Creative Hospitality during the Pandemic

Creative Hospitality during the Pandemic – Case Study # 1
All realms of hospitality have proven to be incredibly resourceful during the pandemic. And while it was very tough sledding for many restaurants, hotels and related hospitality endeavors – places like liquor stores, craft breweries and the like had their best 6 months IN HISTORY!! Others found wildly creative solutions to re-open and begin providing goods and services.
For this case – I would like you to identify two (2) creative solutions to the pandemic (within the hospitality industry) that you read about and/or personally experienced these past 6 months. They can be in ANY realm of hospitality (restaurants, hotels, AirBnb, wine, other beverages, travel, etc.)
The overriding purpose of this case study is to acknowledge (and identify) the creativity, ingenuity and resiliency found within the hospitality industry.
For each of the two (2) creative solutions – You need to address each of the following seven (7) areas:
1. Understanding Complexity created by the pandemic with regards to each example
2. In detail – outline the “Creative Solution”
3. Pro’sof the “creative solution”
4. Con’s (potential or actual) of the “Creative Solution”
5. Cost and/or sales/profit implications
6. Short-Term Ramifications of the “Creative Solution”
7. Long-Term Ramifications of the “Creative Solution”

Grading Rubric

50 Points Maximum
You are to approach every Case Study Analysis as if you were, either, the General Manager, F & B Manager or a Restaurant Consultant.
Every Case Study Analysis (CSA) must address each of the following 7 points in the order presented. Bullets are ESSENTAIL as they are easy to read and comprehend.

50 Points – Is the highest score for each CSA and represents an outstanding analysis thatthoroughly addresses, in every aspect, all 7 points.
This level of analysis would be overwhelmingly accepted by nearly all industry professionals:
1. Understanding Complexity (15):
o Student demonstrated a clear and thorough understanding of the complexity surrounding the Case Study. This includes, but is not limited to, outlining in detail how the case may not provide a clear, best, Recommendation.

2. Overall Recommendation (10):
o The overall Answers/Recommendations presented demonstrated an understanding of the complexity yet provided what the student believed and supported to be “the best possible” path forward even though there may be no “perfect” answer or Recommendation.

3. Pro’s of your Recommendation (5):
o The student’s Pro’s clearly outlined how their Recommendation would address the facts and desired outcome as outlined in their overall answer/Recommendation.

4. Con’s of your Recommendation (5):
o The Con’s demonstrated that there may be no perfect or “best” answer and/or competing interests. The Con’s presented should represent an understanding of the complexity surrounding the Case Study.

5. Calculations to support your Recommendation (5):
o All math calculations were accurate/correct and relevant to the CSA.

6. Short-Term Ramifications of your Recommendation (5):
o The student clearly demonstrated the short-term benefits to their recommendation in spite of the complexity of the case – OR – the student clearly demonstrated that their Recommendation may not be the best idea in the short-term but will be the best Recommendation in the long-term.

7. Long-Term Ramifications of your Recommendation (5):
o The student clearly demonstrated the long-term benefits to the recommendation – OR – the student outlined that their recommendation may incur long-term negative consequences (intended or, possibly, “unintended”).

45 Points – Represents a very good understanding of the complexity of the case. Answers/opinions were well thought our but, either, the pro’s or con’s were not well presented or the overall Recommendation was not thoroughly presented. Math calculations (if any) were mostly accurate but errors exist. Recommendations provided may have been good in short-term but not adequately addressed in the long term – and vice versa (Recommendations provided may have been good in long-term but suffered in short-term (and/or failed to acknowledge that some good Recommendation are inherently flawed). Complexity was addressed but not fully.
o Overall answers/Recommendations/recommendations would be considered and possibly accepted (but perhaps not necessarily accepted) by some or most industry professionals.

40 Points – The complexity of the case was not fully articulated. Answers/opinions were adequate but neither the pro’s or con’s were well presented. Math calculations (if any) were accurate only half of the time. Recommendations provided failed to demonstrate an understanding of their ramification in short-term and/or long-term. No acknowledgement that Recommendation provided was inherently flawed.
o Overall Recommendation would require further questions, a much better understanding of the complexity and need additional vetting. This CSA submission, therefore, would not be accepted by most industry professionals until much more information was provided.

30 Points or less – Student did not demonstrate any relevant understanding of the complexity surrounding the case. Answers/opinions were poorly thought out and/or the pro’s and con’s were nonexistent or inaccurate/incorrect. Math calculations (if any) were mostly incorrect. The Recommendation provided was not viable in the short and/or long-term and showed a failure to understand the issues at play.
o The overall Recommendations did not demonstrate the required level of professionalism or analysis and would not be accepted by any industry professional.

0 Points – Student provided no answer to any of the questions and/or demonstrated no reading and understanding of the case.
0 Points – Late submissions will receive 0 points.