The $6.2M Question at Seaward Hospitality
Seaward Hospitality manages 38 select-service hotels under three franchise brands plus 6 independent boutique properties. The CFO has approved $6.2M for technology over 24 months - roughly half of what the CIO requested. The estate includes four PMS platforms (two lose vendor support in Q3 next year), three POS systems, a 12-year-old on-premises data centre at the flagship, and 27 SaaS subscriptions found in an audit, nine of which no department will claim. Brand standards require PCI DSS compliance and a certified PMS interface for loyalty and central reservations. Two ownership groups have said they will not fund property-level capital unless the ROI is documented at the property level. The board wants a plan by quarter end.
1. Which decisions dominate the 24-month plan, and in what order would you take them? State explicitly what you would defer and why.
Read the worked answer
What actually gates everything. Two things: (a) two PMS platforms lose support in Q3 next year, and (b) no integration standard exists, so every new subscription creates a bespoke point-to-point connection. Support loss is the harder constraint because it is date-bound, it breaks brand certification of the loyalty/CRS interface, it jeopardises PCI attestation, and it destroys negotiating leverage as the deadline nears.
Order. First, fix the target PMS architecture: one brand-certified cloud PMS for the 38 branded hotels, one API-rich PMS for the 6 boutiques. Migrate in waves of 6–8 properties, unsupported sites first, because a failed wave is survivable at that size. Second - immediately after the platform choice - set the integration layer and a rule that no new system is bought without an approved interface. This makes every later purchase cheaper and shrinks the SaaS sprawl without a separate project.
Defer boutique POS standardisation, the data-centre exit, and the Wi-Fi refresh. All three are reversible, none is a prerequisite for the migrations, and deferring them frees roughly a quarter of the migration cost.
What would change this. If a franchisor issues an earlier de-certification date, collapse to a single platform and accept the boutique compromise; schedule beats elegance here.
2. A franchisor effectively mandates its PMS. The six boutique properties argue they will lose revenue if forced onto it. How do you resolve standards versus local autonomy?
Read the worked answer
Split 'standard' into three layers and decide each on its own merits.
- Guest record and loyalty interface - identical everywhere. Non-negotiable; it is the franchisor's requirement and the group's only source of a single guest view.
- Financial posting and night-audit rules - identical within a brand, for consolidation and audit.
- The PMS product itself - legitimately variable where the property is not in the loyalty/CRS programme.
So: brand PMS for the 38; an approved-alternative list of two products for the boutiques, with guardrails. Each alternative must expose the same data contract (reservation, profile, folio, night audit) so the hub never forks; must pass the same security and PCI review; must support group reporting. Approving two, not six, preserves the boutiques' differentiation without recreating the current four-platform problem.
Then price the exception honestly: two integration paths to maintain, roughly 0.3 FTE plus regression testing each release. Put that number to the board instead of arguing about principle. If the maintenance cost exceeds the boutiques' combined contribution margin, standardise; if not, fund the second path explicitly rather than letting it be absorbed invisibly.
3. The ownership groups want property-level ROI. How would you structure the business case so it survives their scrutiny?
Read the worked answer
Build the case at the unit that actually writes the cheque, not at group level.
Per-property P&L impact. For each hotel: licence delta (per-room-per-month), removed on-premises server refresh and support, labour hours saved in night audit and reporting, and the revenue line the change enables or protects - for example, fewer reservation abandonments, or the loyalty rate-code accuracy the franchisor audits.
One-time costs made visible. Data migration, retraining, parallel running for two weeks, and a contingency line. Owners distrust technology cases that show only subscription fees.
Separate mandatory from discretionary. Unsupported-PMS replacement is a compliance and continuity spend - argue it on risk of de-certification and outage, not payback. The integration layer and analytics are discretionary - argue those on payback and give owners the right to decline.
Give them a decision, not a verdict. Present three tiers: (A) compliance-only, (B) compliance plus integration hub, (C) full programme. Show what each buys and what it costs per key. Owners who decline tier C but fund tier A still get you out of the support deadline, which is the only outcome that cannot slip.