Hotel Industry SUSTAINABILITY Plan

Welcome to the Agave Hotels and Resorts. We are delighted you have joined us at our Las Vegas property and are part of our family of hospitality properties. As I shared in our interview, we are hiring because of your expertise with preventive maintenance (PM) programs. As I explained, we feel our maintenance costs are inordinately high and a recent audit suggested a major factor in those costs was the absence of a preventive maintenance program. In 4 weeks I am presenting our Board of Directors with a proposed PM plan. In 3 weeks (Thursday, October 8) you will provide me with that proposal and it will include:

1. What is a preventive maintenance program?

a. Explain how the PM plan can change the way we do maintenance?

b. What are the key advantages of a PM system and how will it impact our bottom line?

2. What is require of us to implement a PM program? In other words, what do we need to do as a hotel to get our PM program started?

a. Where do you recommend we start? What is the most efficient, effective, and visible way to begin a PM program? Explain your reasoning.

Please ensure that each question is fully answered and that you provide clarity when you move from one item to the next. Remember to keep your responses to 3 pages single spaced.

I look forward to your response.

thank you,

Dan McLean

To: HMD 395 Student (your name here), Chief Engineer

From: Daniel D. McLean, Chief Operating Officer

Date: September, 2015

Memorandum

Agave Hotels & Resorts 2734 Desert Fauna Drive

Las Vegas, NV 89100

HMD 395 - Writing Assignment - Memorandum The$Assignment:"The"assignment"is"to"respond"to"the"included"memorandum."" Position$&$Property:""In"this"assignment"you"are"serving"as"the"Chief"Engineer"for"a"major"property"includ= ing"800"rooms"in"an"10"story"hotel,"a"medium"size"conference"center,"a"snack"bar,"full=service"restaurant," and"bar,"swimming"pool,"18=hole"golf"course,"and"other"amenities."" Purpose:"The"purpose"of"this"assignment"is"to"provide"you"with"an"opportunity"to"write"a"business"memo= randum"in"response"to"a"speciFic"request."It"requires"you"to"get"into"the"literature"of"sustainability"using" trade"publications"available"in"the"UNLV"Library."Secondly"it"gives"you"an"opportunity"to"write"a"memoran= dum"in"business"format."

Due Date: Thursday, October 9, 2015 at 11:59 pm

Expectations:"

• Organization""

• Present"it"as"a"memorandum"to"me"from,you,/,the"Chief"Engineer."

• The"memorandum"requires"a"clear,"concise"writing"style"with"good"grammar,"punctuation,"and"spelling."

• For,grading,purposes,responding,clearly,and,concisely,to,the,5,questions,are,the,most,important, components,of,the,paper.,The,responses,,recommendations,and,justi>ication,are,key,to,a,good, grade.,Your,grade,is,grounded,in,a,well,response,which,must,,of,necessity,,be,tightly,written., Tightly,written,suggests,,good,business,writing,,no,use,of,slang,,no,run/on,sentences,,good,spell/ ing,,focus,on,the,question,and,clear,and,concise,approach."

• A"poorly"written"paper"(grammar,"spelling,"colloquialisms,"non=professional"approach)"will"receive"a" poor"grade"

• Be"sure"that"you"meet"the"speciFications"from"your"CEO"in"the"memorandum"

• I"strongly"encourage"everyone,"and"especially"those"of"you"whose"native"language"is"not"English"to"con= tact"early"the"UNLV"Writing"Center"(http://writingcenter.unlv.edu/)."They"have"been"a"tremendous"help" to"students"in"the"past."

• Structure,of,the,Paper,

• The"report"will"not"exceed"3"pages"in"length." • Reports"are"single,spaced."Margins"will"be".65”"all"around" • I"suggest"you"provide"2"to"2.5"pages"responding"to"the"5"questions"

Submitting$the$Paper$

• Papers"will"be"submitted"through"TurnItIn"in"WebCampus"in"the"Assignments"folder."Submission"may"be= gin"10"days"before"the"assignment"is"due."

• The"paper"will"be"checked"for"originality"(plagiarism)"and"grammar" • You,may,submit,the,paper,more,then,one,time,without,penalty,(4,times,total),

• Submitting,the,paper,early,allows,you,to,check,and,re>ine,your,grammar

McLean, HMD 395 09/18/15

Work with your librarian: Ms. Lateka Grays Office Hours in BEH: Thursdays: 9 am - noon - BEH 342B 3 pm - 5 pm - BEH 455

HMD 395 Facilities Management Memorandum - Grading Rubric 2

Possible Points: 100 Criteria Below Expectations Met Expectation Exceeded Expectations Weighted Percent of Grade

Format & Writing Style: Clear, concise, good grammar, spelling

The memorandum was not well written. There were many grammatical and/or spelling errors. It appeared as if proofing and final editing was ignored. It felt as if the memorandum was put together at the last moment.

The memorandum was nicely written, yet it was apparent editing and final proofing had not occurred. Spelling errors may have been present along with grammatical errors. Structure seemed bulky or confused.

The memorandum was well written, free of grammatical and spelling errors, had been edited, concise and effective writing style, formatted in a way that the reader was not confused by its structure and was easy to read.

Introduction & Content- Creativity: Effectiveness of delivery. Content consistent with expectations.

The introduction, organization and content was almost non- existent, or if it was present, it was below a professional standard. Student restate the bulk of the original memorandum using valuable space for their own presentation.

Introduction had good organization, but there were gaps that were confusing to the reader. The memorandum could have been more effectively organized and presented. The student stated portions of the original memo that did not support the assignment.

Introduction was well organized and packaged. Student took advantage of creativity to present the memorandum in an effective, readable, and concise manner. The student did not restate the memo from the instructor.

Responses Adequately Researched & Answered: Questions were researched and provided support information to memo.

The responses were incomplete. Some information was either not present or organized in such a way that it was hard to find. The responses did not flow well. Little or no research was present in the responses.

Responses were mostly complete, a bit wordy in places, sections may or may not have been easy to identify and the author did not take advantage of organizing information for better flow. Minimal research was accomplished or included.

Responses addressed questions in complete, concise way. Content was easy to identify. This section stayed on target presenting the alternatives effectively. Obvious that research was completed and documented in the responses.

Recommendations: Recommendations were well thought out and applied to topic.

Recommendations, while present either did not relate to the memorandum or were confusing. Recommendations were not used in justifying conclusions.

Recommendations were generally good, but not wholly on target. They did not build on the alternatives and/or failed to provide a clear rational for implementation.

Recommendations were consistent with the memorandum’s purpose and built on the alternatives providing a clear rational for implementation.

created 09/18/15

10%

15%

35%

40%