ERF

Examiner Report form for: Food & Beverage Management

The area(s) of the examination where candidates showed good practice:

Candidates were able to show some understanding of transport catering and support this with a
range of examples. There was also some well-developed knowledge of reasons why people dine
out and what factors affect the meal experience.

The area(s) of the examination where candidates appeared to find it difficult:

This paper was challenging for the majority of candidates. There was frequent confusion between
different parts of the question and candidates were not always able to apply their knowledge well
or show an understanding of the demands of the question.

Recommendations based on the above:

Candidates need to carefully read all the questions and plan their answers. Control systems and
market research seemed to be areas of weakness where candidates may benefit from revision.

Overall strengths and weaknesses of candidates for this examination (based on individual Qs):

Q1- A very popular question chosen by many candidates. Different types of transport catering
were identified, and strong answers contrasted these and gave several features of each. Weaker
answers did not use full sentences and were repetitive.

Q2- A very popular question that was fairly well answered by most. Strong responses included lots
of relevant reasons for eating out (Part A) and explained five factors affecting the meal experience
in Part B. Some candidates muddled answers and often repeated themselves in both sections,
seeming to not understand the distinction between motivation to eat out (Part A) and what
affects the experience (Part B).

Q3- Not a very popular question. Some candidates answered this well with relevant description
and examples for each subpoint. Weak answers were repetitive or confused primary/ secondary
information with information collection. Very few candidates were able to demonstrate a good
understanding of analysis and use.

Q4- This question was approached by a fair number of candidates. Most candidates were able to
identify aspects of cost reporting, but weaker answers should little to no understanding about
control systems. Many candidates were able to briefly identify why a control system may lack
efficiency, but few developed this answer to access 8 marks.

Q5- This question was approached by a fair number of candidates. Many candidates confused
nutrition with hygiene and only scored one or two marks in Part A. Few candidates were able to
offer full comparison of cook-chill and cook-freeze in Part B, with many giving incorrect
information on both. Very few candidates were able to show understanding of the sous-vie
process in Part C.
Q6- A fairly popular question where candidates were able to demonstrate some knowledge. Most
were able to identify benefits of self-service in Part A, but answers were often too brief for full
marks. There was a lot of confusion and repetition in Part B, suggesting that candidates were
unsure about the different types of services and their advantages or disadvantages. French service
was generally well-identified and answered, there was some weaker description of waiter service
which was non-specific.

Q7- This was not very popular. Candidates were able to answer Part A well with some good points
of contrast around perishability of food. Very few candidates could correctly define actual and
potential beverage cost percentage for Part B. Candidates made good suggestions for scenarios in
Part C, with stronger answers explain one method well or identifying two clear methods for each
scenario. Weaker answers were repetitive or unclear.

Q8- This was popular with most candidates showing an understanding of a franchise in Part A,
though for 8 marks this was often insufficiently detailed. There were some strong answers
outlining the advantages for each party in Parts B and C.

Recommendations for ICM procedures in this examination:

1) Candidates should label answers correctly throughout.

2) Candidates should follow rubric and attempt 5/8 questions

Any further comments:

This appeared to be a very challenging paper for many candidates.