The Front Office Manager: Key To Hotel Communications

The Front Office Manager: Key to Hotel Communications is a written study by Denney G. Rutherford, Department of Hotel and Restaurant Administration, College of Business and Economics at Washington State University. In it he initially observes, “Since the front office manager is usually viewed as the key to the efficient and orderly operation of a hotel, the author has researched the job and activities of this individual in an attempt to provide data about an area which he says was "intuitively known" but never "empirically explored." “Current literature implies that the activities of the front office are so important to the daily operations of the hotel that it occupies a preeminent position among other departments,” Rutherford says. He also references, Gray and Liguori, who describe the front office as: “the nerve center of the hote1,” echoing an early work by Heldenbrand indicating that it “becomes a sort of listening post for management.” The quotes are cited. The primary stage of the article relies on a seven-page, two-part questionnaire, which was used to collect data regarding the FOM – front office manager - position. Even though the position is considered a crucial one, it seems there is a significant lack of pragmatic data regarding it. Rutherford graphs the studies. Good communication skills are imperative. “Other recent research has suggested that the skills of effective communication are among the most vital a manager at any level can bring to his/her endeavors in the service industries,” Rutherford notes. He provides a detailed – front office communications model – to illustrate the functions. In, Table 4, for example - Office Manager as Facilitator – Rutherford provides Likert Rating Scale values for a comprehensive list of front office tasks. Rutherford informs you that the communicative skills of a front office manager flow across the board, encompassing variables from guest relation exchanges to all the disparate components of employee relations. Not withstanding and compared to technical knowledge, such as computer and fiscal skills, Rutherford suggests: “The most powerful message derived from analysis of the data on the FOM's job is that communication in its various forms is clearly central to the successful mission of the front office.”

Assessing an automated, information -sharing technology in the post "9 -11" era: Do local law enforcement officers think it meets their needs?

In the wake of the “9-11” terrorists' attacks, the U.S. Government has turned to information technology (IT) to address a lack of information sharing among law enforcement agencies. This research determined if and how information-sharing technology helps law enforcement by examining the differences in perception of the value of IT between law enforcement officers who have access to automated regional information sharing and those who do not. It also examined the effect of potential intervening variables such as user characteristics, training, and experience, on the officers' evaluation of IT. The sample was limited to 588 officers from two sheriff's offices; one of them (the study group) uses information sharing technology, the other (the comparison group) does not. Triangulated methodologies included surveys, interviews, direct observation, and a review of agency records. Data analysis involved the following statistical methods: descriptive statistics, Chi-Square, factor analysis, principal component analysis, Cronbach's Alpha, Mann-Whitney tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Scheffe' post hoc analysis. ^ Results indicated a significant difference between groups: the study group perceived information sharing technology as being a greater factor in solving crime and in increasing officer productivity. The study group was more satisfied with the data available to it. As to the number of arrests made, information sharing technology did not make a difference. Analysis of the potential intervening variables revealed several remarkable results. The presence of a strong performance management imperative (in the comparison sheriff's office) appeared to be a factor in case clearances and arrests, technology notwithstanding. As to the influence of user characteristics, level of education did not influence a user's satisfaction with technology, but user-satisfaction scores differed significantly among years of experience as a law enforcement officer and the amount of computer training, suggesting a significant but weak relationship. ^ Therefore, this study finds that information sharing technology assists law enforcement officers in doing their jobs. It also suggests that other variables such as computer training, experience, and management climate should be accounted for when assessing the impact of information technology. ^