Assen
From learning to innovation
Author:
Christopher Kasper Jan Kikkert
Student number:
s1609300
Address:
Gentiaan 29
7913 CH Hollandscheveld
Email address:
kasperkikkert@hotmail.com
Date:
February 2011
1
stSupervisor RUG:
dr. J.D. van der Bij
2
ndsupervisor RUG:
dr. ir. M.W. Hillen
Principal van der Valk Hotel Assen:
Ms. M. Möller
University of Groningen
Faculty of economics and business
Msc BA- Business Development
I. Acknowledgements
I want to express my gratitude to the following persons:
- Dr. J.D. van der Bij, for his support and feedback during the whole research.
- Ms. M. Möller, for giving the possibility to execute the research at Van der Valk hotel Assen.
- L. Xu Msc, for checking the grammar of the thesis - W.B. Hart, for checking the grammar of the thesis
II. Abstract
This study is about the service recovery process at Van der Valk hotel Assen. The manager and employees perceived a problem in this process. They observed that there was no overview of the complaints and therefore learning was not a possibility.
The service recovery process at this organization is compared to the scientific literature about service recovery. This literature forms the basis for a newly developed conceptual model about this process. The result of the analysis is that the step from handling complaints to the learning step of the model is not clearly executed well in the organization. Next to that, the communication to the guest and empowerment of personnel can be improved.
Four solutions are developed to improve the problems. The information gained from the research at Van der Valk hotel Assen adds something to the scientific literature. A service recovery process can add something to process and service innovation in the hotel industry as well as to other service organizations.
III. Summary of study for Van der Valk hotel Assen
Services are very important to the world economy. To be competitive, service organizations have to innovate in the service they offer to customers. Innovations in these organizations can be done in processes or in services. Innovations in processes are focused internally and efficiency driven, service innovations are oriented externally (Utterback & Abernathy, 1975). Sometimes processes are executed by an external company. In these cases, process
innovations are externally focused.
This study will follow the reflective and regulative cycle of Van Aken et al. (2007). The regulative cycle is about improving a business system at an organization. Information about this will be used for filling an information gap in the scientific literature. Filling this
information gap is about the reflective cycle. The business system that will be improved in this study is the service recovery process of Van der Valk hotel Assen. The employees and principal perceived that there was no clear overview of all the complaints and therefore learning was not possible in an optimal way. Information from this research will answer the scientific question:
How can a service recovery process add something to process and service innovation in the hotel industry?
The literature about service recovery results in a new conceptual model about the steps of the service recovery process.
The first step of the model is about the structure of the organization. The organization has to have a strategy for service recovery, empowerment and care of personnel and technological support. When the organization has the right structure, the organization has to inform the guests about complaining. Step two, they have to inform the guests about the importance of complaining, inform them how to complain and the guests need to have the opportunity to complain. After that, the third step of the model is important. This step is about handling complaints. Problems can be solved by using a problem solving method. Fairness of the complaint handling process is also important. The last step of the model is about learning from complaints. The organization needs to have a place for storing complaints and they must be communicated. All complaints have to be analyzed. Only then, employees can learn and find solutions to improve the service.
The developed model is compared to the processes at Van der Valk hotel Assen. A complaint analysis at the hotel results in a list of functional areas which are connected to most of the complaints. These are: the kitchen, the technical service, the reception, general manager/hotel manager and the housekeeping. Interviews with the heads of these areas were held, to know how they work and which processes they use.
The results of these interviews were compared to the literature. This is done for each functional area in a within-case analysis. In a cross-case analysis the results are combined. Using this it became clear how the whole organization performed compared to the developed conceptual model.
Comparing the first step of the model to the organization, it showed that there is not much empowerment for personnel. Safe zones, which show the employee what is allowed, are not explicitly written down. There are many fixed rules about how to deal with complaining guests. There is also no training for the employees when they work at the hotel.
The communication to the guest can be improved, there is no communication of service standards.
The third and fourth step of the model also needed an improvement. Fairness of the complaint handling process is correct. The guest is treated well. However, there is no procedure for handling complaints by using a problem solving method. There is also no place for storing complaints or service failure data. The reception and the technical service do analyse
complaints sometimes. However, this can be improved and needs to be done in the other areas as well. By doing this, learning can be more effective. The organization communicates the complaints correctly. The manager sends the complaints of guests to the heads of the functional areas. However, not all the service failures are communicated. Heads and the manager are not always informed about failures discovered by employees. Satisfying guests is important for Van der Valk hotel Assen. However, exceeding satisfaction, “delighting” the guest is not a primary goal of the organization and happens sometimes.
Four solutions are developed. Improvements in the complaint handling and learning part of the model are the most important. To solve complaints of guests, a complaint handling procedure is developed. This procedure makes use of a problem solving method for solving service failures.
A database is developed to store complaints and service failure data. This database is placed on the network and each head has access to the file.
The third solution is about the service guarantees. A couple of service guarantees has been developed. Most of these guarantees are internal. When guarantees are invoked, data about this should be placed in the database. The hotel uses safe zones, these zones have to be written down. Safe zones are written down in the guarantees.
The last solution is about decision making procedures about how to go from learning to innovation. This procedure also makes use of a problem solving method. There have to be regular moments where a manager and a departmental head can discuss how to solve problems. The managers have to choose which potential innovations to develop. In the change plan, the necessary activities for the implementation of the solutions and working with it are described. The value/cost analysis shows that it is difficult to say something about the value of fewer service failures and the costs of compensation to the guests.
The research at Van der Valk hotel Assen makes apparent an information gap in the scientific literature. The service recovery process can add something to process and service innovation. Storing complaints is useful for becoming aware whether a product or process innovation is necessary. The organization gets a better understanding of failures when making use of service guarantees. Learning from failures is not enough, the organization needs to have decision making procedures about how to go from learning to innovation and has to make use of a problem solving method to achieve this. They can also innovate by striving for customer delight. The research at van der Valk hotel Assen shows that when the hotel makes use of a service recovery process, this will result in process innovation and then in service innovation. The perception of problems by the manager and employees is correct. There is no overview of complaints and therefore learning is not possible.
IV. Table of contents
I. Acknowledgements ...2
II. Abstract ...3
III. Summary of study for Van der Valk hotel Assen...4
IV. Table of contents ...7
1. Introduction ...9
2. Literature ... 13
2.1. Service Recovery ... 13
2.2. Step 1: Structure ... 13
2.3. Step 2: Informing guests ... 16
2.4. Step 3: Handling complaints ... 17
2.4.1. Problem solving methods ... 18
2.4.2. Fairness of complaint handling ... 20
2.5. Step 4: Learning ... 21
3. Research methodology ... 25
3.1. Organization... 25
3.2. Methods for data collection ... 25
4. Analysis... 28
4.1. Within-case analysis ... 28
4.1.1: Housekeeping ... 28
4.1.2: Kitchen ... 30
4.1.3: Technical service ... 31
4.1.4: general manager/ hotel manager/reception ... 33
4.1.5: Reception ... 34
4.2. Cross-case analysis... 36
4.2.1. Step 1 of the model ... 36
4.2.2. Step 2 of the model ... 37
4.2.3. Step 3 of the model ... 37
4.2.4. Step 4 of the model ... 37
4.3. Conclusion ... 40
5.1. Solution 1: Solving service failures ... 41
5.2. Solution 2: Database of service failures ... 43
5.3. Solution 3: Service guarantees and safe zones ... 44
5.4. Solution 4: From learning to innovation ... 49
6. Change plan ... 54
6.1. Solving service failure ... 54
6.2. Database ... 54
6.3. Service guarantees ... 55
6.4. Procedure for going from learning to innovation ... 56
6.5 Evaluation of new solutions ... 56
7. Value/cost analysis ... 57
8. Scientific implications ... 59
9. Conclusions ... 62
10. Limitations and future research ... 64
11. References ... 65
Appendix 1: Schematic model of the causes of the problem ... 72
Appendix 2: Conceptual model of service recovery process ... 73
Appendix 3: Organizational chart Van der Valk Hotel Assen ... 76
1. Introduction
Services are very important in the world economy. According to Bitner and Brown (2008), services represent 80% of the GDP and labour force in the US. In developing countries, services also become more important. There are different ways to define services. In this study the definition of Zeithaml et al. (2006) will be used. They define services as deeds, processes and performances provided to customers in exchange relationships among
organizations and individuals. This definition highlights one important character of services, i.e. the contact with customers.
To be competitive, organizations have to innovate in the service they offer to customers. There are different ways of innovation. In literature, the difference between process and product/service innovations is often made. Product innovation means new products or services for an external person or market need. It is externally and customer driven. Process innovations are new elements in the service operations of an organization. These innovations are internally focused and efficiency driven (Utterback & Abernathy, 1975). Sometimes processes are executed by an external company. In these cases, process innovations are externally focused.
A service recovery process consists of actions taken by a company to correct service failures (Grönroos, 1988). According to La and Kandampully (2004), organizations can also use information of service failures for improving their service system. By doing this, an
organization can get a competitive advantage. How to move from learning to innovation gets little attention of these researchers. They write about a gap in literature. There is a need for more information about the structures and systems in order to move from learning to innovation. Other authors also write about the service recovery process and the learning aspect, however this is about different service organizations and it is described in general only. For hotels, there is not a detailed description of how to innovate from learning. Michel et al. (2009) give an overview of service recovery literature. They write about collecting and analyzing data, however they are not explicit about how to use this for innovation. Gross et al. (2007) stated that many organizations are not using customer complaints or remarks of
for these organizations and also for those who already use information of service failures. This study will fill the gap by answering the following scientific question:
How can a service recovery process add something to process and service innovation in the hotel industry?
The methodological handbook of Van Aken et al. (2007) is used to execute the research. To execute this research, the reflective and regulative cycle is followed. According to Van Aken et al. (2007), business problem solving is the basis of the reflective cycle. This business problem solving follows the regulative cycle. The aim of the regulative cycle is to improve a business system and it consists of the following steps: problem definition, analysis and diagnosis, plan of action, intervention and evaluation. When the business problem is solved, the results can be used for learning for similar projects. This knowledge can be an addition to the scientific literature. The scientific question, mentioned before, will be answered by
making use of a business problem solving process in an organization. Answering the scientific question is about the reflective cycle.
The business system that will be improved in this study is the service recovery process of Van der Valk hotel Assen. The problem definition is the real problem in the organization and is not a problem perceived only by employees of the organization. During analysis and
diagnosis the organization will be investigated and the business problems and causes will be made clear. After this, the solutions for the problems will be developed. The actions for the employees, how to work with the solutions, will be described in the solutions and the change plan. After developing the solutions and the change plan, the solutions can be implemented in the organization. When the solution is implemented, there has to be an evaluation of it. The results of this business problem solving process will give information about how a service recovery process can add something to process or service innovation in the hotel industry.
The research started with an intake meeting with the general manager. The subject of this meeting was the service recovery process. Different potential problems of the service
recovery were mentioned. Some heads of functional areas were asked to give their view about the recovery process and think about related problems. The outcome of these meetings was that there was no clear overview of all the complaints and therefore learning was not possible in an optimal way. In appendix 1, this is shown schematically.
This study investigates to what degree the problems mentioned by the employees and manager are correct and what the real problems are. The problems mentioned by the employees can be interpreted in a wrong way. An investigation of the processes in the organization and a literature study are important for understanding the real problems of the organization with regard to the service recovery process.
The following structure will be used in this thesis. First, there will be a description of the literature about service recovery. The literature study started with searching for important aspects of a service recovery process. All these aspects are grouped in different categories. These categories resulted in four important steps for an effective and qualitative service recovery process. These four steps are used, so that the literature can be understand better and processes in the organization can be compared to the literature more easier and better. Below these steps are shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Steps of service recovery process Step 1: service recovery strategy Step 2: informing guests Step 3: handling complaints Step 4: learning
Effective and qualitative service recovery process
This literature will be used as starting point for a conceptual model. This conceptual model presents important aspects of the service recovery process. Then, secondly, the research methodology will be described. When this becomes evident, the processes at Van der Valk hotel Assen will be compared to the conceptual model. By this, those aspects of the service recovery process that need to be improved or developed, will become clear. This comparison is also the basis of the solutions for the problems. The solutions will be described and
explained by making use of literature. When it is clear how to solve the problem(s), the
change plan will be explained. Information about a value/cost analyse will also described. The solutions of the business problem solving process and the new developed procedures can add something to process or service innovation. How they can add something to this will be
described in the scientific implications of this study. Finally, when all the results are known, the conclusion of the study will be given. Limitations and future research will also be described.
2. Literature
In this chapter the basis for the research is described. An aim of this study is to analyze and improve the service recovery process at Van der Valk hotel Assen and to know to what degree they make use of the whole service recovery process. To make such an analysis, it is useful to compare the processes at Van der Valk hotel Assen with the scientific literature. The literature on service recovery processes is described below. All the information will result in a
conceptual model of service recovery. This model contains the steps of service recovery and the content of each step. Below the model is described.
2.1. Service Recovery
The importance of a service recovery process is mentioned by many researchers. When an organization has an effective service recovery process, negative evaluations of the service by customers can be minimized or prevented (Tax et al., 1998; Andreassen, 2001). Word-of-mouth can enhance or destroy an organizations reputation and can result in losing guests or retaining guests (Reichheld & Sasser, 1990). Effective service recovery is important for positive word-of-mouth. Findings of Spreng et al. (1995) show that post-delivery service can have a larger influence on the satisfaction of customers than the standard service outcome. This also shows the importance of service recovery. When making use of an effective service recovery process, dissatisfied customers can be turned into satisfied customers and the impact of service failures will be decreased (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991; Boshoff, 1997). Problems have to be solved so that they never again happen in future (Lovelock et al., 2009).
2.2. Step 1: Structure
The first step of an effective service recovery process is about the structure of the
organization. A service organization needs a service recovery strategy. They have to see the importance of using service failures for developments in the organization
( La & Kandampully, 2004). A proactive strategy is important. Organizations must prevent service failures to the max (Hays & Hill, 2001). More information about preventing failures will be described in step four of this chapter. Tax and Brown (1998) also write about this aspect. They think that organizations need guidelines and standards for the service recovery process. By this, employees will know how to serve a customer the right way and how to
execute a high quality service recovery process.
The second aspect of the first step is empowerment of employees. A lot is written about this in relation to service recovery. Employees need to have the power to solve service failures, as suggested by Spreng et al. (1995). Such empowerment is giving employees latitude in
performing their tasks and solving problems (Bowen and Lawler, 1995). Only giving power is not enough, the employees need information, knowledge and reward also. They need to understand the business objectives and the processes in the organization. Bowen and Lawler (1995) also mention a disadvantage of empowerment. Too much liberty for personnel can lead to problems, when for instance an employee in the restaurant said that a guest can arrive late to eat and finish late from the first seating. This will result in problems for waiters who have to prepare tables for the second seating. There has to be a lot of attention for such problems. Safe zones can be a solution for this, they are known from the Marriott Hotel (Bowen & Lawler, 1995). By using safe zones, the employee knows exactly what he/she can do and what is not allowed. Tax and Brown (1998) describe safe zones as decisions for which employees are allowed to take action. Evidence shows that more empowerment for
employees result in more employee satisfaction (Hocutt & Stone, 1998; Yeung, 2006). The manager of the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Shanghai believes employee satisfaction will result in more customer satisfaction. According to Bowen and Lawler (1992), advantages of
empowerment are quicker service delivery and service recovery, employees feel better, better interaction with guests, positive word-of-mouth and the possibility to use employee‟s ideas. The disadvantages of empowerment are the higher selection and training costs, higher labour costs, slower service delivery, each customer receives not the same service and employees can give away too much or can take wrong decisions. The usefulness of empowerment for
employees depends on the situation. Tse and Ho (2009) also talk about empowerment. Empowerment of employees is useful for serving guests of different cultures. Punishing employees when they do not report a complaint is not effective, suggest Tax and Brown (1998).
Training of employees is also very important, for different reasons. If employees are
empowered, they need training about how to perform in empowered tasks (Bowen & Lawler, 1995; Lo et al., 2010). Training about how to perform during service recovery is also very useful (Spreng et al, 1995; Michel et al., 2009). Schlesinger and Heskett (1991) found that
training in service recovery positively affects the evaluations made by customers of the fairness of the service.
The third category of the first step is about care of personnel. According to Maxham and Netemeyer (2003), evidence shows that care of personnel can improve the quality of the service provided to customers. Employees can show extra role behaviour when helping guests. Extra role behaviour is when a guest believes the employee is exceeding the expectations of the guest, when solving complaints. Maxham and Netemeyer (2003) have found a positive relationship between shared values & organizational justice and extra role behaviour. Shared values means that the values of the employees match the values of the organization. Organizational justice consists of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. They define the different aspects of organizational justice as following. There is distributive justice when an employee believes he/she receives a fair outcome for the input performed by him/her. Procedural justice is the fairness perceived by the employee of the procedures used in making decisions about an employee. Interactional justice is the fairness perceived by the employee of the interaction with a supervisor. They also found a positive relationship between extra role behaviour and perceived fairness of service by the guests. This perceived fairness consists of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Managing the employees influences the managing of the guests (Maxham & Netemeyer, 2003). Findings of the research of Maxham and Netemeyer (2003) show that the fairness perceived by the guests has a positive relationship with customer satisfaction, positive word-of-mouth, purchase intent and satisfaction with the recovery.
When hiring new employees, organizations have to pay attention to the skills of the employees. They need to have the right service recovery skills, this will also affect the evaluations made by customers of the fairness of the service (Schlesinger & Heskett, 1991). As mentioned before, it is important that there are shared values (Maxham & Netemeyer, 2003). Therefore, paying attention to employees‟ values, when hiring new employees, is useful. Employees have to receive information about the whole organization and not only about their own tasks (Michel et al., 2009). Through this they can better perform in
empowered tasks (Bowen & Lawler, 1995), since they are aware of the consequences of their actions. According to La and Kandampully (2004), for effective service recovery it is
also important that the employee knows the importance of service recovery. Tax and Brown (1998) think employees have to know they are important in the service recovery process. The fourth aspect of the first step is the technological support. The service organization can receive complaints by using technological support. Using this support is helpful for
identifying service failures (Tax & Brown, 1998). Examples of technological support are making use of a call centre or internet. Evidence shows that customers feel better when they can complain by using the phone than having to complain face to face. To deal with angry customers, however, organizations can better use oral communication than written
communication (Heskett et al, 1990; Martin and Smart, 1994).
2.3. Step 2: Informing guests
The second step of the model is about informing the guests. Communication to the guest can be done in different ways. Organizations have to know when and what service failures there are in their organization. By this, they know when customers are not clear about what to expect from the services and they can solve the failures. Levitt (1980) said that when expectations to customers are not clear, they do not complain when they are dissatisfied. Service standards, by using service guarantees, can solve this problem (Tax & Brown, 1998). Service standards are formal promises about the service to customers (Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996). Service guarantees promise the customer an economic or non-economic compensation when performance standards are not met (Baker & Collier, 2005). An example of a service guarantee with an economic payout is: free drinks when guests have to wait more than ten minutes for getting a table (Firnstahl, 1989). A service guarantee with non economic payout can be an apology to a guest, when for instance the television in the room is damaged. The frequency of guests who complain can become higher when the organization make use of service guarantees (Wirtz et al, 2000; McCollough & Gremler, 2004). This will encourage and motivate customers to complain. It is shown that it results in more customer satisfaction (Ostrom & Iacobucci, 1998; Wirtz et al, 2000). Findings of McCollough and Gremler (2004) show that it also results in customer satisfaction even when the guarantee is not invoked. Hays and Hill (2001) found that the motivation of employees will be enhanced when service
guarantees are used. Hoffman et al. (1995) found that guests prefer an economic compensation above a non-economic.
An other way of communicating to the customers is to let them know that their complaint is very useful to the organization (Andreasen & Best, 1977).
Educating the guests is another important aspect of informing the guests. The customers have to know how they can complain (Tax & Brown, 1998). Encouraging, educating and enabling customers to complain has to be done proactively by the organization (Berry et al, 1990; Lewis & Spyrakopoulos, 2001).
2.4. Step 3: Handling complaints
When the organization is organized correctly and the guests can complain when they are dissatisfied with the service they receive, it is time for handling the complaints of the guests. This paragraph shows the literature concerning the complaints handling process. In literature many authors wrote about this part of the recovery process.
This step of the model starts with a complaint of a guests about the service. This implicates that there is possibly a service failure in the organization. The Ritz Carlton Hotel in Shanghai makes use of 20 basic actions (Yeung, 2006). One of these basics is that a complaint of a guest always must be solved by an employee to the satisfaction of the guest, and after that the complaint has to be recorded. Tax and Brown (1998) show that after a service failure, the failure has to been solved to the satisfaction of the guests. First, the customers need to be satisfied by employees, before the problem can be solved (Zemke and Connellan, 2001). The guests have to be compensated. This compensation can be, for example, a repair, apology, refund, replacement. In the quality management literature models are described models how to solve a problem. It is important that guests will be satisfied. Another important aspect is to prevent the problem ever happening in future (Lovelock et al., 2009). A hotel in Detroit makes use of collaboration for problem solving. The manager and the head have brainstorm sessions for solving problems and improving the operation (Wolff and Watkins, 2006).
2.4.1. Problem solving methods
Different methods can be used for finding service failures in the organization. These methods can help an organization in identifying and solving problems. Some of these methods are described below.
Total quality management is a sub-discipline of the management science (Moosa and Sajid, 2010). Dale et al. (2007) define it as a cooperation of everyone in the organization to produce value-for-money products and services which meet, and even can exceed, the needs and expectations of customers. Six sigma is a methodology of total quality management (Moosa and Sajid, 2010). It is a problem solving methodology for improving business processes. Failures have to be identified and eliminated in order to improve productivity, yield, operation effectiveness and customer satisfaction (Bhote and Bhote, 1991; Pyzdek, 2003). It is a
methodology for continuous improvement (Breyfogle III, 2003).
DMAIC is a six sigma tool and is useful in finding bad processes and improve these processes (Kumar et al., 2009). De Mast and Bisgaard (2007) say that it is the most used six sigma method for process improvement. The DMAIC cycle contains the following steps: define, measure, analyze, improve and control (Slack et al. 2007). The first step is defining the problem. When the problem is clear it is important to know if the problem is the real problem. It should be measured what has happened exactly. During the third step the root cause of the problem must be analyzed. When the causes are clear, solutions can be developed for solving the problem by removing the causes. By testing, the best solution has to be implemented. When the improvements are implemented, the results have to be measured. The new situation needs to be measured and checked continually to see if the performance is really improved. When this last step is executed, the cycle starts again.
The PDCA cycle is another famous improvement cycle. Slack et al. (2007) describe all the steps. The cycle starts with collection of data needed to draw up a plan to improve
performance. The second step, do, entails implementing the plan. The third step: check whether performance had been improved. If this is so, the last step: act, is about making the improved performance the standard. When, however, performance is not better, the lessons learned need to be recorded and the cycle started anew.
The eight disciplines method (8D) is another problem solving method (Dale et al., 2007). It is a step-by-step process for improvement and contains eight steps. This method is more useful for handling complaints than the methods PDCA and DMAIC, because in the third step the problem needs to be dealt with instantly. So, when customers complain, the complaint is solved for them. The method of 8D is useful for solving one problem, in the case of service recovery, one service failure. Dale et al. (2007) describe the 8D process as follows. The process starts with forming a team for solving the problem. The team need to know how to use a problem solving method and must be experienced. When this is ready, the problem has to be described. The third discipline is about fixing the problem by implementing an interim containment action. When this discipline has been done, the team have to find the root cause of the problem. After this, the best solution for solving the problem needs to be chosen. When the solution is known, it can be implemented in the organization. After implementation, the team need to prevent recurrence of the problem. The method ends with congratulations to the team.
Important steps in the above problem solving techniques are defining the problem and
developing solutions. Testa and Sipe (2006) stress the importance of finding the root cause of an problem. When managers the root cause is not found, the problem will recur. It is
important that managers know how areas and processes in the organization are related to each other.
In the literature a couple of techniques are described which are helpful for this. Slack et al. (2007) describe the cause-and-effect-diagram. Causes can be found in different categories. This technique can be helpful in finding the root causes of problems. Another technique to find the root cause is the why-why analysis (Slack et al., 2007; Testa and Sipe, 2006). This technique starts by asking why the problem has occurred. When a cause for it is known, ask the question again so that you know why that is the cause. This question need to be asked at least five times or until the root cause of the problem is found.
In all the above ways of problem solving there are feedback loops. Feedback is defined as a mechanism, process or signal that is looped back to control a system. This loop is called a feedback loop (Black, 1934). First, the organization will be informed about a complaint. Next, the problem must be solved for the guest. Finally, it should be checked if the guest is satisfied. It is not only solving a problem, satisfying the guest is important as well. This is not the only
loop, there are more. One has to verify the problem, cause, solution and result of the
implementation (Dale et al., 2007). Taking a step back in the model can also be useful, when for instance the problem is not solved, you have to reconsider the implementation, or the solution, in order to find the right solution. The loops are shown in appendix 2.
2.4.2. Fairness of complaint handling
In literature a lot is written about the fairness of the complaint handling process as perceived by the guests. It is about how to treat the guests during the complaint handling process and is also an important aspect in handling complaints.
Fairness consists of the three justice dimensions mentioned before: distributive, procedural and interactional justice (Tax et al, 1998). Distributive justice is achieved when the guests perceive the outcome of the service recovery process as fair (Tax & Brown, 1998). Outcome can be, for instance, a discount, refund, repair or replacement (Maxham and Netemeyer, 2003; Tax and Brown, 1998). Tax and Brown (1998) found that customers like to choose the type of compensation themselves.
Procedural justice is about the speed and flexibility of the recovery process as well as the degree of accessibility of the organization (Tax et al, 1998). Interactional justice is about how the guest is treated during the complaint process (Tax & Brown, 1998).
Findings of Tax et al. (1998) show that the three fairness dimensions have a positive
relationship with customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is important for the success of an organization and the profits (Bitner, 1990; Hocutt et al., 1997). Evidence of Maxham and Netemeyer (2003) shows that there are different relationships between the justice dimensions and customer outcomes. Perceived distributive justice has a positive relationship with the recovery satisfaction, overall satisfaction with the organization, purchase intent and word-of-mouth. Procedural justice has a positive relationship with recovery satisfaction, overall satisfaction with the organization and word-of-mouth. Finally, they found a positive relationship between interactional justice and overall satisfaction with the organization and purchase intent.
So, evidence shows that there are relationships between the justice dimensions (Tax et al., 1998; Maxham and Netemeyer, 2003). Guests perceive the same outcome differently to the degree they are treated well or badly. In their research apology belongs to the distributive
dimension and is, together with compensation, an important aspect of this dimension . Taking responsibility by the organization during complaint handling is an important aspect of
procedural justice. They also found a possible relation between interactional justice and procedural justice. The way of interaction influences the perceived justice of the procedure.
2.5. Step 4: Learning
The service recovery process is not completed when service failures are solved and customers are treated in a way they perceive as fair. Learning from service failures is the last step of the recovery process and is a very important step. Learning is not recovering and satisfying any individual customer, it is about improving systems and processes. The aim of this
improvement is reducing costs and satisfying future customers (Lovelock et al, 2009).
According to Hart et al. (1990) and Johnston and Clark (2008), learning from service failures is even more important than solving service failures. Many customers are not satisfied when they think the service will fail again in the future (Johnston & Clark, 2008). Because of this, learning from service failures is very important. According to La and Kandampully (2004), organizations can use customers complaints for getting long-term benefits by changing the service system. The information to be derived from these complaints can be useful for identifying the causes of failures (Tax & Brown, 1998).
Organizations have to move from a „damage-control‟ approach to a proactive service recovery strategy, suggested by La and Kandampully (2004). Taking proper care of customers is a part of the market orientation of the organization and can be useful for getting a competitive advantage (Slater & Narver, 1994). They also say it is important to learn fast, so that the organization can beat the competitors and can get a sustainable competitive advantage. Market orientation consists of customer focus, competitor focus and internal-functional coordination. When analyzing complaints an organization uses a customer focus. The internal focus is also very important. An organization can learn from information about its own operation (DiBella et al, 1996). Hoffman et al. (1995) write about classifying complaint data and state that these data can be useful for understanding customer expectations. When the information of service failures is available, communicating this information to the right group of employees is required (Tax & Brown, 1998). Johnston and Michel (2008) distinguish three perspectives of service recovery. These are customer recovery, employee recovery and
an overview of the different aspects of process recovery. Data of failures have to be collected and properly analyzed, they suggest. Also the opinion of the guest about the recovery process is important and useful for improving the service (Lewis & McCann, 2004). Garvin (1993) talks about the importance of making decisions by using data and using statistical tools. Hammer (2002) argues that using complaint data to improve the service processes, is possible if the information of problem processes is mapped first. By doing this, the causes of the problems can be discovered. It is also important that the employees have knowledge of all the processes in the organization. This is useful for finding the right solutions.
Using such a proactive approach has the advantage that it decreases the costs of solving service failures, suggested by La and Kandampully (2004). Another advantage suggested by Porter (1985), is the fact that it increases the value of the service to customers. If there are more solutions for a problem, it is important to choose the most profitable one (Rust et al., 1995). This profitability is not only about direct monetary gain, it is also about satisfaction, word-of -mouth or purchase intent.
An important aspect during this step is the „innovation loop‟. During the complaint handling step of the model, complaints need to be solved to customer‟s satisfaction and the cause of the problem needs to be discovered and eliminated. Writing and storing customer complaints, as mentioned by La and Kandampully (2004), is important for the learning from complaints. This information can be the basis for innovation and to bring the process to a higher level. The causes of the problems can be either in the processes or in the service outcomes. Aspects of any of the first three steps of the model can be a cause of the problem. It can be the way of informing the guest or the way of handling complaints. However also other processes can be the cause of the problem.
When the changes are implemented, there need to be a feedback moment to see if the
problems are solved by the innovation. The PDCA and DMAIC methods can be useful for the learning part of the model by devising potential innovations.
For developing new processes, the DMADV method can be useful (Dale et al., 2007), as it emphasizes more on new processes than repairing existing processes. The method contains five steps. It starts with defining goals of the project and the deliverables for the customer. After that the needs of the customers have to be measured. When this is known, the next step is to develop actions or processes to meet the need of the customers. This is followed by the design of the new process. The last step is about verifying the performance of the innovation.
As mentioned before, during the various steps of the methods, there are also loops. Testa and Sipe (2006) write about the Ritz Carlton hotel in connection with learning from complaints. Each employee in the hotel who receive a complaint has to record the complaint to be included in a data file. The hotel periodically analyzes the problems or complaints recorded to see how this can result in process changes.
The Windsor Court Hotel in New Orleans has also a focus on quality improvement. They ask departing guests if they recommend some improvements for the hotel. Complaints of guests are written down on a incident form and these complaints are recorded so that they can be evaluated each month. The employees of Dahlman Properties can give ideas for
improvements in the hotel and they can get a bonus dependent on the subject and effectivity of the idea. The Waldorf Astoria hotel also stores customer feedback for learning. They make use of coding to see where operations improvements or innovations are necessary. The employees can each month see how they are performing (Enz and Siguaw, 2000).
Another way of improving the processes and services in the organization to a higher level is through customer delight. There need to be organizational change when striving for customer delight (Berman, 2005). Continually improving all aspects of the operation is important for customer delight (Kanji, 2008). Customer delight is about exceeding the expectations of the customer to a surprising degree (Oliver et al., 1997). Arnold et al. (2005) show that surprise is not required. A customer can be delighted through joy or excitement (Barnes et al, 2010). Customer delight goes beyond satisfaction and is about a pleasurable experience for the customer (Patterson, 1997). Their research shows that delighting customers will result in more loyalty, commitment, repatronage and willingness to pay by the customers.
The employees of the service organization have an important task in delighting the customer. Customer delight cannot be achieved without an excellence service, so employees with a high performance are very important (Torres and Kline, 2006). The service quality in a hotel depends for a large part on the quality of the employees (Henkoff, 1994). Delighting
customers is difficult, because it is dependent on the customer expectations and these are not the same for all the customers. Service levels have to be updated continuously, because when a customer is delighted one time, the next time it will be perceived as satisfied and not
delight. When a organization wants to follow a customer delight strategy, it is useful to start in areas where there are no customer expectations (Berman, 2005). Kanji (2008) says that it is important to know customer expectations and their satisfaction.
For the Ritz Carlton hotel, delighting guests is very important. Their goal is fulfilling the unexpected needs and wishes of the guests. They use a database of guest information and information of for instance housekeeping about known preferences of guests. They will anticipate on these preferences. An example is that they know the favorite newspaper of a guest and will bring this up with the breakfast (Hemp, 2002). Another example of this hotel and its policy to customer delight is that there was a guest who asks a concierge the address of a certain store. The concierge not only informs the guest, but also asks the doorman to bring the guest when the guest could not find a taxi (Bowen and Lawler, 1995).
In paragraph two, empowerment of employees was described. Empowerment is also
important for customer delight. By giving empowerment to employees, the employees can do what is necessary to please customers (Bowen and Lawler, 1995).
All the literature, described in this chapter, results in a conceptual model. This model will be shown in appendix 2. Step three and four are explained more clearly below the model.
3. Research methodology
In this chapter the methodology of this study is described. First, a description of the organization is given. After that, the methods used for getting information are described.
3.1. Organization
This study is about Van der Valk hotel Assen. Van der Valk is a true private company, owned by the Van der Valk family. In the Netherlands there are 56 establishments and there are 25 establishments in other countries.
The hotel in Assen belongs to the Voorschoten division together with 22 other Van der Valk hotels. Hotel Assen is not only a hotel, guests can also visit the restaurant or have a meeting in one of the conference rooms. Approximately 80% of the guests are business people.
The structure of the hotel is very hierarchical. The two general managers are responsible for everything in the hotel. Under the general managers are the heads of the different functional areas. Each head has a great responsibility. The amount of employees fluctuates during the year. In April 2010, there were 188 employees at Van der Valk hotel Assen. The organization chart is shown in appendix 3. This study is about the recovery process in the whole
organization and all the functional areas of the hotel. The different functional areas are called cases in this research. Innovation is important for the hotel, because of high competition of hotels in the neighbourhood. Service innovation is an aspect that gets much attention from the managers.
3.2. Methods for data collection
Literature was scanned in order to discover an information gap that could be filled through the research at Van der Valk hotel Assen.
The literature about the service recovery process is the fundamental start of the problem analysis. The literature found is about the whole process, however some articles describe one specific part of the process. The findings are described in the literature chapter.
comparison started with a complaint analysis. By doing this, the complaints can be connected to different functional areas.
The organization received the complaints used for the analysis by mail, questionnaire, complaint form or the internet. The complaints were categorized into different categories. This made it easier to connect the complaints with the functional areas. The complaint analysis was updated constantly when the organization received new complaints.
The complaint categories with the highest frequency are: the absence of products in the rooms such as a bin, problems in technical hardware (for example a disfunctioning air conditioner), hygiene in the room, service and the quality of food & beverage.
The next step was to find the employees responsible for the complaints with the highest frequency. The manager of housekeeping, hotel manager and general manager are responsible for the absence of products in the rooms. The housekeeping is responsible for checking the absence of products. The hotel manager and general manager are responsible for choosing the products in the room which are missed by the guests. The technical service is responsible for the problems of the technical hardware. The hygiene of the room is an aspect of the
responsibility of the manager of housekeeping. The service to customers connects to the general manager, however most complaints about the service were about the reception. Therefore, the manager of reception is responsible for this complaint category. The sous-chefs are responsible for the quality of food & beverage. The functional areas are shown in appendix 3 by making use of a number. Housekeeping by number 1, kitchen 2, technical service 3, general manager/hotel manager 4 and reception 5.
Semi-structured interviews with the managers of the functional areas were important to compare the recovery processes to the literature. Van Aken et al. (2007) define semi-structured interviews as using a list of specific questions for the interview, but also leaving room for more information. The employees were asked how they can avoid complaints, handle it and how they handle feedback. They were then asked to give additional information about the processes of their functional area.
In a within-case analysis, the literature is compared to the individual areas. By doing this, specific conclusions can be drawn and important aspects are not forgotten. The reception has
a double role in the organization. They serve the guests who are checking in or who have a question. Besides, they receive complaints of guests and take action for solving the
complaints and coordinate these complaints. Handling complaints is also the task of the manager/hotel manager. Because of this, the reception will be mentioned in the manager/hotel manager case about handling complaints. The tasks of giving service to guests will be
described in the case about the reception.
As mentioned before, each step of the model consists of different categories of aspects. The processes of each functional area are compared to these aspects. A cross-case analysis is executed to see how all the functions together perform compared to the literature. The basis for this analysis is the result of the within-case analysis. For each case is written down which aspects are executed well and which are not. This information is used for the cross-case analysis. When more than half of the areas perform an aspect well, the aspect is executed right in the whole organization. When more than half of the aspects are performed right, the
category of aspects is executed well. This is determined by the researcher. Some categories of aspects are not applicable to all the functional areas. In the next chapter, both analyses will be explained and described.
When the problems were clear, solutions were developed. These solutions were developed by using the literature. Also the input of the researcher and employees were used. However, the literature was the most important input for the solutions. Meetings with the principal were planned for understanding the specifications for the solutions and the opinion of the principal about it. Van Aken et al. (2007) mentioned the importance of analyzing the resistance of employees to change. Employees who are going to work with the solutions were informed about the proposed solutions and their opinions about it were asked.
The information of the research at Van der Valk hotel Assen is used to fill up the information gap mentioned in the introduction of this thesis. This is described in the scientific implications chapter.
4. Analysis
In this chapter, in a within-case analysis, the literature about the service recovery process is compared to each functional area (case) of van der Valk hotel Assen. The comparison follows the sequence of the conceptual model. Some categories of aspects are not relevant for each case. Therefore only the relevant categories of aspects are described. After this, the cross-case analysis gives information about how the whole organization performs, compared to the service recovery literature. This is shown in figure 2. This chapter ends with a conclusion.
4.1. Within-case analysis
4.1.1: Housekeeping
The housekeeping uses both aspects of the first category, the service recovery strategy. For housekeeping there are guidelines and standards for service recovery. When an employee communicates with a complaining guest, the employee has to inform the head of
housekeeping. This head has to handle the complaint. The other aspect is to prevent complaints. The purpose of the housekeeping is to clean the rooms. By doing this, they prevent complaints. Each employee receives a cleaning list at the start of the workday. When the head thinks that the housekeeping has to pay more attention to some parts of the room, because of many complaints, these parts get more attention.
The second category of aspects is empowerment of personnel. The employees are not empowered to handle a complaint themselves, as stated earlier. They have many rules to obey. The employees are not, however, impeded to complain. When they notice a problem, they can report this on the cleaning list. The head receives the cleaning lists at the end of the day.
The third category of aspects is care of personnel. The head of the housekeeping is treated well by the managers, according to the head. The head did not complain about this aspect. There is no training the employees on how to recover complaints. They only receive an instruction booklet of the hotel. In this regulation there is only minimal attention for handling complaints. Before they start work at the hotel, they receive a short training in how to clean the rooms. There is no training after this. The employees who are hired are the most suitable employees, according to the head. There is much attention for hiring suitable employees, who
have values that match the values of the organization. The regulation also contains
information about all the functional areas of the organization. Therefore, the employees know how each area relates to other areas. The importance of complaints is also communicated to the employees by the regulation.
The last aspect of the first step is the technological support. The housekeeping does not directly receive the complaints of guests, most of the time. When there is a complaint about the housekeeping, the head of housekeeping receives this from the manager or the reception. For receiving these complaints they make use of technological support. The complaints are sent to the head of housekeeping by e-mail.
The second step of the model is about informing the guest. This is not a task of the housekeeping. Therefore, this step is skipped for the housekeeping.
The third step of the model is about handling complaints. Most of the time a complaint connected to the housekeeping is received by the reception or the management. They inform the head of housekeeping for solving the complaint. The head of housekeeping does not use any problem solving method as mentioned in literature, nor a root cause analysis. Problems are solved intuitively. Comparing the fairness dimensions to the housekeeping is not totally relevant. They are not always directly in contact with the complaining guests. However, when guests have complaints about the rooms, the housekeeping has to solve this in the correct way according to the three justice dimensions. There are no complaints about the fact that the housekeeping employees had solved problems in a wrong way.
The learning step of the model is not performed well by the housekeeping. All the complaints for the housekeeping are communicated allright to the head of housekeeping. However, no service failures are recorded and stored. When complaints are handled, they are then not used for analyzing. Therefore it is difficult to learn from failures. The head of housekeeping does learn a little from the failures. She makes use of her intuition to tell her if there are many complaints. When there are complaints, the housekeeping will deal with them so that guests are satisfied. Delighting the guest is not the aim. When a guest has a complaint, the
housekeeping tries to give the guest a higher satisfaction, than the guests would have had without complaining.
4.1.2: Kitchen
The first category of aspects of the first step is performed well by the kitchen. They use guidelines and standards for solving problems. An employee of the kitchen has to inform a head of the kitchen when there is a complaining guests. However, this is not often the case in the kitchen. Preventing service failures is an important aspect in the kitchen. The quality of the food is checked very often. When the food leaves the kitchen and is served to the guests, there is also an inspection of the dishes. The different cooks are responsible for the quality of the food.
As mentioned earlier, each employee has to inform a head when there is a complaining guest. There is not much empowerment of kitchen personnel for handling complaints. It is not their task to have contact with guests. Each cook is responsible for a specific task. For the
employees there is the opportunity to talk about problems. These problems will be discussed with other employees of the kitchen.
The sous-chefs are treated well by the managers, according to the sous-chefs. They are not complaining about this aspect. The employees received their schooling in vocational training institutions. They do not receive additional training when they work in the hotel. The only education they get, is the information about service recovery in the regulation. There is much attention for hiring the most suitable employees, according to the sous-chefs. These
employees need to have values that match with the values of the organization. In the regulation they are informed about the different functional areas in the organization. The regulation informs the employees about the importance of complaining guests and the importance of the employee during this complaining process.
The complaints about the kitchen are received by mail, thus technological support. These mails are sent by the managers who receive the complaints from the guests. The employees of the kitchen does not receive complaints of guests directly. When a guest complains about the food, the waiter will receive the complaint and inform the responsible head. This head will inform the kitchen.
The second step of the model is about informing the guests. Communication to the guests is the first category of aspects. For some dishes, the kitchen informs the guests that there is a
longer preparation time. By this, the guests know what to expect from the kitchen. The kitchen does not make use of more service standards. The other aspects of the second step are not the responsibility of the kitchen and therefore not mentioned in this case.
The third step of the model is about handling complaints of customers. The kitchen does not receive complaints directly from guests. When there are problems with the food, the waiter brings it back to the kitchen after consulting the head. After that, the kitchen will prepare a new dish. The problems mentioned by the guests will thus be solved directly. This is the only way of handling complaints by the kitchen. The head of food & beverage will solve the rest of the complaint. In the kitchen, problems are not solved by making use of a problem solving method, but more intuitively. A root cause analysis is not executed. There are no complaints about distributive and procedural justice.
Learning can be improved at the kitchen. Service failures are not recorded and stored, so that analyzing these complaints and learning from them is not possible. All the complaints are solved and failures are discussed with employees during the day. There is no overview of how many complaints there are and no knowledge of the content of the complaints. Not all the service failures information is communicated correctly. The manager mails complaints, however information about problems with food are not always communicated by the waiters to the responsible head. Delighting the guests is not the aim in the kitchen. They will cook the food. When there are complaints, they will prepare new food for the guest.
4.1.3: Technical service
The service recovery strategy category is not performed well. Most of the service failures are not prevented. The reason for this are the high costs and the little time available. Often the technical hardware is only repaired when it is damaged. The other aspect of guidelines and standards is performed well. In the regulation there is information of how to handle a complaint. Often they receive an order from the reception to repair something, for instance. There is rarely contact with complaining guests.
The employees of the technical service are authorized to solve problems in the whole hotel, also when a guest complains to them directly. When there is a complaint they try to solve it
right away. They are not punished to speak about problems. They can talk freely about the problems they have.
The employees of the technical service think they are treated well by the managers. They do not receive training on how to handle complaints. They know what to do with a complaint. There is little contact with customers, because of this a training in handling complaints is not necessary. Hiring employees at present is not relevant for the technical service, as the
incumbent employees of the technical service are there from the beginning of the hotel. They do know how a functional area is connected to the other areas and know the importance of complaining guests and their task during this process. It is mentioned in the regulation. Complaints or interruptions can be sent to the technical service by putting it into the “file of shortcomings” which is on-line in the network. The complaints are not directly presented by guests. The reception or management normally sends this to them. When other employees notice a problem, they can also put it in the file.
It is not the task of the technical service to inform the guests, so this step of the model cannot be compared to the technical service.
Complaints of guests are solved without using a problem solving method. The technical service tries to find the cause of the problem in order to solve it. No root cause analysis is made. There is little contact between the technical service and guests. Therefore not all the three justice dimensions are applicable to them. Only procedural and distributive fairness are applicable to the technical service. They have to try to solve the problems fast and well. There are not many complaints about this, as most problems are solved correctly.
Learning from failures is done quite well. All the complaints, failures or interruptions have to be put in an interruption file on the network. Each employee has access to this file. By using this, the technical service has an overview of all the failures. There are no fixed rules for analyzing this information. This is only done when an employee of the technical services thinks it is necessary, but there is no structural analysis. Problem solving methods are not used. They learn by categorizing the information. By doing this, they know to what degree some problems will recur and can inform the management about it. Delighting guests is not relevant for the technical service.
4.1.4: general manager/ hotel manager/reception
There is a service recovery strategy for the organization. This strategy does not contain all the recovery steps. The strategy is to prevent complaints. Handling complaints is not a part of the strategy. The emphasis is on preventing problems. The management wrote a regulation to inform the employees about the organization. In this regulation there are many rules and standards for the employees. Thus, the first category of aspects is executed well by them.
Empowerment and care of personnel is described in the other cases. For the employees there is not much empowerment. The managers treat the heads well. The regulation informs the employees about important aspects of the organization. There is much attention for hiring the correct employees,according to the manager. This is the task of a head.
Guests can complain in different ways. Complaints can be sent by mail, by telephone or face to face to the reception, hotel manager or manager. There are several sites of agencies on the internet where guests can make a reservation for any Van der Valk hotel. When a guest has any complaints, he/she can also inform these organizations about it. These organizations will inform Van der Valk hotel Assen. E-mails go straight to the manager. The general manager or hotel manager always sends the complaint on to the responsible head.
The communication to the guests can be improved. There are no service standards
communicated to guests. Guests do not exactly know what to expect. Communicating the importance of complaining can be improved. In each room there is an information folder. In this folder the importance of complaining is not mentioned. Only how to complain is
explained. When there are problems, a guest can contact the reception. The reception will start handling the complaint. However, in the questionnaire the importance is listed. By asking the guest to fill in the questionnaire, he/she is encouraged to complain. Guests are enabled to complain by giving them the telephone number of the reception and they are invited to fill in a questionnaire about the service rendered.
The general manager, hotel manager and reception receive most of the complaints. They have to handle the complaint in relation to the guest and to inform the responsible head about the complaint. Small problems are solved by the responsible head, bigger problems are solved by the head and general manager. When they deal with a complaint, problem solving methods
and a root cause analysis are not used. The way of handling most of the complaints is allright . There are little complaints from guests who are dissatisfied with the outcome, procedure and/or interaction of the complaint handling. There were a few complaints about the behavior of the reception employees during complaint handling. When there are minor problems the employees of reception can compensate a guest by f.i. giving a free bottle of wine. The
manager always determines the compensation for a guest, when a bottle of wine is not enough or when the complaint is received by mail.
The learning part of the service recovery process can also be improved. Complaints are not recorded and stored. The complaints are handled and then put in a folder or stay in the mailbox. The manager and hotel manager has no overview of all the complaints. The feeling of them determines when to take action and when to innovate. The communication of complaints is done well. Each complaint will be sent to the responsible head. Not all the service failures are communicated, such as when a guest has a raw steak and receives a new steak. Delighting the customer happened sometimes in the hotel, however it is not a part of the vision. When there is a complaining guest, the managers always try to satisfy the guest. They try to recover the service in such a way that the satisfaction of the guests will be higher than the satisfaction of the guest without a complaint. Delighting customers is dependent on the type of guests. Some guests feel they are delighted. Satisfying the guest is the primary goal of the hotel, also regarding service recovery.
4.1.5: Reception
For the employees of the reception, there are rules and guidelines for handling complaints. Also they have to call in a head when they are confronted with a complaining guest. It is difficult for them to prevent complaints. The employees have to adapt themselves to the situation. By doing this they can prevent that a guest will complain about the service of the reception and that this results in a formal complaint. Therefore the service recovery strategy of preventing failures is performed well.
There is not much empowerment for the employees. There are many rules for handling complaints. When there are small problems, the employees can compensate guests by giving them for instance a bottle of wine. It is not explicitly written down in safe zones when they may give compensation to a guest. When there are larger problems, the manager will
determine the compensation. The employees are not impeded to express service failures, but not encouraged either.
The head of reception is treated well by the managers, according to the head. The personnel of the reception does not receive any in-service training for serving guests. They only receive this during their vocational training. When new employees are hired, it is important that they have the same values as the organization, according to the head of the reception. All the employees have an understanding of all the functional areas of the hotel. This is also
mentioned in the regulation. They are aware of the importance of complaining guests and the importance of themselves in this process. The reception also makes use of technological support for receiving complaints. Customers can call the reception for complaints and the reception receives complaints from the manager by internal mail.
Communication to the guests can be improved. There is no communication of service standard to the guests. When guests leave the hotel, the reception will ask if they have any remarks. The importance of complaining is not explicitly mentioned. Encouraging guests to complain is done correctly by asking the customers if they have any remarks.
Educating guests how to complain is not the task of the reception. When the guest arrives in the room, there will be an information folder. In this folder the guest is informed about how to complain. The guests can also call the reception when there are problems.
The reception does not use any problem solving method for solving complaints. When there are complaints about the performance of the reception, the head of reception informs the employee about the complaint, the solution, and how to prevent it for the future. The step of handling complaints is executed well by the reception. The only part that can be improved is the interactional fairness. There were a few complaints about the personnel of the reception. Guests said that they were not treated well by the employees. There were no complaints about the other justice dimensions.
The last step of the service recovery process is the step that needs improvements. The
complaints about the reception are recorded and stored, however there is no clear overview of it and no analysis of it for innovation. The head of the reception uses the information only for a performance evaluation meeting with the employees. By this, there is little learning from failures. The communication of the service failures can be improved. Problems are
