-level synthesis. Demonstrates how these three keys drive the overall brand reputation and guest loyalty. | Visionary strategic synthesis. Prioritizes the three most impactful "leverage points" for to improve hotel performance and guest experience. |
|
Presentation & Innovation 10% |
Unprofessional. No team coordination. Slides are unreadable. No innovative elements used. | Standard PPT with heavy text. Poor transitions. Minimal attempt at visual or creative engagement. | Clear speaking and good coordination. Uses charts/images to support data. Stays within time limit of presentation. | Very good team Synergy. Professional presentation. Uses innovative tools (e.g., role-play or video) to enhance the message. | Masterful delivery. Seamless transitions. Innovative use of role-play/multimedia that significantly elevates the "Consultancy" pitch. |
|
Research & Literature 10% |
Little to no evidence of research. Relies on anecdotal or singular comments. No reference to academic literature or hospitality management theories. |
Basic research from one major site. Primarily descriptive. Limited reference to academic literature or hospitality management theories. |
Good research sources. Identifies clear patterns in guest behaviour and expectations. Uses fair academic sources or industry frameworks to support the analysis |
Strong research across multiple platforms. Compares official brand promises against real-time guest sentiment. Strong integration of literature to explain guest satisfaction trends. |
Synthesizes high volumes of data to uncover deep, systemic operational insights across both properties. Exemplary use of academic theory. Critically hospitality models apply to justify operational recommendations. |
Value: 70%
Develop a comprehensive proposal for a new hotel project in London.
As an individual consultant, your objective is to persuade a potential investor to fund a new hotel development in the London market. You must move beyond a simple "idea" to a sophisticated Operational Concept that justifies the investment through market alignment and system efficiency.
Your report must explicitly address and justify the following strategic choices:
4. Main Body:
5. Conclusion
6. List of References: Minimum of 8–10 academic/industry sources (Harvard reference style).
| Criteria | Fail / Marginal Fail (<40%) | Pass (40% - 49%) | Good (50% - 59%) | Very Good (60% - 69%) | Excellent (70% - 100%) |
|
Introduction 5% |
Unable to define project scope or identify any market gap. Very poor introduction. |
Basic intro. Identifies the project but provides a vague or generic "Gap in the Market." |
Clear introduction. Outlines project objectives and a logical market gap for London. |
Strong opening. Sophisticated definition of objectives and a compelling market gap analysis. |
Masterful overview. Comprehensive understanding of scope and a unique, highly viable market gap. |
|
Main Body 45% |
Very poor understanding of the competitive landscape. Very limited knowledge of segmentation. Unable to relate theory to practice. Poor judgment in the design of systems and operations. |
Descriptive analysis of location. Basic segmentation with a surface-level of rivals. Largely descriptive writing; little evidence of theoretical application. Basic list of facilities. |
Logical location choice. Identifies clear target segments and competitors. Some quality service concepts applied. Readings are incorporated into operational arguments. |
Detailed geographic analysis. Uses market data to justify classification and target segments. Accurate quality service concepts applied to facilities and systems with a clear line of thought. |
Sophisticated market audit. Deep dive into guest preferences and a strategic, high-level analysis Outstanding application of service concepts to property design, tech architecture, and operational flow. |
|
Analysis 20% |
Unable to provide any evaluation or recommendation. Content does not address the assigned topic. |
Limited evaluation. Recommendations for brand or location are generic or irrelevant to findings. |
Able to provide some reasonable evaluation and brand recommendation based on findings. |
Able to provide a justifiable evaluation and brand recommendation based on finding of the task. |
Able to provide a logical, very comprehensive evaluation and masterfully justified recommendation for the task |
|
Organisation and format 10% |
Badly organized report. |
Poorly organized report. |
Fairly well-organized report. |
Well-organized and complete report with very good flow of presentation |
Very well-organized report with excellent flow of presentation. |
|
Use of Literature 10% |
Lacking factual information. Many errors in format and Harvard referencing. | Lacking significant factual information. Several errors in format/quotation style. | Mostly factual with some errors in format and Harvard referencing. | Mostly correct format and quotation of Harvard referencing. |
Exemplary use of academic theory and references. The format and quotation of references are accurate. |
Get Your Free Academic Quote
No hidden fees · Instant response · 100% confidential
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content