|Assessment Title||Risk Management Plan|
|Length for assessment||1500 – 4000 words depending on group size
PLEASE NOTE: You must confirm whether you plan to work with a partner or with others by March 7, 2017.
|Deadline for submission||Wednesday, April 4, 2018 11:59PM|
Working individually or in groups of up to three, develop a comprehensive risk management plan for a tourism related organization or business. You are strongly encouraged to confirm your chosen organization and activity with the Instructor prior to commencing development.
The requirements for the assessment
This assessment has two parts:
- Risk Assessment Report
- Risk Assessment
Part 1: Risk Assessment Report
You are required to submit a report justifying the choices made in preparing your risk assessment and providing additional analysis on the background of the risks and control measures identified.
Your report must address the following:
- Organizational Context
- Identify and describe the tourism related organization or business for which you are preparing the plan for and provide an overview of the environment in which they operate. The organization description should include the organization’s mission statement along with values and beliefs. In addition, outline the product and services offered along with the demographic profile of the clients served. You should also include hours of operation and whether it is a year-round or seasonal operation.
- Legal Context
- Provide an overview of the law as related to your activity in terms of relevant legislation, regulatory requirements and key legal concepts.
- Risk Assessment Summary
- Provide a summary and justification of the Risk Assessment format adopted
- Provide a summary and justification of the significant hazards and their risk rating*
- Provide a summary and justification and an evaluation of the risk control strategies identified*
* Students should support their analysis through identification of good practice in the chosen activity within the critical reflection. An examination of governing and awarding bodies regulating provision is a good starting point.
Part 2: Risk Assessment
There are different formats for developing a risk assessment and students may choose their own provided that the choice is justified and it adheres to the basic principles of risk assessment listed below:
- It must be written down, dated and signed.
- It must be specific to a certain activity, venue and group of participants.
- It must identify the most relevant hazards and who is at risk of harm
- The hazards must be evaluated to determine risk levels (the process for doing this should be transparent).
- It must identify appropriate risk control strategies.
These principles form the most basic requirements of a sound risk assessment. Additional detail within the risk assessment is acceptable provided that it adds value to the process. Students are cautioned that due to the word constraints only the most relevant risks should be examined.
|The key to success in this assignment is to critically reflect on how theory, industry best practice and legislative requirements intersect in influencing the assessment of risks within the tourism and hospitality industry with reference to a specific context.|
Your assignments will be marked with reference to the grade descriptors provided in Appendix 1.
This assignment requires group work as a reflection of industrial practice. All members of the group are expected to contribute and to work effectively together in a manner appropriate to professionals within the tourism and hospitality industry. Bullying, harassment and discrimination will not be tolerated; as such the Instructor reserves the right to moderate group marks.
Barth, S.C. (2009) Hospitality Law: Managing Legal Issues in the Hospitality Industry (3rd ed.) Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley
Barton, B. (2007) Safety, Risk & Adventure in Outdoor Activities, London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Cloutier, R. (2000) Legal Liability and Risk Management in Adventure Tourism, Kamloops: Bhudak Consultants Ltd
Fulbrook, J. (2005), Outdoor Activities, Negligence and the Law, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing
Furedi, F. (2005) Culture of Fear. UK: Continuum.
Health & Safety Executive (1998) Five Steps to Risk Assessment. London: HSE.
Miles, J.C. and Priest, S. (1999) Adventure Programming, Pennsylvania State College. USA: Venture Publishing.
Ministry of Advanced Education (2003) Risk Management for Outdoor Programs, Victoria: Province of British Columbia
Silvers, J.R. (2008) Risk Management for Meetings and Events, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann
Tarlow, P.E. (2002) Event Risk Management and Safety, New York: J. Wiley
APPENDIX 1: Grade Descriptors
|Knowledge and Understanding||Analysis
|Reading and Research||Presentation
80 – 100%
|Excellent and wide-ranging subject knowledge applied in a thoughtful way.||Very strong evidence of theoretical interpretation of evidence.
Evidence of an ability to synthesise information in a way that shows a full grasp of the material.
|Evidence of the ability to range widely for information.
Very strong evidence of the ability to identify key arguments in written material.
|Lively and articulate writing that shows evidence of knowledge, enthusiasm for the material and strong control of the arguments being deployed.|
68 – 79%
|Very good subject knowledge.||Strong evidence of theoretical interpretation of evidence.
Strong evidence of the synthesis of a range of information into a coherent whole.
|Evidence of appropriate selection of material from an appropriate range of sources.
Strong evidence of the ability to identify key arguments in written material.
Strong evidence of independent research.
|Use of English that makes the meaning clear to the marker and shows control of the arguments being deployed.
55 – 67%
|Good subject knowledge.||Evidence of theoretical interpretation of evidence.
Evidence of the synthesis of information into a coherent whole.
|Use of material from an appropriate but limited range of sources.
Evidence of the ability to identify key arguments in written material.
Evidence of independent research.
|Correct English usage with few imprecise statements.
Evidence of familiarity with appropriate technical terminology.
50 – 54%
|Evidence of some knowledge of appropriate theory, but lacking depth.
Evidence of accurate reproduction of published material with only limited interpretation.
|Some evidence of the ability to collate information and construct general conclusions, but with some lack of coherence.
Some evidence of theoretical interpretation of evidence but criteria used not always clearly stated.
|Some evidence of the ability to identify key arguments in written material.
Narrow selection of material.
Limited evidence of research.
|Correct English usage, but with some lack of precision.
Limited familiarity with appropriate technical terminology.
40 – 49%
|Evidence of some relevant knowledge, but with some omissions.
Evidence of mechanical reproduction of introductory material with no interpretation.
|Limited interpretation of evidence with some inaccuracies.
Evidence of a range of material included, but weak synthesis and lack of coherence.
Evidence of basic interpretation of the question with only a limited ability to sustain this response.
|Limited evidence of the ability to identify key arguments in written material.
Materials used come from inappropriate sources but are treated as if they were from more usual sources.
Scant or superficial reading.
Little evidence of selection of key arguments from material.
|Coherent notes appropriate to the question, but developed prose was required.
Incorrect formatting of references to sources.
Failure to adhere to specified format for assignment.
1 – 30%
|Evidence of some knowledge, reading and material, but these ideas are marginal to the question or assessment task set.
Little understanding of subject with some errors and omissions.
Significant misconceptions and errors.
|Evidence that the assessment task has been understood but that there is little development of the idea and the conclusions drawn are erroneous in light of the evidence presented.
Notes of little relevance to the assessment.
|No evidence of research beyond directed reading or lecture notes.
Superficial reading of inappropriate sources.
No evidence of appropriate selection of arguments from material.
No evidence of reading.
|Significantly flawed use of English.
Failure to use technical terminology appropriately.
The answer rambles around the general area of the question, but with little coherence or structure