Renovate, Retrain, or Reprice? How to Decide What to Fix First

Who goes first when everyone has a point?

Imagine a hotel leadership meeting. The owner wants to refurbish the rooms. The general manager wants to retrain the front-office team. The revenue manager wants to adjust rates.

Each person has a reasonable argument, and each can point to guest feedback to support it. But with limited time, budget and people, the team still has to decide: what should happen first?

In many hotels, that decision comes down to seniority, the number of complaints, or whoever makes the strongest case. None of those is a reliable way to set priorities.

The same review data can lead to a better decision when everyone uses a clear method. Here, we’ll look at a straightforward, adjustable way to rank guest-experience fixes using real review data.

Why the biggest opportunity isn't always the first move

The Revenue Opportunity Score (ROS) estimates how much guest sentiment could improve. In other words, it shows the size of the opportunity. For the full explanation, see “How the Hotel Revenue Opportunity Score (ROS) Works.”
But ROS does not, by itself, tell a hotel where to start.

A large opportunity might require significant capital, take months to complete, or depend on factors management cannot easily change. A smaller issue might be easier to address and firmly within the general manager’s control. If the team treats every opportunity the same way, the biggest project can dominate the plan while practical improvements sit on the sidelines.

The three choices in the title represent different kinds of action:

Renovate: a capital investment to address problems with the physical asset.

Retrain: an operational investment in people, service and processes.

Reprice: a commercial decision that may be the right answer - or may be a response to another problem.

“Why Not Every Guest Complaint Is Equally Fixable” looks at who can act on different complaints. The next question is how to decide the order of action.

How Priority Score works

The calculation is simple:

Priority Score = (theme score lift × controllability) ÷ effort

A pillar’s priority is the sum of the priority scores for the themes within it.

The calculation uses three inputs:

Theme score lift: the potential sentiment improvement for a theme, taken from the ROS calculation.

Controllability: how much management can influence the underlying cause, on a scale from 0.00 to 1.00. The default weights are assigned by class:

Effort. Low (1), Medium (2) or High (3), set theme by theme.

These are defaults, not dogma. Controllability weights can be changed per class in the Configure Weights panel, and effort can be changed row by row. Feasibility is specific to each property, so the assumption is shown, not buried.

One distinction matters. Priority Score isn't ROS. ROS says how much is available. Priority Score says what to do first.

Where the ranking changes

Consider an anonymized 156-room property in the Lake Geneva region. The themes, mention counts and sentiment percentages come from real guest reviews. The operating inputs - rooms, ADR and occupancy - are illustrative. The figures below use the default settings.

Physical Product & Asset Condition accounts for about three-fifths of the opportunity. Yet it ranks second when the question is what to do first.

The reason is in the assumptions. Physical Product themes have a controllability weight of 0.70 because they often require capital, and most are rated High effort. All four Service & Staff themes have a controllability weight of 1.00 and Low effort.

Here are four individual themes to show how the calculation plays out:

Maintenance & Upkeep has the largest lift in the building. Its priority score is 1.70 × 0.70 ÷ 3 = 0.397. Noise Levels follows closely at 0.357, even though its lift is about a third as large, because it is considered a Low-effort fix.

Location & Access is the most-mentioned theme, with 1,344 mentions, but its priority is exactly 0.000. The issue is clearly visible in the reviews, yet it cannot be changed through a typical hotel improvement project.

At first glance, the two rankings may seem to conflict: one identifies Physical Product as the biggest opportunity, while the other puts Service & Staff first. They are answering different questions. One shows where the opportunity sits; the other helps decide where to begin.

Renovate: when a major opportunity has to wait

Physical Product matters greatly to owners and investors. It affects the condition and value of the asset, as well as the potential return on renovation - not just this year’s guest sentiment.

The issue is timing. Capital approval, planning and construction can make physical improvements slower to start. That does not make them less important; it means they may need to be scheduled after actions that are easier to put in motion.

The ranking is not a final verdict. It depends on assumptions, and those assumptions can be changed. For example, suppose the team rates Maintenance & Upkeep as Medium effort instead of High. Its priority becomes 1.70 × 0.70 ÷ 2 = 0.595, and the Physical Product pillar total rises from 1.52 to about 1.72. That brings it level with Service & Staff at 1.71.

Only one assumption changed, but the ranking nearly reversed. That is exactly why it helps to show the calculation rather than present the result as an unquestionable answer.

Pillar totals also need context. They are sums, so pillars with more themes can accumulate higher totals. Physical Product has five themes compared with four in Service & Staff, yet it still ranks second. Look at the individual themes as well: a Low-effort item such as Noise Levels may offer a practical early action within a pillar that is otherwise capital-heavy.

One limit is worth keeping clear throughout: effort helps sequence the work; it does not tell you what the work will cost. This model does not calculate cost, payback, ROI or NOI.

Retrain: where a general manager may be able to start

All four Service & Staff themes are classified as operational, Low effort and fully controllable. That combination is why the pillar ranks first.

There is a useful detail behind the totals. Housekeeping & Cleanliness is 42% positive, and Service Recovery is 39%. Both sit well below the 85% benchmark.

Their score lifts are relatively small because the themes appear in fewer reviews - 66 and 51 mentions, respectively. Even so, they score well on priority because the assumed effort is low and management has direct control.

This is a good reminder that mention volume and priority are not the same. Front Desk & Staff has 941 mentions, while Housekeeping & Cleanliness has 66, yet both have a priority score of exactly 0.500.

Themes that appear less often should not automatically be dismissed. Low volume can mean a problem affects fewer guests, but it can also mean a small sample is hiding an issue worth investigating.

And operational does not mean free or guaranteed to work. It indicates who can make the decision and which budget is likely to fund it - not that training, process changes or service recovery require no time or resources.

Reprice: check the guest experience before changing the rate

Value for Money has 193 mentions and is 50% positive. Its score lift is 1.19. It is classed as partly structural, with 0.50 controllability and Medium effort, giving it a priority of 0.297. Of the four pillars, Value & Commercial ranks lowest.

That does not mean value is unimportant. It means value for money can be a symptom of something else. Guests may feel they have not received good value because of the room, bathroom or general upkeep, as discussed in “Which Part of Your Hotel Is Holding Back the Most Revenue?”

Before treating value as a pricing problem, check whether value-for-money sentiment improves as physical shortcomings are addressed. If it does, the rate may not have been the underlying issue. If it does not, a pricing review has a stronger case.

In short, pricing is worth testing - but it should not automatically be treated as the quickest win.

What if your hotel's priorities are different?

They may well be. The method stays the same; the assumptions should reflect your property.

Configure Weights allows a hotel to adjust controllability by class, while each theme’s effort can be set individually. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to use different assumptions:

A recently refurbished wing may leave less work to do on the physical asset.

A new management team may expect staff training to take more effort.

A branded property may have less freedom to change its pricing.

When you change an assumption, the rankings recalculate. If the result changes, you have learned which assumption the decision depends on. That is useful information to have before committing time or money.

How to interpret the ranking responsibly

Think of Priority Score as a sequencing aid. It helps identify where to start; it does not tell you exactly what you will gain. It is neither a complete action plan nor a forecast.

Effort is not the same as cost. Reviews reveal what guests experience, but they do not always explain the underlying cause. Repeated complaints about cooling, for example, might point to a faulty unit, ageing building fabric or equipment designed for a different use. A technician needs to diagnose the cause before anyone can estimate the cost. Any cost figure based on review data alone would be a guess.

Likewise, an opportunity is not proof of attribution. Making a change does not guarantee a specific result.

Guest language also overlaps. Maintenance & Upkeep, Room Quality, Bathroom Facilities and Value for Money can describe connected parts of the same experience, even when the model groups them separately.

Finally, the defaults belong to SENTEEZ. The 85% benchmark and controllability weights are starting points and can be adjusted for each property.

The next layer being designed is measurement of what changed after a fix, so hotels can compare the before and after rather than stopping at prioritization.

Before your next planning meeting

Take your current list of proposed fixes and ask four questions about each one:

1. How large is the gap, and how much of the guest conversation does it account for?
2. Who can realistically change the underlying cause?
3. Is this a quick operational improvement or a capital project?
4. Could this be a symptom of a more fundamental issue?

Use all four questions to set the order, rather than relying on any single measure.

The bottom line

The biggest opportunity is not always the best first move. ROS shows where the opportunity sits. Priority Score helps you decide where to begin.