Tourism Grading Council of South Africa briefing on the new grading system and latest developments

Tourism

22 May 2012
Chairperson: Mr D Gumede (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Tourism Grading Council of South Africa (TGCSA) briefed the Committee on the new grading system and its latest developments.  The new grading system broke down the categories of accommodation establishments even further than had been the case under the old grading system. The wording of assessment areas had also been changed. The total number of areas to be assessed had increased from 43 to 63. The points scoring system had increased from 460 to a maximum of 1 000 points. Under the old scoring system, assessors had used their own judgement on what score to allocate to the establishment. However a new scoring method - the QIT SA System - had been adopted, which did away with judgement calls by the assessor and required a simple “yes” or “no” answer to questions.

The new grading system also made provision for persons with disabilities, with the introduction of universal accessibility criteria. However establishments were not penalised for not meeting the criteria. Universal accessibility covered persons with mobility, sight and sound disabilities. 

The number of accredited assessors had decreased from 72 in 2007 to 56 in 2012.  Assessors were paid a percentage of grading fees and were not paid salaries.  The Provincial Master Assessor did the pre-screening of properties. The final decision on the grading of an establishment was made by the Awards Committee of the TGCSA.  A new Awards Committee was to be constituted in June 2012.

The TGCSA grading plaque displayed by establishments had also been redesigned with new security features. Under the old grading system, establishments were allowed to produce their own plaques, but with the new system, plaques remained the property of the TGCSA even if the establishment left the system.  The TGCSA granted grace periods for establishments to meet criteria. For the period 2011-2012, a total of 208 establishments had been given grace periods.

There was a total of 23 467 accredited establishments in SA and of these, only 5 728 were graded. The remaining approximately 17 000 non-graded establishments, whose profiles were on the SA Tourism website, would be encouraged to get graded, failing which their profiles would be removed from the website.  Establishments were well aware of the marketing value of having their profiles on the website.

Members were given a breakdown of expenditure by government in terms of hotels, guesthouses, bed and breakfast lodges. Over 80% of the R520m was spent on hotels.
 
Some of the points of discussion concerned what TGCSA was doing to encourage establishments to get graded and what incentives were put in place. Members were impressed by the work of the TGCSA on Universal Accessibility for persons with disabilities. Concerns were raised over the decrease in the numbers of assessors from 72 in 2007 to 56 in 2012 given that the intention was to grade more establishments. The TGCSA however felt that it had sufficient assessor capacity. Members noted that the current Awards Committee of the TGCSA only had one female member and hoped this would be rectified with the new Awards Committee being constituted in June 2012.

The Committee adopted as amended its Committee Report on the International Study Tour to Mexico.

Meeting report

Tourism Grading Council of South Africa (TGCSA)
The Tourism Grading Council of South Africa (TGCSA) briefed the Committee on the new grading system and its latest developments. The delegation comprised Ms Thembi Kunene, Chief Quality Assurance Officer, Mr Thekiso Rakolojane, Marketing and Communications Manager, and Mr Tim Scholtz, Chief Operations Officer, SA Tourism.

Ms Kunene touched on the vision and mandate of the TGCSA. All the processes of the TGCSA were geared towards being accurate and consistent. It had to be remembered, though, that quality was very subjective.

A comparison was made between the old and the new grading system, highlighting improvements that had been made. For instance, the new grading system broke down the categories of accommodation establishments even further than had been the case under the old grading system. The wording of assessment areas had also been changed. The total number of areas to be assessed had increased from 43 to 63. The points scoring system had increased from 460 to a maximum of 1000 points. Under the old scoring system, assessors had used their own judgement on what score to allocate to the establishment. However a new scoring method - the QIT SA System - had been adopted, which did away with judgement calls by the assessor and required a simple “yes” or “no” answer to questions.

The new grading system also made provision for persons with disabilities, with the introduction of universal accessibility criteria. However establishments were not penalised for not meeting the criteria. Universal accessibility covered persons with mobility, sight and sound disabilities.  

Both TGCSA staff and assessors had been trained in grading criteria. The number of accredited assessors had decreased from 72 in 2007 to 56 in 2012.  Assessors were paid a percentage of grading fees and were not paid salaries.  It was up to assessors to find establishments to grade. Hotel groups like City Lodge and Southern Sun had internal assessors.  Assessors were rotated all the time. The Provincial Master Assessor did the pre-screening of properties. The final decision on the grading of an establishment was made by the Awards Committee of the TGCSA.  A new Awards Committee was to be constituted in June 2012.

The TGCSA grading plaque displayed by establishments had also been redesigned with new security features. Under the old grading system, establishments were allowed to produce their own plaques, but with the new system, plaques remained the property of the TGCSA even if the establishment left the system.  The TGCSA granted grace periods for establishments to meet criteria. For the period 2011-2012, a total of 208 establishments had been given grace periods.

Up until March 2012, the TGCSA had set itself a target to grade 6 051 properties, but the actual figure attained was 5 728. The Committee was given a breakdown of the number of graded establishments in the provinces. There was a total of 23 467 accredited establishments in SA and of these, only 5 728 were graded. The remaining approximately 17 000 non-graded establishments, whose profiles were on the SA Tourism website, would be encouraged to get graded, failing which their profiles would be removed from the website.  Establishments were well aware of the marketing value of having their profiles on the website.

Other initiatives by the TGCSA included establishing a close relationship with TripAdvisor, which was the world’s leading travel review site. It had received approximately 87 000 reviews on accommodation, which TGCSA could use to improve its performance. On its own in 2011, TGCSA received only 600 feedbacks. TripAdvisor provided TGCSA with monthly management reports.

In total, government had spent in excess of R520m on accommodation.  Members were given a breakdown of expenditure by government in terms of hotels, guesthouses, bed and breakfast lodges. Over 80% of the R520m was spent on hotels. The Committee was given a further breakdown of government spending for the period April 2011 – March 2012 on various grades of accommodation, i.e one star, two star, etc. The TGCSA required the ongoing support of the Committee in encouraging government to use graded establishments. The briefing was concluded with a slide show of photos from the recent Tourism Indaba 2012 held in Durban.

Discussion
The Chairperson did not understand why only 33% of accommodation establishments were graded. What was the underlying reason for this? There were many issues that needed to be considered.  Perhaps the reason could be that bush camps had the same requirements as a hotel located in Sandton?  More dialogue was needed to convince establishments to get graded.

Ms Kunene stated that the grading criteria for bush lodges and hotels had been split. Due to the difference in services on offer, different grading criteria were applied. Certain requirements were based on appropriateness. For example, security considerations for an establishment were strict, whereas peripheral security requirements would depend on the location. Television sets at bush lodges might not be a strict requirement per se, but having one in a common area would be appropriate as some guests would want to be kept up to date with news.  In today’s technological world, a television set had to be considered as a service standard. Four or five-star establishments would have televisions with multiple channels. It depended on the appropriateness of the service for the establishment.

Mr F Bhengu (ANC) found it interesting that the Eastern Cape was trying to come up with provincial legislation to make grading a requirement for accommodation establishments.  He asked what the minimum standard was in order to receive a one-star grading. It was especially relevant for Small Micro and Medium Enterprises (SMMEs).  It was important to assist and encourage establishments to get graded.

Ms Kunene stated that the TGCSA’s criteria document was quite comprehensive. The idea was to produce a pocketbook guide. It would be made available to members within the next month or two. The minimum criteria would be set out. The pocketbook would be simplified and in simple English. She would be glad to workshop members on the different criteria that were applicable to one or five-star establishments.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) referred to the TGCSA’s new QIT SA System which was used to do scoring, and said that the presentation slide was not clear enough.  She commended the TGCSA for accommodating disabled persons on the issue of grading establishments. She was concerned that the number of assessors had decreased from what it had previously been. Would an increase in the number of assessors not be preferred with a view to grading more establishments? What was the process to become an assessor? She asked why the TGCSA’s Awards Committee had only one female member. Referring to the grace periods which the TGCSA gave to accommodation establishments to meet grading criteria, she asked how and when checks would be conducted to see whether they had improved. She asked if it would not be better to encourage establishments which had profiles on the SA Tourism site to get graded, rather than giving them ultimatums that if they did not get graded their profiles would be removed.  She asked that the TGCSA forward the names of those government departments that were not reporting to them, to the Committee. Perhaps members could make those departments aware of the benefits of reporting.

Ms Kunene responded that the QIT System was a computer programme which the TGCSA used. The slide to which Ms Njobe was referring was a picture of what the programme looked like. At the workshop she intended giving for Members, she would show how the programme worked. She was not concerned about the reduction in the number of assessors - it was good riddance to those that had left. New assessors were being appointed. There were currently 56 assessors in total and each would grade 200 establishments per year, so annually 11 000 properties would be graded.  Assessor capacity was sufficient.  Assessors were appointed by way of applications received after adverts had been placed.

The Awards Committee was also appointed by running adverts and calling for nominations. For the current Awards Committee, there were 108 interested persons. An agency would shortlist individuals and it would be up to the Minister to make the final decision. Perhaps Members should ask the Minister why there were so few females sitting on the Awards Committee.

The grace period process was managed strictly. Until such time that criteria had been met, no plaque was awarded. During the grace period, the establishment would only receive a certificate which had an expiry date. Grace periods varied from establishment to establishment. Assessors checked on whether attempts were being made to meet criteria.
  
Profiles of establishments would not simply be deleted off the SA Tourism website. E-mails and phone calls would be made to establishments encouraging them to get graded within a certain period. The list of names of the government departments not responding to the TGCSA would be forwarded to the Committee.

Mr S Farrow (DA) was interested in the relationship which the TGCSA had with its assessors. Were assessors on retainer, or were they contracted out?  How did the TGCSA operate?  He believed that King Williams Town had perhaps the largest number of bed and breakfast establishments per capita. Did assessors check on rezoning issues?  He suggested that perhaps the TGCSA plaque should be valid for only 12 months. On universal accessibility, was it a requirement to comply with all three criteria or was complying with one good enough?   What was the cost of grading an establishment?  How did it vary from one star to five stars? If the TGCSA deleted the profiles of establishments from the SA Tourism website, would it not hurt small business?  How was the time for grace periods determined and allocated?

Ms Kunene stated that the TGCSA could not afford to pay assessors. Assessors were self-employed. The same process as was normally followed in recruitment took place, but the only difference was that they were self-employed.  Assessors were registered on the TGCSA’s database. There was a service provider agreement between the TGCSA and assessors.  Assessors received 55% of the grading fee. The maximum grading fee charge was just below R10 000 for establishments that had over 350 rooms. Small bed and breakfasts paid a maximum fee of R2 000.  The lowest grading charge was R1 600. Initially the criteria for the grading fee were based on the number of rooms of the establishment. The criteria had changed to take into consideration the number of rooms in the establishment, the establishment’s star rating and what the rand rate for its rooms were. The TGCSA would have to scrutinise the assessment made by assessors.

She noted that establishments were graded for a 12-month period. Every 12 months, the establishment would get an invoice for re-grading.  It was an important control measure. The TGCSA would remind establishments three months beforehand that they were up for re-grading.   Sometimes establishments forgot to get re-graded and so were deleted from the SA Tourism website.  As a result, the Awards Committee had suggested that the TGCSA adopt a membership system. Until such time as an establishment wrote a letter to cancel its membership, the membership would continue. The idea was to encourage establishments to remain on the system.

There were three different types of universal accessibility criteria - sight, hearing and mobility. Within each of these there were three categories. An establishment could make provision for one type of universal accessibility type only.
 
She explained that when determining whether grace periods would be granted, the TGCSA looked at reasonableness and the establishment’s desire to maintain quality. The TGCSA was reasonable in the way it operated.

Ms C Zikalala (IFP) asked for the criteria used by assessors to be explained. She asked whether accommodation establishments had at least one person trained in sign language.  Some establishments were also not wheelchair friendly. Other things lacking in some establishments were air conditioners and bar fridges in rooms.  A communal television room was not always good enough, given that different people wished to watch different television programmes.

Ms Kunene pointed out that for hearing there were three levels. The highest level was level three which covered everything. Everything was at hand on site. Level one was the lowest level and someone had to be called in from off site.

She noted that quality was about choice. Four and five star establishments were required to have bar fridges in rooms.

Mr R Shah (DA) asked what incentives there were to encourage establishments to get graded. What was the cost involved?  Referring to the grading criteria used by the TGCSA, he asked whether a model had been followed. Was there a mechanism in place by which guests could complain directly to the TGCSA? Did the TGCSA conduct surprise visits? He asked what percentage of assessors had partaken in unfavourable practices. Should the issue of building regulations not be discussed with the relevant government departments?  He felt that internal assessors should not be allowed, as there was a conflict of interest. Had an audit been done on how many old plaques were still being used? The TGCSA made mention that there were 23 467 establishments in total. Was it an audited figure and where had it emanated from.  Referring to game lodges, he asked whether the variety of the game and the size of the lodge affected the grading of the lodge.

Ms Kunene said that the TGCSA was working on a comprehensive communication plan to encourage establishments to get graded. The grading fee was not the issue, but rather the cost of maintaining a standard. The TGCSA was working on a basket of benefits but it was difficult.  Incentivising establishments was being considered. The model or benchmarks used in 2008 was to look at research done in countries like New Zealand and Australia. The QIT System had been purchased from the United Kingdom and had been adapted to SA.

On the issue of complaints, the Awards Committee assisted with the making of decisions and also dealt with appeals. An establishment could write a letter to the Awards Committee to appeal. She felt that the TGCSA’s relationship with TripAdvisor would assist with obtaining feedback, as the TGCSA had funding constraints. The TGCSA did receive 600 feedbacks in 2011.  

When an assessor visited an establishment, it was about reasonableness. There had to be a position of trust with establishments. She gave an example of one assessor who sold linen to establishments. Hence there was a direct conflict of interest.  There were many such examples. The TGCSA would have loved to be able to influence building regulations.  Internal assessors were allowed to assess only 33% of properties. The internal assessor could not grade the same property twice. A proper skills transfer was needed.
 
Ms Kunene said she was not aware of how many of the old TGCSA plaques were still being used. The TGCSA had no control over these, as the establishment could manufacture as many as it wished. The plaque had been redesigned and there was now greater control, as each plaque had a serial number.
She responded that on the figure of 23 467 establishments, the TGCSA had not done an audit. These establishments were those who logged on to the SA Tourism website and created profiles. They were well aware of the value of being on the SA Tourism website.

The TGCSA graded only the actual accommodation of game lodges. In the future it was foreseen that there would be a game lodge category for grading purposes which would consider the game that the lodge had, and the services like game drives that it had on offer.

Ms M Maluleke (ANC) was disappointed that the TGCSA’s Awards Committee had only one woman on it. The rest of the representatives were all male. She hoped that the new awards committee to be elected in June 2012 would be more representative of women. She pointed out that at the recent Tourism Indaba that was held in Durban, a bed and breakfast establishment from Lesotho was displaying a TGCSA plaque. Did the TGCSA cover other countries as well?  Was the TGCSA satisfied with the progress made by establishments to cater for people with disabilities?  Was the performance of assessors monitored? How often was the quality of graded establishments checked on?

Ms Kunene pointed out that the appointment of the Awards Committee was in the hands of the Minister and hence it was up to the Minister to appoint more women.  She would like to receive further information about the use of TGCSA plaques in Lesotho. The TGCSA was considering having a strategy to handle African countries. Graded establishments were monitored and plaques were valid for only 12 months.

Ms X Makasi (ANC) remarked that there were establishments that wished to get graded but simply did not know how to go about it.  For small businesses, some of the grading criteria were out of reach. Some of the criteria being referred to were 24-hour security, a 24-hour receptionist, 24-hour room service, etc. Some establishments who had fulfilled the criteria now sat with the problem of having no guests.

Ms Kunene noted that establishments should aim for their correct grading. The tendency was for establishments to aim above their grading. For example, Formula 1 hotels were only one-star. One should aim for one’s target market.

Mr Shah stated that there should be promotional and financial incentives. He asked whether the TGCSA could not negotiate with financial institutions for special interest rates for small businesses.

The Chair commented that more dialogue on the issue of grading was needed. On the use of TGCSA plaques in Lesotho, he suggested a franchisor-franchisee relationship could be entered into. Plaques were the intellectual property of the TGCSA, and enforcement was necessary.

Committee Report on the International Study Tour to Mexico
Mr Farrow felt that the Committee could no longer delay the adoption of the Report.

Ms Njobe agreed with Mr Farrow.

Members effected grammatical changes to the Report.

The Report was adopted as amended.

The meeting was adjourned.

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: