- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
- Posts
Dear Tutor Hi, I have some questions want to be explained. I tried to understand but I was unable to get it.
To make a profit long term
The weekly revenue per guest is $2,000 in the 20X7 budget, (the 20X7 actual results and
the 20X6 actual results which is not in line with inflation)I understand 2000$ per guest but after the comma inside bracket what does it mean?was the revenue inflated in 20×7 or not?
The repair costs, allowing for inflation have been set at the same level as 20X6.
repair cost is 160000$ and 196078$ in 20×7 actual results and 20×6 actual respectively. how it is possible to be set at the same level as 20×6?Also is here 196078 $ inflated figure or non-inflated?
need explanations
On a repair per room basis Hammocks has slightly lower cost at $163 per room compared to the competition’s $164 per room
how here 163 and 164 found?i could not find it
Hammocks’ occupancy level per room was 81% compared to the competitor’s 77% (all based on double occupancy) indicating that performance is good.
how 81 and 77 found here?
The weekly revenue per guest was $2000 in 20X6 and in the budget for 20X7 and in the actual results for 20X7. However given that the is higher inflation in 20X7 we would want the 20X7 revenues per guest to be higher, but they are not higher.
The repairs budgeted for 20X7 were 2% higher than the actual cost in 20X6. The actual cost is 20X7 is what has actually been spent and so must include any inflation.
The actual cost of repairs in 20X6 was $196,078 and the average number of rooms per week was 1,200. Therefore the repair cost per room was 196,078/1,200 = $163. It is the same workings for the competitor in 20X6.
The average number of guests in 20X6 was 1,940. The number of quests they could hold in resort is 1,200 (rooms) x 2 (they are double occupancy) = 2,400. Therefore the % occupied was 1,940/2,000 = 81% It is the same working for the competitor in 20X6.
Dear Tutor, I am not opening a new thread because the question I am asking is the part of the same question.
Part b 1
explaing two advantages,
If we look at the three points, the middle one is not even describing the advantage and it is all about disadvantages.
Point one at the end of phrase explains advantages in the following way, in fact the company’s internal systems are properly working because it solved all problem relating to transaction charges twice so investing in a new IT system will be extra expenditure to renew the system-which is one advantage
Point three at the end of phare it says that errors occur at the company are spoiling the company’s reputation but there is no evidence that any action is being taken-another advantage
I can not see anything that converts the negative situation to positive case at the second point. It says encourage full integration between departments but the rest of point is somehow criticising the company and not concluding with positive point
The middle point is certainly describing an advantage.
It points out that if they don’t use the balanced scorecard approach and don’t look at all aspects then there could be problems. Using the balance scorecard will make sure they do look at all aspects and not just the financial and customer perspectives as at present.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.