Richey International created the concept of service and quality scores for hoteliers in the early 1980s. But today, we can no longer support the concept of score-based inspections in customer experience enterprises. Here’s why.
It is no longer a useful metric, but rather the tail wagging the dog. When we started over 30 years ago, a benchmark/score was designed to be a general indicator. Once trends were identified, the real work of root-cause analysis was applied to obtain genuine solutions. It was never intended that the score itself would become the goal. Yet, human nature is such that we love to grasp numbers and devote all our efforts to achieve them. Fundamental analysis and management went out the window with the desperate belief that one or two more tickmarks would mean an average hotel suddenly became a luxury leader. Manager’s careers and objectives began revolving around score-chasing with increasingly superficial means of attainment.
The numbers don’t add up. For meaningful, hard goals, like profit, occupancy and turnover, there is nothing wrong with a numeric target. But service/quality inspection targets are inherently unstable based on random testing. You must first believe that the criteria (usually standards) are exactly aligned with your guest desires. By definition, an industry benchmark is a compromise that contains some standards appropriate to your brand, and others that are not.
Next, you must believe totally in the person and firm carrying out an inspection – you must believe that their work methods and judgment are identical to your customer’s interests.
Finally, you must believe that the numeric framework, such as weighting and relational processing, are scientifically impeccable. Having spent 30 years in this field, I can tell you that the above objectives are impossible to achieve. That’s why we always insisted that numeric scores were generalized indicators. That’s why we begged our clients not to use our numbers in KPIs. Yet today, awards are given and bonuses earned on the basis of shaky math.
Don’t believe it yet? Let’s play a small fantasy in which all of the above conditions were achieved (even though we know they can’t be). Sophisticated researchers typically seek statistical reassurance, known as “confidence interval,” of above 95%. It’s similar to the “margin of error” discussed in political polling. Let’s take the case of a 150-room hotel with 70% occupancy and 2.5 average stay duration. To overcome the hundreds of variables that can occur over a two-day inspection period, and to achieve 95% confidence, you would need to have around 96 inspections per year. Sound fun?
Emotional indicators derived from inspection ticklists are nonsensical. Emotional quotient is a pop psychology term originating nearly 50 years ago, and deals with one’s ability to recognize emotional triggers, categorize them, and subsequently alter one’s own emotions. Common sense tells us that it has nothing to do with tricking customers into thinking you care because you read their name aloud off a computer screen. In a quest to find a simple formula for customer experience, I believe this superficiality leads us farther and farther from genuine engagement with our customers.
It reinforces small thinking. True hoteliers have always thought boldly and taken risks to improve their guest’s experience. But the fear of “missing a standard” has caused an entire generation of managers to fear innovation and aim only at tiny, incremental steps that are rewarded by industry-standardized inspections. Is it important to serve breakfast coffee in two minutes? Perhaps. But what if I want to serve a freshly brewed coffee from my expensive Italian machine with perfect body and rich crema? Is that worth another minute? Who would take the risk knowing that an inspector will mark them down, and probably not even taste the coffee? Would you, if you lost your bonus? What if your comp set received a higher score because their dishwater-tasting coffee was poured right at the table, having been brewed hours ago?
It destroys passion. For generations, people have joined hospitality businesses because of a passion for travel, for entertainment, for serving guests. It is – or was – a glamourous industry compared to say, insurance. But in our quest to quantify everything – even service, experience and emotion, we are draining away this very passion in our young managers. Millennials seek to be involved in meaningful activities and a collegial environment. Management-by-ticklist is a mind-numbing activity that is the antithesis of today’s workforce motivation.
What to do? Mystery shopping was a very necessary management activity in the 20th century. It does not belong in this century. We counsel our clients to receive inspections only if it serves a publicity purpose, and only if they can control the message. But resist the urge to believe that they are scientific or even accurate in the same way that financial accounts are accurate. Don’t simply import some third party’s set of standards as your own service goals. And under no circumstances would we advise that inspection results be a meaningful part of job reviews or rewards, nor even discussed at all with line staff and junior managers. Free them from this burden, and free yourself.
Be hoteliers again – trust your own passion, instincts and experience. For example, why accept an emotional quotient number from a brief paid inspection when you can spend 30 minutes in your lobby and get the real truth from a dozen actual paying guests? Somehow, we came to believe that everything must have a score and a chart to be real. Too often, the truth is just the opposite – the score is the fantasy. I believe the best managers of tomorrow will succeed through increasingly direct, personal and authentic connections with their guests.
Contributed by David Richey, managing director, Richey International, San Francisco