AIM University Group

Learning Outcome 1: PASS

AC 1.1 — Explain how event objectives, stakeholders, the event planning lifecycle, and evaluation work together (Q1). You set out objectives as the foundation that defines purpose and outcomes, show stakeholders such as clients, guests, and internal staff shaping those objectives, and place the lifecycle phases of initiation, planning, execution, and closure as the structure that delivers them, with evaluation closing the loop by measuring performance against the original goals. The high-end gala example ties the elements together coherently, and although the explanation is concise, the interrelationship is understood rather than merely listed. (PASS)

AC 1.2 — Apply theory to practice and analyse a planning failure (Q2 and Q3). In Q2 you apply the concepts to a boutique garden wedding, explaining how a single planning-phase decision, the selection of a bespoke floral designer, flows from the "exclusive English-countryside" objective into the sensory atmosphere, the guest experience, and a seamless event outcome. In Q3 your analysis of stakeholder-management failure at a corporate product launch is genuinely analytical: you trace uncommunicated AV requirements through equipment failure at execution, a compromised guest experience, and a missed brand-representation objective, and you close with the point that interdependent elements cause a breakdown in one to cascade through the cycle. Both responses are relevant and show clear cause-and-effect reasoning. (PASS)

AC 1.3 — Demonstrate professional reasoning on the role of evaluation (Q4). You frame evaluation as the mechanism that converts individual events into organisational learning, arguing that without it there is no objective basis for measuring return on investment or operational efficiency. Your reasoning around analysing feedback and financial data to identify service pain points and drive cost-effective, standard-consistent improvement is professional in tone rather than opinion-based, which is what the criterion requires. (PASS)

Overall: your submission addresses every assessment criterion with relevant Kingston Manor application and sound cause-and-effect reasoning, and the analysis of planning failure and the professional treatment of evaluation are the firmest parts of the script.

Learning Outcome 2: REFERRED

AC 2.1 — Outline the event planning timeline and stages; identify key milestones and deadlines.
Your Planning and Design stage reduces the entire pre-event lifecycle to three bullet points (Month 1-2 procurement, Month 3 marketing, Event Week staff training) and the submission contains no event-day timeline at all, with no arrival sequencing, no course timing, and no transition durations beyond a "30-minute drink reception" and a "5-minute walk." The brief expects a structured timeline showing how the event moves from conception through planning to execution. (REFERRED)

AC 2.2 — Set SMART event goals and align them with the organisation's mission and vision.
Your three event objectives are formatted with measurable thresholds (NPS of +75, 100% local sourcing within 30 miles, JMD 20,000 per head variable cost ceiling for 30% margin), and your brand-alignment paragraph anchors the event to Kingston Manor's heritage and boutique positioning. However, no event date or even season is specified, and the JMD 20,000 per head financial parameter contradicts your linked F&B costing by a factor of 32, with the F&B costing arriving at JMD 630 per guest food cost. The two financial models cannot both be true for the same event. (REFERRED)

AC 2.3 — Develop strategies to measure and evaluate event success using KPIs.
Your Evaluation stage names KPIs and evaluation methods appropriately, with NPS surveys, financial reconciliation, and structured FOH/kitchen feedback sessions. However, slides 25 and 27 present invented post-event results ("The actual NPS of +82 confirms... evaluation showed it was strained during the 30 minute drink reception") for an event that has not taken place, which is an academic discipline issue. The brief expects KPI thresholds and evaluation methods as planning tools, not fabricated outcomes presented as if the event had already occurred. (REFERRED)

Justification & Integration — Justify planning decisions; integrate the Kingston Manor context; demonstrate professional reasoning.
Your stakeholder analysis lists internal and external parties with assigned concerns, your contingency planning includes a "30 Minute Pivot" to the Great Hall on weather detection, and your equipment specification includes commercial-grade marquee, ambient LED lighting, and bamboo-fibre linens that reinforce the boutique positioning. However, the target guest definition is vague ("high-net-worth individuals and local food critics" with no demographic detail), the stakeholder section lists parties without showing how each shaped specific planning decisions, and the polished language across the submission masks a thin underlying analysis where the sophisticated phrasing is not matched by operational depth. (REFERRED)

Overall Feedback
Your LO2 submission demonstrates clear awareness of the language of event planning and presents well-formatted measurable objectives, with an appropriate KPI framework. It is Referred for three principal reasons: the timeline is too sparse to demonstrate PLC application; the Evaluation stage presents fabricated post-event results for an event that has not occurred; and the JMD 20,000 per head financial parameter contradicts your linked F&B costing by a factor of 32. To pass on resubmission, expand the timeline to cover week-by-week lead-in milestones and a full event-day schedule, rewrite the Evaluation stage as a planning hypothesis without invented results, and reconcile the financial parameters across your Event Planning and F&B documents.

Learning Outcome 3: REFERRED

AC 3.1 — Analyse and evaluate an event concept using critical thinking and problem-solving. This is the strongest part of your written plan: "Tropical Escape" is a coherent, well-justified concept anchored to specific Kingston Manor features such as the Lower Terrace and the Banyan canopy, and it is supported by defined SMART objectives and a structured risk and contingency plan. Your reasoning is analytical rather than descriptive and shows clear planning logic throughout. (PASS)

AC 3.2 — Design and apply suitable event marketing strategies using digital channels. You identify a defined audience, select Instagram and WhatsApp Business with a stated rationale, and provide promotional sample concepts in the appendix. Measurable targets and a clearer reason for naming LinkedIn without using it would sharpen the section, but the strategy is suitable and applied. (PASS)

AC 3.3 — Develop a realistic event budget and financial plan. Your cost-control logic is sound and your spending priorities are sensible. The criterion is not met because the financial presentation does not meet the requirement: the budget is limited to three high-level lines with no per-guest breakdown or itemisation, and the supporting cost evidence in the appendix is presentational rather than quantified, so the totals cannot be traced. (REFERRED)

AC 3.4 — Take part actively in practical event planning and demonstrate competence in live execution. Your written execution plan is detailed and credible on the page. The criterion is not met because no practicum evidence has been submitted and no link to a simulated practicum is present in the files; as practical completion is mandatory, the absence of the simulation means the practical standard has not been demonstrated. (REFERRED)

Overall: the conception, planning, and marketing work is strong and the implementation plan reads as deliverable, but the unit is referred on the missing practicum and the financial presentation.

Learning Outcome 4: PASS
AC 4.1 — Risks anticipated and missed; safety and security controls (Q1, Q2). Three anticipated risks with controls (weather, technical, budget) and two missed risks with blind-spot analysis, plus two controls (allergen protocol and a welcome and check-in zone). Met. (PASS)

AC 4.2 — Retrospective risk assessment matrix (Q3). You provide a six-risk matrix with scoring and the paragraph on a risk you rescored (staff miscommunication, raised to high). The second required paragraph, naming your two highest-priority risks, is not present. Met, with that paragraph to be added. (PASS)

AC 4.3 — Real decision moment (Q4). You analyse the cocktail-adjustment request during an order surge, the constraint, what you decided, and what you would do instead. Met. (PASS)

AC 4.4 — Post-event analysis and improvements (Q5, Q6). Q5 is sound: three objectives, three KPIs, an honest assessment, and operational efficiency named as the objective not fully met. Q6, the two improvements for next time, is not in the booklet. Met on the post-event analysis. (PASS)

Overall: five of the six questions are answered, and the post-event analysis against objectives is done well.