Subject Code and Title RCM301: Risk and Crisis Management
Assessment Case Study Critique
Individual/Group Group maximum four (4) members
Length 500 words (+/- 10%) per person
Learning Outcomes d) Critically assess the risk and crisis management performance of Hospitality and Tourism organisations
Submission By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of Module 6 (week 11)
Total Marks 100 marks
No Business is immune from a crisis, even with the best business strategy, business continuity and risk and crisis management strategies in place, sometimes external and to a lesser extent internal factors are outside of the businesses control.
So, what can businesses do in the face of a crisis? How can they be ready to bounce back from disaster before it strikes?
In assessment three you will be asked to critique strategies employed by some very big brand names in the face of a crisis. Did they do the “right” thing? Was there a better way to handle the situation? Was there something missed in their environmental scanning?
In Assessment, 1 and Assessment 2 you have looked at the risk associated with certain hospitality/tourism organisations. In assessment 3 you will be critiquing their response to a crisis that the companies faced in recent years.
Students will be placed into groups of no more than four (4) at the end of module 4 (week 8) by the facilitator.
Groups are then to choose one of the businesses below and the relating crisis, ensuring that someone in the group completed Assessment 1 and Assessment 2 using the business as a focus.
• Thredbo Ski Resorts
The Thredbo landslide was a catastrophic landslide that occurred at the village and ski resort of Thredbo, New South Wales, Australia, on 30 July 1997. Two ski lodges were destroyed and a total of 18 died.
• Coogee Bay Hotel
Sydney couple Steve and Jessica Whyte claimed they were served a free ice-cream sundae containing faeces at a NRL Grand Final function at the Coogee Bay Hotel on October 5 2008
• Sari Club Bali
The 2002 Bali bombings occurred on 12 October 2002 in the tourist district of Kuta on the Indonesian island of Bali. The attack killed 202 people leaving a further 209 people injured.
• Costa Concordia Cruise Ship
Costa Concordia struck a rock in the Tyrrhenian Sea just off the eastern shore of Isola del Giglio, tearing a 50m gash on the port side of the hull. The evacuation of Costa Concordia took over six hours and of the 3,229 passengers and 1,023 crew known to have been aboard, 32 died.
A Sydney family won a case against fast food giant KFC after salmonella poisoning left their daughter paralysed.
Once your group has decided on the business and the relating crisis you are required to develop one
(1) cohesive case study critique. Your group case study critique should:
1. Describe the risk type and level of risk to the business
2. Identify how the company handled the risk
3. Suggest where the company could have handled the situation better
4. Briefly outline an action plan for future similar risks or find evidence of how the company has adjusted their own crisis response or risk management plan
5. Conduct a brief business impact assessment on the situation – what did the crisis cost the brand.
Please Note: Groups are to produce one (1) cohesive critique of their chosen Case Study. Word count is 500 words (-/+10%) per person in the group. Support your critique with evidence and concepts from your research and perhaps a related experience.
Cite your sources using correct APA 6th ed. style of referencing. In addition to academic references, you are encouraged to include diagrams, pictures, screen shots, links to websites, YouTube video or similar, providing they are relevant to the topic and/or illustrative of your example.
Similarly, you can reference from your personal experience either working on events or attending events. The citation in the text would be of the form (Pers. Exp. 01). In the reference list this would be:
• Pers. Exp. 01 Date of the event , name of the event , Place where it was held • For example:
• Pers. Exp. 01. 24 Oct 2017, Sculpture by the Sea, Bondi Beach NSW.
Referencing must be included in-text, with a reference list provided at the end of the report.
Submit Group Case Study Critique (with references) via the Assessment link in the main navigation menu in RCM301 Risk and Crisis Management on the Student Portal. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via Grade Centre in the Student Portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
Submit your report in an academic style, including both in-text citation and a full reference list using the APA 6th edition style of referencing. Please see the Academic Skills page on Blackboard for information on referencing in APA 6th ed.: https://laureateau.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_20163_1&content_id =_2498849_1
As a student, you have responsibility with regard to your academic conduct whilst studying. This conduct is clearly outlined in the Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure document. Please review this document before submission.
The Learning Rubric below is your guide to how you will be marked in this assessment. Please be sure to check this rubric very carefully before your submission.
Learning Rubric: RCM301 Assessment 3 Case Study Critique
Assessment Attributes Fail (Unacceptable) 0-49% Pass
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
75 -84% High Distinction
Critique shows little/no understanding of crisis management and
business continuity. It does not provide examples of strategy in action. There is no evidence of an attempt to analyse business impacts.
Critique shows a basic understanding of crisis management and
business continuity. It provides some examples of strategy at work. There is some evidence of an attempt to analyse the business impacts. Critique shows a developed understanding of the crisis, the
management strategies and business continuity. It provides clear examples of strategy at work, while analysing sufficiently the business impacts
Critique shows a highly developed understanding
of the crisis,
management strategies and business continuity. It provides clear examples of strategy at work, while analysing
critically and substantially the business impacts and offering strategic suggestions for improvement.
Critique shows a sophisticated understanding of the crisis, employed management strategies and business continuity. It provides clear examples of strategy at work, while analysing
critically and exceptionally the business impacts and
strategic suggestions for management improvements
30% Critique does not address the task.
Critique shows little/no evidence of research or enquiry.
Confusion of personal opinion and information (substantiated by evidence) from the Critique basically addresses the task, however indicates only a cursory understanding of the topic and develops the minimum aspects of the task.
Critique shows some evidence of research or enquiry.
Critique addresses and develops most/all aspects of the task.
Critique shows sufficient evidence of research or enquiry.
Critique justifies personal opinion, by utilising evidence and information from independent research. Critique fully addresses and develops all aspects of the task.
Critique shows substantial evidence of research or enquiry.
Critique discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information
(substantiated by robust Critique fully addresses and develops all aspects of the task through comprehensive critical analysis or synthesis.
Critique shows exceptional evidence of research or enquiry and indicates serious contemplation of sources and extended reading.
research/course materials. ? Some confusion of personal opinion and information (substantiated by evidence) from the research/course
evidence) from independent research and extended reading.
Critique systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from independent research.
Structure and Flow of
20% Critique does not present adequate ideas or information.
Critique lacks logical/clear structure and flow of ideas, making it difficult to understand.
Line of reasoning is unclear and difficult to follow.
Critique presents information and evidence sufficiently, however requires further logic and more clarity.
Critique has a sufficient structure, however flow of ideas are a challenge and can be difficult to understand.
Line of reasoning is passable, however, can sometimes be difficult to follow and requires clarity. Critique presents information and evidence clearly and logically.
Critique has a good structure, with a good flow of ideas.
Line of reasoning is of a good standard and easy to follow.
Critique presents information and arguments in a logical and clear way, which is well-supported by evidence.
Critique has a good structure, with opinions and ideas expressed in a clear and concise manner with obvious connection to topic.
Line of reasoning contains clarity and logic and is easy to follow. Critique is expertly presented, descriptive, concise and informative – very well developed and well-supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments.
Critique has an excellent structure, which engages and sustains the audience’s interest in the topic - the reader can immediately grasp the relevancy.
Clarity and Grammar
10% Critique displays poor spelling and grammar.
Critiques appear “hasty” with short, unorganised content that may contain Critique displays few errors in spelling and grammar.
Critique is adequate, however has some errors Critique is grammatically correct with few misspellings if any.
Critique is on topic and relevant, with very minor Critique is grammatically correct with no misspellings.
Critique contributes well explained, relevant and clear information. Critique demonstrates exemplary grammar, spelling and punctuation skills.
Critique contributes to the discussion with clear,
multiple errors or may be inappropriate or irrelevant.
in clarity which can cloud meaning.
clarity errors that don’t impede meaning.
concise and relevant comments formatted in an easy-to-read style.
Correct citation of key resources and evidence
Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.
Does not use sufficient sources.
Does not include correct references or intext citations; does not use APA 6th style.
Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, however, these are not always explicit or welldeveloped.
Uses sufficient sources, however can be greatly improved.
Attempt made to include references or in-text citations, however these are sometimes insufficient for research purposes, or incorrect;
uses APA 6th style, however may contain some citation or referencing errors.
Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. Shows good evidence of attempts to source information.
Uses a sufficient number of sources.
Incorporates in-text and citations references from suitable sources; uses APA 6th style, however may contain minor citation or referencing errors.
Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements.
Shows evidence of wide scope for sourcing evidence.
Incorporates in-text and citations references from suitable sources; uses APA 6th style, containing minimal and or no errors.
Demonstrates use of high-quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements.
Shows evidence of wide scope for sourcing evidence.
Incorporates in-text and citations references from suitable sources; uses APA 6th style, containing no errors.