Case study · Cleaning coordination
A 14% cleanliness-score lift from photo-verified turnovers
- Client:
- Vicente
- Scope:
- Cleaning coordination
Performance snapshot
Performance snapshot for cleaning coordination
- 14%
- cleanliness score improvement (OTA cleanliness sub-scores on managed listings, engagement period)
Turnovers ran on text messages and trust: no checklists, no proof and cleanliness review scores that wobbled with every stay. Lodging Gurus introduced property-specific digital checklists, timestamped photo verification and cleaner scorecards and coordinated every turnover remotely. OTA cleanliness scores improved 14% over the engagement.
Challenges in cleaning coordination
Cleans were arranged by text and confirmed by silence, no completion proof existed.
Standards varied between cleaners and between visits to the same property.
Guests found misses the owner never knew about until the review arrived.
Same-day turnovers were a recurring panic.
What we did for cleaning coordination
Room-by-room digital checklists built per property, with required photo evidence on completion.
Turnover scheduling tied to the booking calendar; same-day turns auto-flagged.
Confirmation loop: cleaner accepts → completes checklist → submits photos → remote review before check-in.
Cleaner scorecards: misses logged, coached and tracked over time.
Supply par levels tracked with reorder alerts; damage documented at turnover.
How it unfolded
- Week 1
- Checklist build and photo standards agreed with the owner and cleaners.
- Week 2
- Confirmation loop live on all turnovers; same-day flags active.
- Month 2+
- Scorecard coaching cycle; supply tracking and damage logging in steady state.
Results for cleaning coordination
OTA cleanliness sub-score improved 14% over the engagement. Every turnover produced an auditable trail: checklist, photos, timestamps. Damage surfaced at turnover, when claims are still possible, instead of after the next check-in. Cleaner performance became coachable with data instead of arguments.
OTA cleanliness sub-score
Before: Baseline (pre-engagement)
After: +14%
Turnover completion proof
Before: None
After: Checklist + timestamped photos
Damage discovery timing
Before: After next guest arrival
After: At turnover
Vicente's words
“Well to be honest, my first attempt last year was a disaster as the so-called agency didn't manage anything other than scraping off their commission and throwing in as many other additional charges as they could. Given that experience I was quite hesitant about trying it again this year, but now that I'm a few months in with Ahmad as co-host I'm very glad I did! All the guests I've had staying have been great. Everything is ok, communication has been easy too.”
How we measured results for cleaning coordination
- Cleanliness measured via OTA review sub-scores, compared before vs. during the engagement window.
- The summary deck cites 18% for this engagement; the case-study figure of 14% is canonical and the deck figure is blocked from publication (see docs/claims-register.md).
- Source: Lodging Gurus Cleaning Coordination case study (page references in docs/claims-register.md).
- Score movement reflects one portfolio and its specific baseline; portfolios starting higher will see smaller lifts.
- Cleaning quality remains a function of the local crew, the system raises consistency and visibility, not mops.
