The fundamental principle that the project
manager must keep in mind at all times is that he is to control processes, not
people; he needs to manage people, they control processes. Tools, processes,
methods and techniques may be neat and helpful, but they are inanimate.
Alienated, empty, and dehumanized people are not motivated to contribute. The
proper approach for the project manager is to avoid becoming enamored with
techniques and to use people, but rather to use techniques and love people
(Laszlo, 1999).
It is
advantageous to select personnel who fit the team profile whenever possible and
to optimize the synergy among the participants by matching complementary skills.
Another consideration for the project manager to keep in mind in evaluating
potential contributors is to select for attitude and to train for skills (Reiss,
1996). Proper follow-up of performance is required to ensure success for the
project. The project manager is well advised to give freedom to the people to be
themselves, but to deal with wrong selection decisions promptly to avoid
additional negative side effects on other participants. It is also a good
practice not to ignore exemplary nor bad behaviors; these provide opportunities
for the project manager to illustrate what is desirable for the success of the
project and what is to be avoided (Laszlo, 1999).
Looking beyond the surface in people allows the
project manager to find undeveloped potentials and by seeing them as they can
be, not as they are, and believing in them tends to make people believe in
themselves because people typically make an effort to perform according to
expectations. Providing freedom to act within guidelines is empowerment that
brings synergistic benefits to the project though diverse experiences and
perspectives that may be useful benchmarking elements to provide opportunities
for improvement (Culp, 2001).
The use of integrated leadership/
differentiation strategy is difficult to implement particularly in the
short-run. However, some hotels have been able to somewhat accomplish the
strategy giving customers wide amenities and features at competitive price.
Short- and medium-term problems are primarily caused by inability of supply to
realize financial gains for immediate resolution of dynamic problems. As a
result, there is a need for some hotels to focus retained earnings to strengthen
its facilities management. Outsourcing maintenance and repairs is helpful and
less costly than internalizing. However, the firm should have a skeleton team
who is able to perform simple repairs like malfunctioning telephones or lavatory
leakage.
Further benefits may also be derived from a
participatory environment by ensuring that the contributors to the project are
involved and encouraged in all phases of the project. Establishment and
maintenance of such an atmosphere requires that all participants receive
sufficient and timely communication about pertinent details concerning the
project and the effects of their contribution. The project manager also needs to
ensure that he needs to be recognized as being willing and able to eliminate
barriers that impede progress or improvement within the scope of the project.
This will encourage team members to be more innovative and to take certain
calculated risks as long as the project manager does not inspire fear of
punishment (Laszlo, 1999).
The concept of customer focus can be applied to
project management in the hotel industry to ensure that the project deliverables
will meet the expectations of the intended recipients. It is one of the prime
responsibilities of the project manager to ascertain that the customer needs –
both those that are stated and those that are merely implied are known.
Moreover, it is vital that these needs are accurately reflected in the project
plans and the stated objectives. This information must be communicated to all
participants to enable them to focus on the ultimate goal – customer
satisfaction. This approach will avoid the “Techie syndrome” which is to become
so enamored with any or all aspects of the project as to forget that the project
outcomes are not an end in themselves but were meant to fulfill a certain need
(Laszlo, 1999).
Prioritization — based on the premise that you
can’t have it all — is certainly a cornerstone of time-boxed scheduling. But
schedules can also be accelerated by using brute force—doing more work in a
fixed period of time than you normally would schedule. This can be achieved by
carrying out work in parallel to as great an extent as possible. For example, a
work crew that is charged with rehabilitating a meeting room in a hotel may be
able to get the job done more quickly than normal by having carpet layers lay
down carpet even as ceiling tile workers install the ceiling. The safest way to
do the job would be to have the ceiling tile workers do their tasks first. Any
detritus that falls to the ground can be swept up, and then the carpet layers
can be brought in. However, if the project is operating with tight deadlines,
having both crews work concurrently can save time (Frame, 2002).
The example of rehabilitating a hotel room
illustrates a feature of parallel development that project managers must keep in
mind: parallel development can elevate levels of technical risk. In the hotel
room example, the primary technical risk is that trash falling from the ceiling
might soil the newly laid carpet. So why are we willing to incur risk? Because
there may be another risk associated with slow delivery of a deliverable—a
business risk: our contract might stipulate that if we deliver the room early,
we win a ,000 bonus. If we deliver late, we lose the bonus. A quick trade-off
analysis may show that the cleaning bill for a soiled carpet would not exceed
0, which means that in the worst-case scenario, we would gain ,500 by doing
the work in parallel in order to deliver the hotel room early. In this specific
instance, the argument favoring parallel development is compelling (Frame,
2002).
There is another clever scheme
called concurrent engineering and many people will gasp in wonder that any
industry has not always being doing this. If you are not into concurrent
engineering, you have a team of designers who sort out a complete design for
your new car, bicycle or whatever down to the last nut and bolt before anything
solid gets underway. I guess the building industry is one of the worst in this
respect. The architect spends hours pouring over a hot drawing board or CAD
system, designing your hotel down to the last hinge and bracket (Reiss, 1996).
Once the design is very nearly
finished the quantity surveyor takes over and lists all the components in a book
called a bill of quantities. This lists all the concrete, drainpipes and
doorknobs in detail. This book gets sent out to building contractors who submit
bids to build the hotel and the lowest price usually gets the job. Work then
starts on site in a sea of mud, progresses through the foundations and concrete
frame up to the roof. Then the internal work begins and at some point much later
the door hinges get fitted (Reiss, 1996).
This is also referred to as the
‘over the wall’ mentality. One group of people is paid to perform some function
and to achieve some objectives. The design team is paid to design and their
objective is to deliver a complete design package for the new product. Another
group is paid to build and test prototypes. They get the design, moan like mad
about those stupid designers who couldn’t design their way out of a paper bag,
those designers who appear to know nothing about the practical nature of
building things and who will be last in line for bread when the revolution comes
(Reiss, 1996).
The project manager uses control measures so as
to make sure that the project follows the right directions, which Burke (2003)
refers to as “the triangle of objectives.” Due to unavoidable circumstances, the
project manager may be forced or simply choose to deviate from the project’s
planned parameters. However, the adjustment of one aspect will usually affect
one or all of the remaining dimensions.
Baltin and Cole (1995) state that carefully
planned renovation enables the hotel to achieve effectively its objectives and
vice versa. However, there are four main elements in the planning phase
including team, budget, timing, and marketing.
Once the renovation decision is taken, a team
for the project must be selected. However, most of the authors recommend that
the assembling of the team should be an early priority in any renovation to
create a plan that will enhance the marketability of the product (e.g. West and
Hughes, 1991; Sullivan, 1994). Along the same line, Paneri and Wolff (1994) take
the view that the external parties (such as interior designer, architect, and
contractors) should be involved in the planning phase to provide their
collective expertise in accomplishing budgets, schedules, phasing, and
contingencies. The management should hire experts in accomplishing hotel
renovation to minimise risks (Fox, 1993).
Funding the renovation programme is considered
one of the most important and critical elements in the renovation or
refurbishment process. Hence, an honest and realistic budget should not be
overlooked. Paneri and Wolff (1994) advise hoteliers to be aware of additional
costs that cannot be seen and may occur in the near future. To encourage broader
renovation programmes, some hotel chains (such as Ramada and Days Inn) help
owners, in different ways, in undertaking renovation. According to the
International Society of Hospitality Consultants (ISHC) (Berg and Skinner, 1995)
survey, each limited service hotel should allocate about 4 per cent of its gross
revenue for renovation while about 7 per cent needs to be spent on renovation in
the full service hotels to stay competitive.
Fox (1993) considers that it is important to
plan around occupancy periods and to try to accomplish as much as possible
during the slow times. Also, Sullivan (1994) states that recognising when to
renovate is just as important as the renovation itself. Paneri and Wolff (1994)
pose some questions that need to be answered in order to decide to stay open or
close during renovation. Similarly, there are virtues and drawbacks of the same
decision. It is the responsibility of the renovation team to compile a clear
written brief for the project that includes the budget, schedules, and so on
(West and Hughes, 1991).
Whatever the refurbishment type in
the hotel, marketing has an important role to inform the public (e.g. customers,
travel agents, meeting planners and corporate travel managers) about it. Experts
suggest that renovation should be marketed ahead of time through publicity,
promotion or special events (Hassanien, 2002).
The project should be evaluated from
time to time during the development process as well as after finishing the
programme to see how the actual situation is when compared with the expected
plans. This evaluation should be based on subjective criteria (e.g. feedback
from all key user groups such as customers, staff, and corporate management)
(West and Hughes, 1991) and on objective criteria (e.g. revenues and occupancy
rate) (Sullivan, 1994).
References
Baltin, B., Cole, J. (1995), “Renovating to a
target market”, Lodging Hospitality, Vol. 51 No.8, pp.36-9.
Berg, P., Skinner, M. (1995), “CapEx: do you
spend enough?”, Lodging Hospitality, Vol. 51 No.11, pp.103-5.
Burke, R. (2003). Project Management and Control
Techniques. Wiley.
Culp, C.L. (2001). The Risk Management
Process: Business Strategy and Tactics. Wiley.
Fox, C.A. (1993), “Work scheduling avoids
revenue loss during renovations”, Hotel & Motel Management, Vol. 208
No.19, pp.85.
Frame, D. (2002). The New Project Management:
Tools for an Age of Rapid Change, Complexity, and Other Business Realities.
Jossey-Bass.
Hassanien, A. (2002). The Application of
Facilities Management Expertise to the Hotel Renovation Process. Facilities.
Laszlo, G.P. (1999). Project Management: A
Quality Management Approach. The TQM Magazine.
Paneri, M.R., Wolff, H.J. (1994), “Why should I
renovate?”, Lodging Hospitality, Vol. 50 No.12, pp.14-19.
Reiss, G. (1996). Programme Management
Demystified: Managing Multiple Projects Successfully. E & FN Spon.
Sullivan, D. (1994), “On renovation and the
bottom line”, Lodging, pp.29-30.
West, A., Hughes, J. (1991), “An evaluation of
hotel design practice”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 11 No.3,
pp.326-80.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment