MED201 Assessment 2 – Case Analysis V1.0 July 2017 Page 1 of 4 ASSESSMENT 2 – Case Analysis/Business Report Subject Code and Title MED201 Menu Engineering and Design Assessment Case Analysis /...

how much it will be cost me


MED201 Assessment 2 – Case Analysis V1.0 July 2017 Page 1 of 4 ASSESSMENT 2 – Case Analysis/Business Report Subject Code and Title MED201 Menu Engineering and Design Assessment Case Analysis / Business Report Individual/Group Individual Length 800 words Learning Outcomes a) Evaluate space, resources, and equipment required to effectively implement menus for food service b) Apply menu analysis and cost control as an effective management tool to determine menu items Submission By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of Module 4 (week 8) Weighting 20% Total Marks 20 marks Context Culinary professionals are required to design profitable menus for any type of cuisine or food service style. It requires the ability to identify target markets, design menus to meet market preferences, and apply cost control to determine profitable menu items. Menu engineering or restaurant menu analysis is an effective management tool that can be used to determine which items on the menu are more profitable; analysis of the profitability and popularity of menu items and factors that influence customer choices must be considered with menu design and pricing decisions. In addition to the design of profitable menus, ongoing management and control of food and labour costs is critical to remain profitable. Planning, monitoring and evaluation techniques must be implemented to effectively manage resources and menus for food service delivery. Students are also required to research and discuss menu engineering as an effective management tool used to increase profitability and minimise risk to the business. Furthermore, students are required to consider and analyse stock control procedures and tools that can be used by culinary professionals to monitor and control costs. MED201 Assessment 2 – Case Analysis V1.0 July 2017 Page 2 of 4 Instructions: This assessment is broken down into 2 parts. Part A (500 words): Menu Engineering - Discuss ‘menu engineering’ as an effective management tool used in the hospitality industry, specifically in the context of menu analysis to maximise an establishment’s profitability. Part B (300 words): Cost Control - Research and discuss how effective stock control and conduct of monthly stocktakes assist in controlling food wastage, and the impact they have on food cost and cost control. In addition, provide two (2) examples why they are essential for any culinary professional. - Analyse and discuss four (4) reasons why it is imperative to have the correct stock par levels at all times, and the impact of these on the viability of food and success of the businesses. It is important to note. 1. A minimum of two (2) academic (books & peer-reviewed journal articles) & two (2) other sources (newspaper article, trade publications, websites, etc.) must be used. These should be referenced in the APA style, both in-text and in a reference list. References to ‘Wikipedia’ or similar unsubstantiated sources will not be accepted. 2. Any detection of plagiarism will lead to an immediate fail grade in the task, and possible exclusion from the subject. 3. Extensions cannot be granted by the lecturer after the submission date. In the event of serious illness or unusual circumstances, a student may apply for Special Consideration in accordance with the rules and regulations governing this application, but it is important that such requests be made as soon as the circumstance is known. Submission Instructions:  Submit via the Assessment link in the main navigation menu in MED201 Menu Engineering and Design. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades. MED201 Assessment 2 – Case Analysis V1.0 July 2017 Page 3 of 4 Learning Rubric: MED201 Menu Engineering and Design -Assessment 2 Brief – Case Analysis / Business Report Assessment Attributes Fail (0-49%) Pass (50-64%) Credit (64-74%) Distinction (75-84%) High Distinction (85-100%) Content & purpose 30% Fails to address the issues or addressed it/them only marginally Is considerably shorter than required minimum length Lack of appropriate content Demonstrates a basic understanding of the issues and a capacity to relate to context Is appropriate in length and covers topic according to assessment criteria Demonstrates a sound understanding of the issues and a capacity to relate them and apply them to experience and practice Demonstrates ability to be critical, evaluative and make judgements Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of issues and a capacity to relate to wider context. Demonstrates clarity in argument through succinct and skilled writing Demonstrate superior execution of assessment tasks Initiative and originality in the approach to content and purpose Knowledge & understanding 40% Does not display a clear understanding of the requirements of the chosen topic. Discussion is not supported by clear & relevant examples. Displays limited understanding of the requirements of the chosen topic. Discussion is supported by a limited number of relevant examples. Displays good understanding of the requirements of the chosen topic. Discussion supported by several relevant examples. Displays a highly developed understanding of the requirements of the chosen topic. Discussion is supported by a number of detailed & relevant examples. Displays a superior understanding of the requirements of the chosen topic. Discussion is supported by a number of high quality examples. Structure 10% Discussion points do not flow smoothly or logically, no connection between ideas. Paragraphs not used or lack structure. Minimal structure evident however discussion points loosely connected. Limited use of paragraphs. Good structure evident with some discussion points presented in a logical order. Paragraph structure used throughout. Good structure evident with most discussion points presented in a clear and logical order. All paragraph are well organised. Excellent structure evident with all discussion points presented in a clear & logical order. Paragraphs well defined and organised to a high quality. MED201 Assessment 2 – Case Analysis V1.0 July 2017 Page 4 of 4 Assessment Attributes Fail (0-49%) Pass (50-64%) Credit (64-74%) Distinction (75-84%) High Distinction (85-100%) Research & referencing 10% No evidence of research. No academic sources used. Sources of information not referenced using the APA style. Limited evidence of research. Minimal academic sources used. Many errors in APA referencing style formatting. Some evidence of research. Limited academic sources used. Few errors in APA referencing style formatting. Clear evidence of research. Several quality academic sources used. One or two errors in APA referencing style formatting. Evidence of in-depth research. Many high quality academic sources used. No errors in APA referencing style formatting. Format & Presentation 10% Many spelling mistakes and/or grammatical errors. A number of spelling mistakes and/or grammatical errors. A couple of spelling mistakes and/or grammatical errors. Minimal spelling mistakes and/or grammatical errors. No spelling mistakes or and/or grammatical errors.