The document discusses implementing a new hotel check-in procedure to improve efficiency and guest satisfaction. It begins with an introduction on the importance of efficient check-ins. A literature review covers research on minimizing wait times and preparing for arrivals. The current procedure of assigning rooms upon arrival is analyzed. A new 5-step procedure of pre-assigning rooms and parking passes is introduced. Data shows the new procedure reduced average check-in time from 2 minutes 27 seconds to 1 minute 9 seconds. Employee interviews found the new procedure easier but effects on guest satisfaction were unclear. In conclusion, the procedure successfully improved timeliness but longer-term studies are needed to fully assess guest satisfaction impacts.

1. Skaggs, McDonald, Lee 1
Hayley Skaggs
Anna Lee McDonald
Ali Lee
Hotel Front Desk Efficiency
Introduction
It is important that guests are able to rely on convenience and efficiency when registering
at a hotel. With the exception of independent travelers and families looking to venture out, most
guests expect to walk in to the hotel with a reservation saved with their requests, receive their
key, and be in their room promptly. This check-in process is much quicker when the desk staff is
prepared before the guests’ arrival to the property. Being prepared for each registered guest
includes pre-assigning rooms and having key packets ready; not only does this allow for a faster
registration process for guests, it makes the job of the front desk agent easier. Front desk agents
are one of the most influential ambassadors for not only their property but for the entire brand
name because they are the only staff member in the hotel guaranteed to have contact with the
guests. Our project is focused entirely on studying how to provide efficient and convenient
service at check-in.
Literature Review
The hospitality industry is constantly working towards a more convenient and overall
better guest experience. While it is true that not every guest may always have the perfect stay,
there are things that we can do as hotel employees to do our part in making their experience
pleasant. One of the most difficult jobs of a front desk agent is to find a healthy balance between
quality, speed, and service in hotels. While customers believe quality and value are worth
waiting for, there comes a point where an unacceptable wait begins to affect their perception of

2. Skaggs, McDonald, Lee 2
quality (Jones & Dent, 1994). It is essential that hotel staff prepare for all incoming arrivals as to
avoid any mistakes and shorten wait times. Good hospitality requires knowledge of the guests’
needs and is not provided when a guest cannot get to the front door, register at the front desk, eat
in the restaurant, or maneuver around his room (Expanding Your Market, 2015).
There is evidence from a range of industries that one of these key stages – response time
– is a major area of concern to consumers. For instance, “evidence suggests that nearly two‐
thirds of service complaints in operations are time‐related when it comes to waiting too long to
pay or too long to be served” (Jones & Dent, 1994). Guests with reservations aren’t looking for
small talk; they show up totally stressed with their shoulders up to their ears. “They've gone
through travel hell” (Petersen, 2012). The service industry as a whole must operate with the
mindset “the guest is always right”. In hospitality operations, as in other services, “the
expectations and perceptions of the customer are heightened because the customer is involved in
the performance of the service” (Crick & Spencer, 2011).
Preparing for the day’s arrivals not only makes for a faster and smoother check-in
process, but also ensures that guests with special requests receive the room they had reserved.
One of the most crucial aspects is making sure that those with disabilities receive the
accommodations they need. "The ADA protects the right of people with disabilities to stay in
accessible hotel rooms, and to reserve those hotel rooms through the same convenient systems as
everyone else," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division.
"Persons with disabilities who travel for pleasure or business must be able to count on getting the
accessible room they reserved (Justice News, 2010). The goal is not only to improve process
consistency, reduce cycle time, increase productivity and decrease overhead costs by eliminating

3. Skaggs, McDonald, Lee 3
defects, errors and non‐value‐added steps from a process but to drive increases in customer
satisfaction and, ultimately, profitability (Noone, Namasiyayam, & Tomlinson, 2012).
Problem and Solution
At this particular hotel, front desk agents have been trained to decide on the room number
and make keys at the time the guest arrives. The idea was for the front desk agent is to make the
guest feel like they have a say in the check-in process by feeling that they have options when it
comes to their room assignment. The extra time for check-in was also thought to allow guests to
ask questions.
The new procedure will require the front desk agents to pre-assign each guest reservation,
pre-make the key packets, and pre-alert each parking pass. Doing these things may not take a
great deal of time, though we believe it will reduce confusion, length of check-in, catch mistakes
before the guest arrives, and make the front desk appear more organized.
This study will be done in a three step process. For the first step we will be observing
check-ins as they are currently carried through. We will time check-ins and note any issues with
reservations and room assignments. Employee interviews will be done on the current procedure.
Secondly, we will implement the new check-in procedure. The new procedure will explain in
detail what steps are to be taken at the beginning of the shift to prepare for each reservation. We
will follow up proper training on said procedure and rotate shifts to see that it is followed
through. The third step will be observing check-ins with the new procedure in place. We will
essentially be doing the same thing as in step one; this will determine if check-in times and/or
guest reactions have improved. Again, we will follow observation with employee interviews. All

4. Skaggs, McDonald, Lee 4
data collected will be in form of interviews while the number of mistakes, more specifically with
room assignments, and length of check-in time will be evaluated.
The two main focuses are as follows:
1. To make check-in faster and worry-free for the guest.
2. To make check-in easier for employees by being organized and prepared for guests’
arrival.
Pre-Procedure Data
In order to get a better understanding of the employees’ views on the current check-in
procedure, we conducted pre-procedure employee interviews. The employees were asked four
questions:
• How do you think the current check-in process relates to guest frustration?
• How long have you worked in hotels in general? At the Hyatt?
• Do you experience any problems with the current check-in procedure?
• How do you think pre-assigning rooms and parking passes will affect the check-in
process?
It was important that we know how long each employee has been in the industry as well
as the length of time they have worked at this particular property. Three of the five employees
have worked for at least one other hotel. When asked how they believe the current guest check-in
process relates to guest frustration, all five employees agreed that the two are related and the
former greatly affects the latter. In terms of problems related to the current check-in procedure,
there were four common issues as seen by the employees; miscommunication between
housekeeping and front desk, deposits not having been taken or taken incorrectly, issues with

5. Skaggs, McDonald, Lee 5
overselling, and timeliness of check-ins. The employees expected the new procedure would have
a positive impact on the check-in process for both themselves and the guest. One employee
pointed out that they “will seem much more prepared and organized”. All of the employees were
more than willing to participate in the implementation of the new procedure.
Before introducing the new procedure, data was collected on current check-in times. Over
a four-day span, 60 random check-ins were timed and examined. Our goal was to determine how
long the average check-in took.
*Note that some reservations took more time due to mistakes on third-party booking,
guests to provide form of payment, employees running out of key cards or key packets, questions
about parking, etc.
The average check-in time pre-procedure was 2 minutes, 27 seconds. Excluding the
outliers, the average check-in time was 2 minutes, 4 seconds. Most reservations took between 1
minute, 10 seconds and 1 minute, 55 seconds. The goal of the new check-in procedure was not
only to improve guest satisfaction and preparedness, but to do so by shortening check-in times.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length of check-in process (min.)
Length of check-in process
(min.)

6. Skaggs, McDonald, Lee 6
Procedure Implementation
In order to achieve faster check-in times and a more convenient check-in process (for
both the guest and the employee) we implemented a new check-in procedure. The procedure
requires front desk employees to follow a five step process as follows:
Step 1: Log in to Opera. Go through all arrivals and verify the following:
 All deposits have been taken on third-party reservations
 All routing is set up properly
 Verify credit card authorizations received for the day are noted on the
reservation and set up properly
Step 2: Assign guest rooms (open reservation => click the arrow next to room number =>
select room number => OK). Begin with any handicapped accessible reservations.
Next, assign rooms to rewards members based on preferences. When assigning
rooms to the remaining guests, begin with special requests and work your way
down.
Step 3: Write the Wi-Fi code and room number for every arrival on a Hyatt Place key
packet. As you do so, be sure to assign a parking pass for each room (alerts =>
other => check-out => “parking pass xxxx” => OK). As you assign the parking
pass, paper clip the pass to the matching key packet.
Step 4: After you have attached all parking passes to the corresponding key packet,
organize them in order by rooms number; this will make it easier to find when
checking the guest in.
Step 5: As the guest approaches, greet them by saying, “Hello, my name is (your name).
How may I assist you”? Verify all information on the reservation. Be sure to get a

7. Skaggs, McDonald, Lee 7
form of payment as required by the type of reservation booking. Complete the
check-in process by locating the prepared key packet and parking pass while
explaining directions to the parking garage. Encode desired number of keys, insert
said keys into the key packet, and hand to guest while saying, “Again, my name is
(your name) and if I can assist you further during your stay, please let me know”.
Each of the five employees were given a copy of this procedure, trained on how to follow it
through, and observed.
Post-Procedure Data:
After implementing the new check-in procedure, the employees practiced said procedure
for 19 days. During those 19 days we observed another 60 random check-ins over a four-day
span.
*Note that some reservations took more time due to mistakes on third-party
booking, guests to provide form of payment, employees running out of key cards or key packets,
questions about parking, etc.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length of check-in (min.)
Length of check-in (min.)

8. Skaggs, McDonald, Lee 8
The average check-in time post-procedure was 1 minute, 9 seconds. Excluding the
outliers, the average check-in time was 1 minute, 2 seconds. Most reservations took 40 seconds
and 1 minute. By examining the data charts alone it seems that the new check-in procedure did
shorten check-in time. To explore results in terms of guest satisfaction, we did a post interview
with the same five employees, asking four new questions:
• Which check-in method do you prefer?
• Did the new procedure make the check-in process easier for you?
• Have you noticed a difference in guests’ reactions when they check-in?
• Have you noticed a difference in guest satisfaction?
Of the five employees interviewed, all but one preferred the new procedure. It was
agreed that the new procedure seemed like more work at the beginning, but made their job easier
while performing the check-in itself. The employee that preferred the original procedure stated
that “a lot of the guests would request a different room when they arrived anyway”, resulting in
more work to perform a room move in the system. The employees also agreed that they didn’t
notice so much appreciation in the speedy check-in process and there were fewer complaints.
One employee somewhat summarized the overall answer to this question by saying, “no
comment is better than a negative comment.” Responses were mixed when the employees were
asked if they noticed a difference in guest satisfaction. The employee that preferred the old
procedure just simply claimed that “people still complain the same”. Another employee stated
that they “noticed a bigger difference in employee satisfaction than guest satisfaction”. Overall,
the change in guest satisfaction was relatively unnoticeable.

9. Skaggs, McDonald, Lee 9
Conclusion
After implementing the check-in procedure, we came to a couple of conclusions. First,
the new procedure did prove to cut down on check-in times. By double checking every
reservation at the beginning of the shift for proper set-up and pre-assigning rooms and parking
passes, the average check-in time was cut in half. The procedure was successful in solving the
timeliness issue we found at guest check-in.
This particular study proved difficult for gathering sufficient evidence in guest
satisfaction. Had guests been given a survey of some type or the study done over a longer period
of time and in a more controlled environment, it would have likely been easier to measure the
effects on guest satisfaction. This study in particular was much more helpful in determining
employee satisfaction. The new procedure allowed for employees to be more prepared for check-
ins and to catch any mistakes before the guests’ arrived. That being said, a longer study may
have also shown that the improvement in employee satisfaction extended through their work and
efforts to improve guest satisfaction.

10. Skaggs, McDonald, Lee 10
References
Checking In? Hidden Ways Hotels Court Guests Faster. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21,
2015, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304356604577337671375
500872
Crick, A., & Spencer, A. (2011). Hospitality quality: New directions and new
challenges. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(4),
463-478. doi:10.1108/09596111111129986
Expanding Your Market: Accessible Customer Service Practices for Hotel and Lodging
Guests with Disabilities. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2015, from
http://www.ada.gov/accesscust.htm
Jones, P., & Dent, M. (1994). Improving Service: Managing Response Time in Hospitality
Operations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(5),
52-58. doi:10.1108/01443579410056795
Justice News. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2015, from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/
justice-department -reaches-agreement-hilton-worldwide-inc-over-ada-violations-hilton-
hotels
Mailander, W., & Schwarz, D. (2010). The ADA and Extended-Stay Hotels
UNCERTAINTY IN THE LAW. Business Law Today, 19(5), 29-32. Retrieved
September 1, 2015, from http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 520467750? Accou nt
id=15150
Morris, K. (2011). Keep track of guests' reservations, belongings.(LEGALLY
SPEAKING). Hotel Management, 226(6), 8-8. Retrieved September 1, 2015, from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=2752d42f-a363-46f1-af60

11. Skaggs, McDonald, Lee 11
412406a425b3@sessionmgr4005&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26sco
e%3dsite%26db%3db9h%26AN%3d60765833%26msid%3d201363306&hid=420
&vid=0&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZW
Noone, B., Namasivayam, K., & Tomlinson, H. (2012). Examining the application of six
sigma in the service exchange. Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal, 20(3), 273-293. doi:10.1108/09604521011041989