Hotel Tray Retrieval Process

Needs Assessment

At The Phoenician Resort in Scottsdale, AZ the in-room dining (IRD) department struggles with the ability to collect trays that were sent to guest rooms with a meal. The resort has over 700 rooms with an average occupancy rate of 90%. The IRD department averages about 200 orders per day. The department is open for service between 6am to 12am and the res

ort has quiet hours between 9pm to 9am. This means that the trays that are in the guest rooms must be collected between 9am to 9pm. There are two crews, the AM IRD team that works from 6am to 2pm and the PM IRD team that works from 2pm to 12am. Peak service hours for the AM IRD team are between 6a-9am, this gives the AM IRD team 5 hours to try and collect their trays and during this period they can call guests or knock on their door during tray retrieval runs. The PM IRD team is busy from 7pm to 930pm and this restricts the tray retrieval to the trays that guests have left in the hallways. Inevitably, these PM meal trays end up being picked up by the AM IRD team who think this is unfair to them.

If the trays of PM diners are placed in the hallways between 3pm and 12am they may lie on the hallway floors for hours before being picked up by the PM IRD team. This is unsightly, creates unpleasant odors, is a potential health risk and can attract critters.

The solution created for this real-life project involved a concise systematic tracking system that made the retrieval process more proactive than reactive.

Instructional Model and Tools

The solution for this real-life project was an interactive responsive training module that targeted two learning groups. Since the project was an improvement of an older process the learning theory of constructivism was used to build on the prior knowledge of the learners (Schwartz-Weber, 2018). The solution also utilized the Kirkpatrick Model for analyzing increased productivity by gathering feedback on the behavior of the team after implementing the new process. Feedback also provided an opportunity to use the modality principle to enhance the learning asset. The overall design was also empathetic to the diverse learning levels of the IRD team, making sure no one was left behind using the differentiation to meet the target lesson goal (Coleman-Tucker, n.d.).

Reflection of Creation

The learner needs were divided into two groups based on learning levels, cultural differences, and tech savviness. The learning assets were created for two types of associates on the total IRD team; servers and cashiers.

The servers ranged in educational levels from GED to graduate students, some were native English speakers while others spoke English as a second language. The college students shared expertise in most computer applications while the GEDs had little to no experience.

The cashiers were all born in the United States, had graduated from high school, some had college experience, and all of them had experience with computers and various software programs.

The learning assets were both aligned with constructivism and based on the varying demographics of the learner the solution the learning asset was created with a third to fifth grade comprehension, using graphics, narration, and interactive experiences with the goal of long-term memory with retaining and retrieval for immediate implementation.

Reflection of Implementation

The learning solution was taken by 20 members of the IRD team, but only 6 gave any definitive feedback. Based on that feedback the servers requested an oral narration of the process instead of relying on their ESL limit abilities. The only helpful feedback was from one cashier who thought the tray retrieval should be occurring throughout the shifts rather than waiting to the end of the shifts. When the other cashiers were asked about not limiting the task, there were mixed responses, and it was decided to be left to the discretion of the cashier to manage the tray retrieval process.

Overall Presentation

After final modifications were made on both learning assets the stakeholders were all pleased with the final presentation. The managers of the department felt confident that the final presentation would meet all the expectations of their executive committee. The final solution was presented, and final approval is pending. The managers believe the approval will go through and be the standard for training new associates of the IRD team going forward.

References

Coleman Tucker, G. (n.d.). What is differentiated instruction? https://www.understood.org/en/articles/differentiated-instruction-what-you-need-to-know

Schwartz-Weber, M. (2018, March 9). The implications Of 3 adult learning theories on instructional design. https://elearningindustry.com/adult-learning-theories-on-instructional-design-implications-3

Graphs

Graphs 1 and 2. Created by Paul Ringgold, 2022