CASE STUDY 2

Tuesday morningThe Rosebud Flower Association, composed of 350 guests, is

checking out of the hotel. However, Jose Rodriguez, President of the association,
requests a late checkout for the members because of a certain issue that the
association needs to address. For this reason, he asks Samantha, a new front
office staff, for a late checkout. Samantha proactively approved this request. This
day also happens to be the arrival of a new group of 250 gueststhe Franklin
Actuary Society. At 11:15 in the morning, when the Front Office Manager calls the
housekeeper and asks about why the rooms are still unavailable, the
housekeeper reports that most of the rooms on the first 3 floors were on DND.
The housekeeper further investigates about the situation and finds out from one
of the guests that they (the guests) were given permission to check out in the
afternoon. The front desk area is now packed with the new group coming in.
Aware of this situation, the F&B Manager suggests that the Front Office Manager
informs the new guests about the coffee shop and lounge but the Front Office
Manager hesitates and doubts that anyone would pay attention because of the
chaos. What could have gone wrong? What could have been done to avoid this
kind of commotion in the Front Desk?
First, what could have gone wrong? In this case, we can easily identify lapses in
miscommunication between individuals in the same department (i.e. Samantha
and the FOM) and in different departments (i.e. Front office and Housekeeping).
Approving late checkouts is not something that a regular Front Desk Clerk can
easily approve. It requires the approval of his/her superior. This policy ought to
be made clear to Samantha during her training. According to Bardi (2007), the
miscommunication was mainly brought about by the Front Office Manager as he
is the person responsible of cascading this policies and procedures, and limits of
authority to his employees. In my opinion, its not only the Front Office Manager
who is at fault. The Executive Housekeeper could have also identified this
problem sooner by checking on the Front Desk for any updates for the day. By
doing this, he or she could have asked the clerks for an updated report.
Moving forward, the FOM should review the procedures in the Front Office by
first, looking into the training records of his subordinates and see if all of them
have gone through policies and procedures training and check how long ago
theyve had the trainings. From there, the FOM can conduct refresher training

sessions or activities (e.g. pop quizzes) about how well his staff knows these
guidelines. These measures should be documented and signed off by him and
the members of his team to ensure that the right expectations are set on strictly
following these policies and procedures. Second, the FOM should not forget daily
meetings with his subordinates for any reminders, updates, and news of the day,
the week, or the month. This should be done so that every member of the team
knows how his/her decisions affect the department he/she belongs to as well as
other departments. Third, the FOM should have a good working relationship with
other departments especially Housekeeping because he has to work hand in
hand with these people to ensure smooth flow of hotel operations on a day to
day basis.
CASE STUDY 3
The Executive Housekeeper of the Times Hotel, Thomas Brown, is having a
dilemma of whether to acquire an in-house laundry or not. He takes into account
his high and ever increasing linen costs from the last 5 quarters and also the
unreliability of the supplier in deliver good quality service to the hotel. What
should he do? Ditch the current supplier and switch to in-house? Find another
supplier? Or diversify?
First, lets look at switching to an in-house facility. Some factors to consider when
deciding on an in-house laundry facility include: the amount of space it occupies
in a hotel, capital and operational costs (e.g. equipment, tunnel and filtering
systems, maintenance) (J. Tomlin, personal communication, 2012), and hiring
and training staff. On the other hand, the main advantage of having an in-house
laundry is retaining control of linen inventory (Jenkins, 2012, p. 38). More so, Lisa
Williams, executive housekeeper at Park Plaza County Hall, London, mentions
more advantages including: not paying high rental costs, savings in purchasing
and washing, and being able to sell good quality linen to the guests, thus
extending their hotel experience (personal communication, 2012).
Second, lets look at continuing to outsource laundry services but looking for a
new supplier. In deciding this, Executive Housekeepers should look for a
contractor where they can be confident that standards will be maintained so
that inferior laundry can be rejected without argument (Jenkins, 2012, p. 38).
Once that has been established, they can reap the advantages of continuing to

outsource laundry services which include not having to do your own stock takes,
and reject linen and damaged stock being replaced depending on service level
agreement. However, some disadvantages of outsourcing laundry services may
include: staff being less careful with the linen, and high rental charges (Lisa
Williams, personal communication, 2012).
Lastly, diversifying by having both in-source and outsourced laundry services can
allow Executive Housekeepers to have the best of both worlds.