1. Of the major engagement programs, I think attendance at LHW meetings, core marketing programs, LHW events on property, LHW brand presence, and showcases and roadshows should be selected as attributes for evaluation along with at least five more. I think those are the most important but the scorecard will be a better representation of the hotels’ levels of engagement if more areas are accounted for. In order to determine how proportions should be allocated when calculating the weighted average, I think LHW should survey its member hotels. The hotels should be able to choose which areas are weighted more based on what they excel in in order to account for discrepancies in factors such as size and location.
2. LHW member hotels get many benefits from LHW’s provided services. LHW ensures that the hotel runs smoothly by training staff and giving resources such as the GSS surveys. LHW also offers its member hotels help with marketing and credibility for just being in membership with LHW, a highly respected brand. I believe the benefits definitely outweigh the cost. LHW’s main goal is to increase the hotels’ revenues and as long as the hotel is engaging in LHW activities, they are likely to reach their goal. Therefore, I think the benefits outweigh the cost. 3. The hotels have incentive to participate because it helps independent boutiques get their name out and make sure things run smoothly. LHW provides many incentives to member hotels like GSS surveys, employee training, marketing benefits, and industry-wide data. The main incentive is that LHW’s main goal is to increase the member hotels’ revenues. 4. I think each hotel should be able to place the engagement programs into their own categories and then each category will be weighted differently. This would allow the hotels to choose which attributes they can best work into their business and then they would be graded off of that. If they can choose which ones are weighted most, it takes away the advantages that some hotels might have by being in a better location or being bigger.
5. The short-term results of implementing HES is that when hotels come to LHW and are concerned that it hasn’t increased their revenue as much as promised, LHW can show them their HES and explain that it is a two-way relationship and in order to get results from LHW, they need to put in effort as well. The long-term result is that LHW will only be in membership with hotels who they work well with and take advantage of what they have to offer. This will improve LHW’s overall image and help solve any strife between them and hotels that believe it’s LHW’s fault that their revenue hasn’t increased as much as promised. 6. I don’t think there will ever be a cap on HES’s effectiveness because there is always room for improvement. HES shows hotels which areas they need to improve in, and this won’t change. As long as hotels are viewing their score as an opportunity to change for the better, HES will remain effective. 7. I don’t think LHW should set target scores for HES because if hotels don’t want to participate in HES, they probably don’t want to be told what their score should be. This could create tension between LHW and its members. Personally, I would use this score to my advantage and see it as a means for improvement, but others might take it personally and not like it. It could create a lot of strife between LHW and its member hotels who don’t want to participate in HES. 8. I don’t think it should be optional even for member hotels that are performing well. If they’re performing well, they don’t have to take their score into account as much as others, but there’s always room for improvement and it could be helpful. It gets difficult if it’s optional for some hotels and not others because then “well” has to be defined and there would most likely be some differing opinions with that. I think HES should be different depending on each individual hotel’s performance because the main purpose is for each hotel to grow and improve, not to compare it to others that it’s different from.