Evaluating and Selecting a Property Management System

In his study - Evaluating and Selecting a Property Management System - by Galen Collins, Assistant Professor, School of Hotel and Restaurant Management, Northern Arizona University, Assistant Professor Collins states briefly at the outset: “Computerizing a property requires a game plan. Many have selected a Property Management System without much forethought and have been unhappy with the final results. The author discusses the major factors that must be taken into consideration in the selection of a PMS, based on his personal experience.” Although, this article was written in the year 1988 and some information contained may be dated, there are many salient points to consider. “Technological advances have encouraged many hospitality operators to rethink how information should be processed, stored, retrieved, and analyzed,” offers Collins. “Research has led to the implementation of various cost-effective applications addressing almost every phase of operations,” he says in introducing the computer technology germane to many PMS functions. Professor Collins talks about the Request for Proposal, its conditions and its relevance in negotiating a PMS system. The author also wants the system buyer to be aware [not necessarily beware] of vendor recommendations, and not to rely solely on them. Exercising forethought will help in avoiding the drawback of purchasing an inadequate PMS system. Remember, the vendor is there first and foremost to sell you a system. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the adjectives unreliable and unethical are on the table, but do be advised. Professor Collins presents a graphic outline for the Weighted Average Approach to Scoring Vendor Evaluations. Among the elements to be considered in evaluating a PMS system, and there are several analyzed in this essay, Professor Collins advises that a perspective buyer not overlook the service factor when choosing a PMS system. Service is an important element to contemplate. “In a hotel environment, the special emphasis should be on service. System downtime can be costly and aggravating and will happen periodically,” Collins warns. Professor Collins also examines the topic of PMS system environment; of which the importance of such a factor should not be underestimated. “The design of the computer system should be based on the physical layout of the property and the projected workloads. The heart of the system, housed in a protected, isolated area, can support work stations strategically located throughout the property,” Professor Collins provides. A Property Profile Description is outlined in Table 1. The author would also point out that ease-of-operation is another significant factor to think about. “A user-friendly software package allows the user to easily move through the program without encountering frustrating obstacles,” says Collins. “Programs that require users to memorize abstract abbreviations, codes, and information to carry out standard routines should be avoided,” he counsels.

Patterns and effects of notetaking by learning -disabled and nondisabled adolescents: A comparative study

This study analyzes the qualitative and quantitative patterns of notetaking by learning disabled (LD) and nondisabled (ND) adolescents and the effectiveness of notetaking and review as measured by the subjects' ability to recall information presented during a lecture. The study also examines relationships between certain learner characteristics and notetaking. The following notetaking variables were investigated: note completeness, number of critical ideas recorded, levels of processing information, organizational strategies, fluency of notes, and legibility of notes. The learner characteristics examined pertained to measures on achievement, short-term memory, listening comprehension, and verbal ability.^ Students from the 11th and 12th grades were randomly selected from four senior high schools in Dade County, Florida. Seventy learning disabled and 79 nondisabled subjects were shown a video tape lecture and required to take notes. The lecture conditions controlled for presentation rate, prior knowledge, information density, and difficulty level. After 8 weeks, their notes were returned to the subjects for a review period, and a posttest was administered.^ Results of this study suggest significant differences (p $\le$.01) in the patterns of notetaking between LD and ND groups not due to differences in the learner characteristics listed above. In addition, certain notetaking variables such as process levels, number of critical ideas, and note completeness were found to be significantly correlated to learning outcome. Further, deficiencies in the spontaneous use of organizational strategies and abbreviations adversely affected the notetaking effectiveness of learning disabled students.^ Both LD and ND subjects recalled more information recorded in their notes than not recorded. This difference was significant only for the ND group. By contrast, LD subjects compensated for their poor notetaking skills and recalled significantly more information not recorded on their notes than did ND subjects. The major implications of these findings suggest that LD and ND subjects exhibit very different entry behaviors when asked to perform a notetaking task; hence, teaching approaches to notetaking must differ as well. ^