Change & Transformation
The action plan is complete, the team has been trained and the new approach is in place. A few weeks later, old problems return. Leaders must remind people of the agreements, and the same exceptions find their way back to the GM’s desk.
This does not automatically mean the intervention was wrong. The organisation may not yet be equipped to sustain the improvement independently. Alongside implementation, consider who maintains the approach, how a decline is detected and what happens when circumstances change.
Photography: Dylan Gillis / Unsplash
At a glance
- Separate implementation from demonstrated impact.
- Review adoption, outcomes and independence.
- Make every review end in a clear decision.
Distinguish implementation from impact
Publishing a procedure is an activity. Consistently completing a handover is behaviour. Fewer information gaps are an operational outcome. Better guest satisfaction may follow, but it is also influenced by other factors.
Define the intended result and the change expected to contribute to it before starting. Establish a baseline. This prevents a completed task list from being presented as evidence of an improvement that has not yet been demonstrated in practice.
Make accountability part of a role
A name on an action list is insufficient if that person lacks time or authority. Confirm which role remains accountable, who provides cover during absence and which decisions can be taken without escalation.
The person responsible for a routine should be able to explain what good performance looks like, where the current guidance is held and when action is needed. Keep the support practical. A concise reference used during a shift is more valuable than an extensive document known only to the project lead.
At thirty days, test whether the approach is being used
The first review focuses on delivery. Is the routine followed across different shifts? Do team members understand their responsibilities? Are exceptions visible and addressed?
Use observation, sample checks and employee feedback. Asking whether everyone received the instructions is insufficient. Record deviations and investigate whether they arise from unclear guidance, insufficient capacity or an unworkable arrangement. The person accountable for the process adjusts delivery within the agreed mandate.
At sixty days, assess whether an effect is emerging
Compare progress with the baseline and account for changes in occupancy, guest mix and staffing. Fewer complaints during a quiet period do not yet demonstrate that a process works under peak pressure.
Assess the intended outcome alongside potential side effects. Faster room readiness may be accompanied by more rework. Apparent productivity gains may be distorted by unrecorded overtime. Finance and operations need to explain the trend using consistent definitions.
At ninety days, test whether the hotel can manage independently
The final test concerns continuity. Can a colleague covering the role maintain the routine? Are new team members properly inducted? Does management identify deterioration without prompting from the original project lead?
Ninety days is a useful review point, rather than universal proof of lasting results. Seasonality, small sample sizes and organisational changes may require a longer measurement period. Agree which elements are ready for handover and which still need follow-up.
Use a concise scorecard
For each improvement, select one measure of adoption and one of the intended outcome. Add a quality threshold to reveal unwanted consequences. For a handover process, these might cover completeness, recurring missed actions and the time required to complete the handover.
For each measure, record the baseline, target, data source, accountable person and review date. Define a threshold for intervention as well. Management should know when a small correction is sufficient and when a decision from the GM or client sponsor is required.
End the review with a clear decision
At the review, the GM decides whether to retain the approach, adjust it or investigate further. Ownership receives a concise account of impact, remaining risks and decisions beyond the operational mandate. Not every trial needs to continue; a properly assessed change may show that another approach is needed.
Executive RESET™ makes handover and independent continuation part of broader recovery from the outset. The assignment connects senior leadership, implementation and a management system the hotel can sustain itself.
Would you like to assess whether your improvement agenda is sufficiently embedded? Discuss with OpenYourHotel which responsibilities, routines and measures still need attention.
