International Journal of Hospitality Management 75 (2018) 48–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhm

The Integration between Service Value and Service Recovery in the T

Hospitality Industry: An Application of QFD and ANP
⁎
Wann-Yih Wua, Alfiyatul Qomariyahb, , Nguyen Thi Truong Sac, Yingkai Liaoa
a
Department of International Business, Nanhua University, No. 55, Sec. 1, Nanhua Rd., Dalin, Chiayi, 62249, Taiwan
b
Department of Accountancy, Universitas Airlangga, No. 4, Airlangga Rd., Gubeng, Surabaya 60286, Indonesia
c
Master Institute of International Management, National Cheng Kung University No.1, University Road, Tainan City 701, Taiwan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Research in service recovery has attracted significant attention in recent years, but few studies have focused on
Service failure service recovery from both customer and expert perspectives simultaneously. This study aims to address this
Service recovery research gap by adopting a Quality Function Deployment (QFD) approach that integrates Analytic Network
Customer satisfaction Process (ANP) method. The results show that among five major groups of service failure in hotels, customers
Quality function deployment
perceived the most important ranking as the one covering “Guestroom”; followed by “Arrival, Billing and
Analytic network process
Departure”; “Restaurant, Food and Beverage”; “Staff”; and “Facilities and Other Services”. While for service
recovery, the most effective means to deal with service failures were “Immediate Correcting of Problem”; fol-
lowed by “Apology”; “Replacement”; “Discount”; and then the remaining four service recovery actions. This
study may contribute to the literature as an important reference for academics and professionals, specifically
those in the hospitality industry, as it identifies the critical factors of customer satisfaction to enhance the hotel
service quality.

1. Research Motivation
Services play a vital role in the development the world’s economies,
and are a key part of daily business (Kunz and Hogreve, 2011). Among
the various service industries, the tourism is one of the leading sectors,
because it generates huge revenues and creates a positive trade balance
in many countries (Sumaco and Hussain, 2011). Along with the growth
of tourism, the hospitality industry has also become more important
(Sumaco and Hussain, 2011). However, in a highly competitive en-
vironment the hotel industry is facing many challenges with regard to
meeting the high quality demands of customers in order to achieve
customer satisfaction (Paryani et al., 2010). It is suggested that the cost
of attracting new customers is three to five times higher than that of
retaining current customers (Hoffman and Chung, 1999). Therefore, the
appropriate strategy for a service firm is to work to keep current cus-
tomers through promoting service quality and customer satisfaction
(Frederick and Thomas, 1996; Hess et al., 2003; Ok et al., 2005).
However, the process of delivering services is influenced by many un-
controllable factors, such as customers’ changing expectations, high
human involvement, and an uncertain environment (Vázquez-Casielles
et al., 2010), and thus service failures are inevitable. However, an ef-
fective recovery can make dissatisfied customers gain their satisfaction
back. Customers have different service recovery preferences, so when a
failure happens it is critical for service recovery efforts to consider these
(Nguyen et al., 2012). Nevertheless, a comprehensive study on har-
monizing service failures with service solutions does not appear in the
literature. This study thus aims to bridge this gap by adopting the
concepts of quality function deployment (QFD) and analytic network
process (ANP). This study applies QFD because it considers simulta-
neously the attributes of the failures and the solutions of the failures.
Meanwhile, ANP is employed to determine the importance levels in the
House of Quality (part of QFD), considering the interrelationship
among the failures and solutions to these in the hotel industry. There-
fore, it is expected that this study’s results can give directions and
suggestions for hotel managers to treat customers better during service
failure. The QFD approach may also be very helpful for academics
aiming to validate recovery effectiveness in the service industry.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Service Failure
According to Boshoff (1997), service failures are inevitable in the
service industry. Service failures occur when customers’ perceptions of

⁎
Corresponding author at: No. 4, Airlangga Rd., Gubeng, Surabaya 60286, Indonesia.
E-mail addresses: wanyi@nhu.edu.tw (W.-Y. Wu), alfiyatul.qomariyah@feb.unair.ac.id (A. Qomariyah), truongsakt@gmail.com (N.T.T. Sa), yksuper889@nhu.edu.tw (Y. Liao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.03.010
Received 28 June 2016; Received in revised form 26 February 2018; Accepted 14 March 2018
Available online 23 March 2018
0278-4319/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W.-Y. Wu et al.
service delivery do not meet their expectations (Kelley et al., 1994;
Palmer et al., 2000). As a result, different negative consequences could
arise, such as complaint behavior and negative word-of-mouth (Xu and
Li, 2016). These negative actions could also include unhappiness, dis-
pleasure, and dissatisfaction (Wan et al., 2011; del Río-Lanza et al.,
2009). In the worst cases, customers may leave the hotel and voice their
dissatisfaction to release tension, thus spreading negative word-of-
mouth (Xu and Li, 2016). This indicates that service failure may result
in losing customer loyalty and confidence, consumers’ switching to
other competitors, complaints to third parties (Kuenzel and Katsaris,
2009; McCole, 2004), and customer defection, all of which further lead
to lost revenues and increased costs, also decrease employee morale and
performance (Bitner et al., 1990), as well as causing some other nega-
tive emotions (Baker et al., 2008). Therefore, service recovery and re-
covery satisfaction are regarded as the top priorities for hotels to deal
with any service failures that occur.
2.2. Service Recovery
According to Zeithaml et al. (1993), service recovery refers to the
employees’ performance as a result of a service delivery failure, as as-
sessed from the customer’s point of view. In recent research, most
customers tend to evaluate service recovery through three dimensions
of justice: distributive, procedural, and interactional. Customers tends
to evaluate the fairness of the output compared to the input in the
exchange process (Maxham, 2001). The first dimension is distributive
justice, it focuses on the fairness of an exchange by comparing inputs to
outcomes to form an equity score (Nguyen et al., 2012), which is re-
lated to the benefit received by costumers as a result of the service
recovery efforts. Procedural justice concerns the fairness of the process
used in delivering the final outcomes of service recovery to customers
(Tax et al., 1998). The last dimension is interactional justice, associated
with the quality of the interpersonal treatment and communication that
occurs during the recovery process (Lee et al., 2011). A process is
considered fair when the firms treat customers courteously (Tyler,
1994). Some qualitative studies into service failure used the critical
incident technique (CIT) to record failure incidents in hotel services
(Bitner et al., 1990; Hoffman and Chung, 1999; Lee et al., 2011). Ser-
vice recovery is important, because it can enhance not only customer
perceptions of the quality of the focal service, but also customer sa-
tisfaction, which further leads to positive word-of-mouth, better cus-
tomer relationship and loyalty, and finally increased profits (Bitner
et al., 1990). Therefore, understanding service failure is crucial in order
to have appropriate service recovery actions in this context. However,
the ranking of the importance of the service failures has not been ex-
plored, and so this study tries to rank service failures based on the
customers’ point of views.
2.3. Service Quality (SERVQUAL)
According to Tax and Brown (1998), only 5%-10% of dissatisfied
customer choose to complain when service failure occurs, implying that
high percentage of customers may choose to do or say nothing. It is
difficult for managers to identify service failures without any com-
plaints, and so hotel managers have to put in place systems to catch the
reality of service failure, service recovery, and service satisfaction.
PZB’s SERVQUAL is a reliable and valid instrument, and is not only
used for setting service quality standards, but also to identify service
failures. Parasuraman et al. (1988) presented a five-dimension of ser-
vice quality construct, PZB SERVQUAL, consisting of tangibles (phy-
sical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel); reliability
(ability to perform a promised service dependably and accurately);
responsiveness (willingness to help customers and providing speedy
service); assurance (knowledge and courtesy of the employees and their
ability to inspire trust); and empathy (the care and individualized at-
tention the firm provides for its customer). Following Paryani et al.
49
International Journal of Hospitality Management 75 (2018) 48–57
Table 1
Definition of Hotel’s SERVQUAL Dimensions.
Source: Paryani et al. (2010).
Dimension Definition
Tangibles Physical aspects of hotel services, such as the appearance of
facilities, equipment, personnel and communication material.
Reliability Hotel services are provided as promised
Responsiveness Hotel services are provided when promised, hotel employee are
always willing to help guests.
Assurance Hotel employees are polite and courteous, and are
knowledgeable when answering guests.
Empathy Hotel employees pay attention to guests’ requirements
(2010), this study defines the five dimensions of SERVQUAL as shown
in Table 1.
The process of delivering a service includes the customer’s ex-
pectations, management application, management and customer per-
ception. Service quality is quite different from that of tangible products,
due to the high degree of uncertainty with regard to many elements.
These include service invisibility, and the inconsistency which exists
between customer service expectations and perceptions of the actual
service. However, using the gap between expectations and perceptions
it is possible to identify possible service failures (Bhandari et al., 2007).
Service recovery is classified as the actions undertaken by the ser-
vice provider to respond to service failures (Mattila and Patterson,
2004). It consists of the actions and ways that the firm uses to react to,
correct, or restore the loss experienced by customers due to service
failures (Huang, 2011). An appropriate service recovery provides a
reason for customers to stay loyal to the current service provider after a
service failure (Colgate and Norris, 2001). However, previous studies
just mentioned general recovery in a general situation, and in particular
situations customers tend to be more demanding. Furthermore, pre-
vious studies only mentioned the effects of service failure or service
recovery, without discussing how the certain service failures can be
solved by service recovery efforts (Lee et al., 2016; Xie and Heung,
2012). Previous studies also did not discuss which kind of service re-
covery is suitable for a certain service failure. Moreover, there have
been no studies on how to apply different recovery tools to satisfy
different customers for different service failures in different hotel de-
partments, or how to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of dif-
ferent recovery tools in different situations. This study thus attempts to
employ three different methods: Quality Function Deployment (QFD),
Analytic Network Process (ANP), and the Critical Incident Technique
(CIT) to address these issues. QFD is as an effective tool to understand
and transfer customers’ needs and demands to a specific product or
service (Prasad, 1998; Temponi et al., 1999). Most of the previous QFD
studies focused on tangible products, but it is possible to apply the same
ideas to services (Paryani et al., 2010). QFD can help in understanding
the customers’ real requirements (Bouchereau and Rowlands, 2000),
and prioritizing the importance of these (González et al., 2004). CIT is
thus adopted in this study to identify positive service failures in dif-
ferent hotel departments, while ANP is adopted to identify the im-
portance of each failure based on customer perceptions.
QFD is designed to identify different service recovery solutions for
different service failures. The House of Quality (HOQ) is also applied in
this study to help hotel managers design service recovery solutions to
satisfy customers’ requirements (Karasak, 2004).
3. Methodology
3.1. Sampling Plan
The survey in this study was conducted among customers and ex-
perts who use or work in hotels, respectively. The process divided into
the following steps: First, fifty-four customers who have experienced a
W.-Y. Wu et al.
service failure at four- or five-star hotels in 15 cities in Vietnam were
asked to report the failure that they had faced using the CIT method.
After collecting details of service failures from customers, and by using
a function of QFD, the experts then gave service recovery solutions
based on their experience and the specific situation that matched each
service failure. Fourteen experts from the hotel industry, ranging from
staff to managers, were invited to participate in this study. At the same
time, experts were asked which solutions influence or are influenced by
the others.
In the second step, based on the results of the first, the ANP ques-
tionnaire was designed and delivered to the respondents, including
customers and experts. For the customer group, the questionnaires are
delivered via email and Facebook groups, along with an explanation of
this study’s purposes. Meanwhile, for the experts, the questionnaires
were delivered by email only. After the ANP questionnaires were re-
turned, the researcher used Excel to analyze the data, and then made
conclusions and suggestions based on this.
3.2. Research Design
This study is conducted in Vietnam, a growing country with a par-
ticular focus on tourism (Lam, 1997). The results of this work are thus
expected to provide an effective recovery strategy for Vietnamese hotel
managers when working to resolve service failures. The research fra-
mework integrates PZB’s (1988) SERVQUAL dimensions (tangible, re-
liability, assurance, empathy, and responsiveness) in order to examine
service failure cases. Service failures are categorized into five groups:
Arrival/Billing; Departure (SFA) Facilities & Service (SFF); Staff (SFS);
Restaurant, Food and Beverage (SFR); and Guestroom (SFG); and
measured by 24 items modified from Sumaco and Hussain, 2011. The
purpose of this questionnaire is to rate the importance of service fail-
ures from customers’ point of view. In order to help respondents to
understand the contents of the dimensions and criteria, a short ex-
planation with examples was provided at the beginning of the ques-
tionnaire. Meanwhile, the measurements of service recovery are de-
veloped based on customer perceptions after interviews were
conducted. Three dimensions of justice theory are also used to classify
the recovery performance. Based on this, service recovery in this study
consists of nine possible actions: Apology, Explanation, Immediately
Correct Problem, Upgrade/Change Room, Discount, Managerial Inter-
vention, Replacement, and Do Nothing. The research framework (the
House of Quality and ANP) used in this study is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. The House of Quality Matrix.
50
International Journal of Hospitality Management 75 (2018) 48–57
3.3. Critical Incident Technique (CIT)
The Critical Incident Technique (CIT) is adopted in this study to
identify possible service failures in different hotel departments. Fifty-
four respondents who had experienced service failures at four- or five-
star hotels were invited to participate in this study through open-ended
questionnaires. Throughout the questionnaire, the respondents were
asked to the report their experiences of hotel service failures. The re-
spondents were also asked to explain their satisfaction with regard to
the related recovery efforts. To avoid bias, the CIT questionnaires were
developed based on Lee et al. (2011), which also had an instrument
examining the hotel industry. Demographic information, including age,
education level, and annual income, were also included in the interview
questions.
The researchers conducted 54 interviews with respondents who had
experienced service failures at four- and five-star hotels in 15 cities in
Vietnam. All respondents 3454 asked to report service on failures they
had encountered. These were then grouped into several categories via
the process of classification. After conducting in-depth interviews,
coding and classification was carried out and a total of 86 incidents
were identified. These incidents were further classified into 24 event
themes and five categories, as shown in Table 2.
The demographic results show that 61% of customers were female.
The customers were mostly 19-35 years old, with 48% of them 19-25
50% of them were 26-35, and 2% of them older than 36. As for the
experts, 50% of them were female. A total of 43% of the experts were
19-25 years old, 50% were 26-35, and 7% were older than 36. The
demographic information included three major parts: (1) gender, (2)
age, and (3) level of education.
3.4. Analytic Network Process (ANP)
ANP is applied in this study to identify the most effective solutions
for different service failures. The ANP questionnaire employs a system
of pair-wise comparisons among service recovery solutions by calcu-
lating the weight of the elements of the network structure. For the
purposes of this research, both customer and expert questionnaires
were designed. For the customer interviews, 54 respondents were asked
to make a pair-wise comparison of service failure solutions to different
kinds of different service failures, with the responses ranging from
1 = equally important to 9 = much more important. Fifty-four custo-
mers and 10 experts (working for more than 10 years as four- or five-
star hotel managers) participated in this survey. The experts were asked
to evaluate the importance of the service recovery solutions regarding
different kinds of service failures.
W.-Y. Wu et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management 75 (2018) 48–57

Table 2 (HOQ), originally used to design products based on customer needs

Summary of Service Failure Event. (Karsak, 2004). Recently, the HOQ concept was further extended to the
service sector (Camgöz-Akdag et al., 2013; Pakdil et al., 2012; González
Categories Event Themes Code and
Count et al., 2005). Within the HOQ, QFD’s straightforward procedure is
performed under seven sections, namely (1) service failures; (2) service
Arrival/Billing, Departure Slow check in SFA1-03 recovery solutions; (3) important rating; (4) relationship matrix; (5)
(SFA) Room not ready SFA2- 01
correlation matrix; (6) score; and (7) rank. As shown in Fig. 1, the
Receptionist not friendly SFA3-03
Wrong room order SFA4-04 starting point on the left-hand side of HOQ is service failures resulting
Bill incorrect SFA5-01 from customer complaints. These service failures are then transformed
Guest Room (SFG) Bed sheet dirty SFG1-02
into service recovery actions. With their expertise in the hospitality
Room not clean SFG2-11 industry, experts can find the matching solutions from, a list of ways to
No hot water after midnight in SFG3-06 treat service failures. The importance rating shows the relative im-
the bathroom portance as evaluated by the customers and experts with regard to each
Lack of amenities and/or SFG4-05
service failure. The relationship matrix shows the relationship level
slippers
Too small room SFG5-02 between (1) and (2) above. Most of the previous studies use a nine-point
scale to evaluate the relationship between service failure and service
Restaurant, Food and Foods not of high quality SFR1-04
Beverage (SFR) Foods unlike brochure SFR2-01 recovery solutions; with “1” representing a weak relationship and “9”
Variety of foods and beverage SFR3-05 an extremely strong one.
limited ANP is used in the QFD model in this study to incorporate the inner
Rotten foods/Foods not cooked SFR4-01 dependences into service recovery solutions (SRSs) in the HOQ. The
properly
HOQ matrix is shown in Fig. 1. ANP takes into consideration the degree
Slow food service SFR5-02
of interdependences between SRSs and then prioritizes them using the
Staff (SFS) Staff not courteous SFS1-05
relative importance weights obtained by pair-wise comparisons. The
Staff unfriendly SFS2-07
Staff untidy in appearance SFS3-01 supper matrix W representation of the ANP-QFD model used in this
Staff not courteously SFS4-01 study is as follows:
Facilities and Other Services Laundry service not good SFF1-01
(SFF) Telephone sounds unclear SFF2-01
G CS−C A
Unusable TV, Small TV SFF3-02 Goal ⎡ 0 0 0 0 ⎤
Slow room service SFF4-03 Criteria ⎢W21 0 0 0 ⎥
Internet not working (weak SFF5-07 w = Sub − criteria ⎢ 0 W32 0 0 ⎥
wifi) Alternative ⎢ 0 0 W43 W44 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Total: 5 24 79
In this, the unweighted super-matrix W is the result of local pairwise
comparisons from all clusters in the network, goal G, and weight super-
The results of the ANP from customers are compared with those
matrix C is calculated by multiplying the value of the unweighted
from the experts. The results indicate that the opinions between two
super-matrix by the weight of each cluster. W21 is then the matrix of the
groups are consistent, and nine types of service recovery solutions were
Service Failures (SF) that represents the impact of the goal; while W32 is
identified. Based on the customers’ expectations, there are thus nine
the matrix that denotes the contribution of service failure at the node
types of recovery actions that can be used to solve service failure pro-
level to service failure at the cluster level. W43 is the matrix that denotes
blems. These service recovery actions range from offering tangible
the influence of service recovery solutions on service failures at the
benefits to intangible ones, as shown in Table 3.
node level; while W44 is the matrix that denotes the inner-dependence
among SRSs. There are thus five steps that need to be done, as follows:
3.5. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Step 1: Identifying the Service Failures (SFs) and Determining the
Service Recovery Solutions (SRSs) Matching the SRSs with the SFs, then
QFD is a customer-oriented tool to translate the voice of customers completing the interdependences within the HOQ.
into typical a services (Prasad, 1998; Temponi et al., 1999). QFD was Service failures are identified using CIT, as mentioned above. Based
the first defined by Akao, (1990) and implemented by the Mitsubishi on QFD, we transfer the service failures to the service recovery section.
company in 1972 in Japan. The key part of QFD is the House of Quality We then complete the service failures and service recovery solutions

Table 3
Summary of Service Recovery Actions.

Types of Service Recovery Description

Apology (A1) When service failure occurs, staff or the manager will directly say sorry for the inconvenience. This action can be used only in situations
that cannot be covered by any tangible benefit or offered along with other actions.
Explanation (A2) According to customers there is a failure, but the hotel may not think so. For example, if customers wait for a long time to check-in then
they think this is problem, and the staff or manager should explain the hotel’s policy on this point, or why this problem occurs.
Immediately Correct Problem (A3) This refers to the reaction of hotel after receiving complaints from customers. Actions such as repairing the room telephone or sending the
housekeeper to clean the room or change the bed sheet, and so on.
Free Additional Service (A4) This is the type of compensation a hotel offers to the customer when they cannot correct the service failure problems immediately. In case
of “slow check-in”, the hotel can offer a free drink to make up for the waiting time.
Upgrade/Change Room (A5) This occurs when the guest is upgraded or moved to another room with higher/same price. For example, if guests feel uncomfortable, they
may be offered to move free to another room or only charged a small fee.
Discount (A6) This refers to situation when a guest receives a discount from the total bill or from each service offered due to the service failure.
Managerial Intervention (A7) This used in large service failure problems, when the manager must act to solve them.
Replacement (A8) This recovery action is used for solving problems when the service failure cannot be corrected and another service needs to be offered. For
example, if food is not cooked properly, instead of cooking it again the hotel will replace it with another dish.
Do Nothing (A9) No action even although service failure occurs.

51
W.-Y. Wu et al.
section in HOQ.
Step 2: Calculation of the Super Matrix.
In this step, we calculate the importance rating of service failures;
the matrix relationship between service recovery solutions and service
failures; and the matrix relationship among service recoveries them-
selves using W21, ¬W¬32, W¬43 and W¬44. First, we determine the
importance of SFs, calculate W21 and W32, then calculate the im-
portance rating of service failures. We can get the weighted super
matrix by multiplying all the elements in each component of the lower
level with the corresponding upper level weight. Second, we determine
the degree of importance of SRSs in relation to SFs by assuming that
there is no dependency among the former. Calculate W43 then fill out
the body of HOQ. Finally, calculate W44 by determining the inner de-
pendency matrix of SRSs concerning each SRS.
Step 3: Check the Consistency of the Comparison Matrix.
In order to test the validity of the outcomes, the consistency of the
comparison matrix needs to be examined. The consistency test of ANP is
designed to ensure the consistency of the judgments by decision makers
throughout the process (Kwong and Bai, 2003; Lin et al., 2010). Ac-
cording to Satty (1980), he adopting the consistency index, CI, and
consistency ratio, CR, a comparison matrix can be calculated using the
following equation:
CI = (λ_max-n)/(n-1); CR = CI/RI
Where λ_max is the largest Eigenvalue of the comparison matrix; n is
the dimension of the matrix; and RI is a random index that depends on
n. The CI should be less than 0.1 to prove that the consistency level of
the pair-wise comparison matrix is acceptable. If CI and CR are greater
than 0.1, this indicates that the results of decision process are not
consistent, and so we need to perform the pair-wise comparison again.
Table 4 shows the consistency index, RI, of a Random Matrix.
Step 4: Calculate the Total Score and Ranking of Service Recovery
Solutions.
In this step, we assume that there are m SFs and n SRSs. The score of
each SRS will then be calculated using the equation below:
m
ASj = ∑ Rij AS*IRi , i = 1, 2, 3...., m; j = 1, 2, 3, ..., n
i=1
Where: ASj = score of service recovery solutions; Rij = the weight as-
signed to the relationship matrix; IRi = importance rating of service
failures.
Step 5: Completing the House of Quality and Selecting the Best
Solutions for the Service Failure Problems.
We calculate all the weight vectors and fill out all the components of
HOQ. Based on the results of the overall priority of the service recovery
solutions, the largest numbers denote the most suitable solutions for all
service failures in order to satisfy customers.
4. Results
4.1. Overall Service Failures
Among the 54 respondents, 50 customers achieved a consistency
ratio lower than 0.1. Table 5 shows the Eigenvector (EV) comparison
matrix among service failures.
The last column indicates the importance rating of service failures
from the customers’ point of view when they use hotel services. “SFG”
weighs 0.289, and thus customers believe that service failures related to
Table 4
Consistency Index, RI, of Random Matrixes.
Source: Golden et al., 1989.
n 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
RI(n) 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41
International Journal of Hospitality Management 75 (2018) 48–57
“Guestroom” as the most important issue; followed by “Arrival, Billing
and Departure” (SFA) with EV = 0.271; then “Restaurant, Food and
Beverage (SFR)” with EV = 0. 197; “Staff (SFS)” with EV = 0.152; and,
lastly, “Facilities and Other services” is considered the least important
for customers, with EV = 0.091. Fig. 2 shows the overall importance
ratings of the groups and sub-groups for the detailed items of service
failures.
4.2. Relational Matrix in HOQ
For each service failure there are many service recovery solutions
that could be used. Based on the specific situation, managers should
employ the most effective service recovery actions to address the si-
tuation and satisfy customers. Table 6 shows the relationship between
service recovery and service failure in the body of HOQ.
The results indicate that each service failure should have at least a
matching service recovery action to solve the problem. For example,
“Room not ready” can be satisfied by four actions: “Apology”;
“Immediately Correct the Problem”; “Free Additional Service”; and
“Upgrade/Change Room”. Among these, “Immediately Correct the
Problem” has the highest weight (0.548); followed by “Upgrade/
Change Room” with EV = 0.283; “Apology” with EV = 0.117; and the
least suitable is “Free Additional Service”, with EV = 0.052. Moreover,
staff unfriendly (0.480); the staff are not being courteous (0.742); tel-
ephone sounds unclear (0.833); unusable or small TV (0.480); and slow
room service (0.655) can be solved with an apology (A1). Slow check-in
(0.511) and slow food service (0.480) can be recovered by an ex-
planation (A2). Room not ready (0.548); room not clean (0.723); no hot
water after midnight in the bathroom (0.669); and lack of amenities
including comb, tooth brush, and/or slippers (0.833) are best served
with an action to correct the problem immediately (A3). ‘Laundry
service is not good’ (0.509) can be recovered by offering a free addi-
tional service (A4). Wrong room order (0.748) and room is too small
(0.669) can be solved by upgrading/changing room (A5). Not high
quality food (0.563); food is not like in the brochure (0.798); and rotten
food/uncooked food (0.397) can be solved by giving discounts (A6).
Not friendly receptionist (0.818); incorrect bill (0.748); and limited
variety of food and beverages (0.655) can be solved by managerial
intervention (A7). The staff are not willing to help (0.633) and staff’s
untidy appearance may be solved by doing nothing.
4.3. The Relations among Service Recovery Solutions
For QFD, the roof of HOQ aims to identify the interrelationships
among service recovery solutions. This roof is shown in Table 7.
As seen in the table, among the various service recovery solutions,
“Explanation (A2)” has the highest correlation with “Apology (A1)”
(EV=0.566); followed by “Free Additional Service (A4)” (EV=0.236);
“Discount (A6)” (EV=0.147) and “Do Nothing (A9)” (EV=0.039). This
implies that when using the recovery action of “Explanation (A2)” to
resolve problems, it can be more effective to combine it with “Apology
(A1)” than the other solutions. Similarly, related to “Immediately
Correct Problem (A3)”, “Apology (A1)” also has the highest correlation
(EV=0.857); followed by “Managerial Intervention (A8)” (EV=0.143).
In the case of service recovery, the combination of two solutions
“Immediately Correct Problem (A3)” and “Apology (A1)” could be more
effective than the combination of two other solutions. The solutions of
“Upgrade/Change Room (A5)” and “Free Additional Service (A4)” have
the highest correlation (EV=0.604); followed by “Discount (A6)”
(EV=0.264); and “Replacement (A8)” (EV=0.132). Thus, using the
combination of two solutions, “Upgrade/Change Room (A5)” combined
with “Free Additional Service (A4)”, could be more effective than
combining “Upgrade/Change Room (A5)” with another response. For
1.45 the solution of “Do Nothing (A9)”, “Apology (A1)” combined with
“Explanation (A2)” could be more effective than “Apology (A1)” alone.
52
W.-Y. Wu et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management 75 (2018) 48–57

Table 5
Comparison Matrix and Eigenvector of Overall of Service Failures.

Goal Arrival, Billing and Departure (SFA) Guest Room Restaurant Food and Beverage Staff Facilities and Other Services W21
(SFG) (SFR) (SFS) (SFF)

Arrival, Billing and Departure (SFA) 1.000 1.581 1.253 1.767 2.013 0.271
Guest Room 0.633 1.000 2.193 2.570 2.786 0.289
(SFG)
Restaurant Food and Beverage 0.798 0.456 1.000 1.826 2.300 0.197
(SFR)
Staff 0.566 0.389 0.548 1.000 2.851 0.152
(SFS)
Facilities and Other Services 0.497 0.359 0.435 0.351 1.000 0.091
(SFF)

Note: CI = 0.0621, CR = 0.0550.

Figures in the lower part of the matrix are the comparison matrix, while figure as shown in the higher part of the matrix are eigenvectors.

Fig. 2. Importance rating of different service failures.

53
 W.-Y. Wu et al.

Table 6
Total Score and Ranking of Service Recovery Solutions.

Service Failure Importance Apology (A1) Explanation (A2) Immediately Free Additional Upgrade/ Discount (A6) Managerial Replacement (A8) Do Nothing
Rating Correct Actions Service (A4) Change Room Intervention (A7) (A9)
(A3) (A5)

Arrival/Billing, Slow check-in (SFA1) 0.081 0.389 0.511 0.100

Departure (SFA) Room not ready (SFA2) 0.075 0.117 0.548 0.052 0.283
Receptionist not friendly 0.055 0.091 0.818 0.091
(SF3)
Wrong room order (SF4) 0.037 0.180 0.071 0.748
Bill incorrect (SF5) 0.022 0.180 0.071 0.748

Guest Room (SFG) Bed sheet dirty (SFG1) 0.129 0.064 0.267 0.669
Room not clean (SFG2) 0.085 0.061 0.216 0.723
No hot water after 0.037 0.064 0.267 0.669
midnight in the bathroom
(SFG3)
Lack of amenities (comb, 0.020 0.167 0.833
tooth brush) and/or
slippers (SFG4)
Room too small (SFG5) 0.017 0.669 0.267 0.064

Restaurant, Food Foods not high quality 0.079 0.154 0.128 0.563 0.154
and Beverage (SFR1)
(SFR) Foods unlike brochure 0.044 0.105 0.097 0.798

54
(SFR2)
Variety of foods and 0.024 0.187 0.655 0.158
beverages limited (SFR3)
Rotten foods/Foods not 0.037 0.062 0.334 0.397 0.206
cooked properly (SFR4)
Slow food service (SFR5) 0.013 0.115 0.480 0.405

Staff (SFS) Staff not willing to help 0.069 0.260 0.106 0.633
(SFS1)
Staff unfriendly (SFS2) 0.043 0.480 0.115 0.405
Staff untidy in appearance 0.018 0.105 0.097 0.798
(SFS3)
Staff not courteous (SFS4) 0.021 0.724 0.193 0.083

Facilities and Other Laundry service not good 0.029 0.421 0.070 0.509
Services (SFF) (SFF1)
Telephone sounds unclear 0.017 0.833 0.167
(SFF2)
Unusable TV, small TV 0.014 0.480 0.115 0.405
(SFF3)
Slow room service (SFF4) 0.017 0.655 0.187 0.158
Internet not working 0.014 0.267 0.064 0.669
(weak WiFi) (SFF5)

Score 0.1952 0.093 0.198 0.047 0.0605 0.099 0.096 0.1214 0.091
Percentage 19.5% 9.3% 19.8% 4.7% 6.0% 9.9% 9.6% 12.1% 9.1%
Ranking 2 6 1 9 8 4 5 3 7
International Journal of Hospitality Management 75 (2018) 48–57
W.-Y. Wu et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management 75 (2018) 48–57

Table 7 direct contact with the customers. The failure to provide these services
Correlations among Service Recovery Solutions (Roof of HOQ). leads to customer dissatisfaction.
With regard to the effectiveness of service recovery solutions, the
W44 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9
most effective action is “Immediately Correct the Problem”; followed by
A1 0 0.556 0.857 0 0 0 0.171 0.145 0.750 “Apology”; and them the other actions. The main reason for this result
A2 0.147 0 0 0.163 0 0.685 0 0 0.250 is because customers demand a quick response from the hotel staff.
A3 0.527 0 0 0 0 0 0.708 0 0
Failure to act after the service failure happens may make customers feel
A4 0 0.236 0 0 0.604 0 0 0.619 0
A5 0 0 0 0.727 0 0.094 0 0.237 0 uncomfortable, that they are being treated unjustly, and so dissatisfied.
A6 0 0.147 0 0 0.264 0 0.121 0 0 These findings are different to those in previous research (Hoffman and
A7 0.138 0 0.143 0 0 0.221 0 0 0 Chung, 1999) on some points. The previous study stated that com-
A8 0.149 0 0 0.109 0.132 0 0 0 0 pensatory, managerial and corrective responses are perceived as far
A9 0.039 0.062 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
more effective than empathetic responses or doing nothing. There are
also some other differences. First, “Apology” is in the second place in
5. Conclusions and Discussion term of being an effective recovery action. This means that it is con-
sidered the most effective recovery action in dealing with service fail-
5.1. Research Conclusions ures. Hotel’s staff should thus apologize right after a problem occurs.
This is important because it is related to social ethics: those who have
The main objective of this study was to explore service failures by committed a mistake should first apologize. Similarly, staff need to
using CIT and apply the QFD and ANP methods to find the effective apologize to the customers immediately. Secondly, in some situations
recovery actions for different service failures in the hospitality industry. the action of “Do Nothing” was more common than “Free Additional
This research extends our understanding of typical service failure and Service” and “Upgrade/Change Room”. The difference that emerged in
service recovery solutions by adding new methodology and applying a this study is due to different perspectives between customers and hotel
comprehensive method. It also aims to develop a strategy to help hotel managers. In the previous research, the effectiveness of recovery ac-
managers boosting customer satisfaction while handling their com- tions was only evaluated by customers, while in this work the effective
plaints. Based on the results of this study, several conclusions could be actions were listed based on the hotel managers’ opinions after carefully
drawn. Regarding the results of CIT, there are many service failures and considering the importance of service failures, as rated by customers.
service recovery actions that emerged from the in-depth interviews. This means that the current results reflect the perspectives of both
However, hotel guests mostly complain about the core services, such as customers and hotel managers. Another reason for this work’s different
guestroom, restaurant, food and beverages. This result is supported by findings is that most previous research in this field were conducted in
Lewis and McCann (2004) and Lee et al., (2011). According to Kim and the West, while this study was conducted in Asia. In addition, the least
Jang (2016), the core service failure of a restaurant is related to the effective actions to solve service failures are “Free Additional Service”
physical outcomes that customers receive from the service, such as food and ”Upgrade/Change Room”, because customers want the hotels staff
is not cooked properly or is unlike that shown in brochure. Another to solve the problem they have, rather than to provide alternative
concern with regard to service failure is related to the attitudes and benefits. For example, during check-in procedures if the staff cannot do
behaviors of the staff. Staff who treat customers rudely, are unfriendly, it quickly and give some free snacks as compensation, then the custo-
and not willing to help can create service failure (Ha and Jang, 2009). mers may not be satisfied with this kind of service recovery. This ad-
Indeed, the findings of this study suggest that most service failures arise ditional service may not fulfill customer needs, even if it might be
when hotel service staff fail to meet the standard quality and customer prudent to give other benefits to them. It is thus the least effective so-
requirements mentioned in the SERVQUAL model. As for service re- lution in service recovery.
covery, nine types of actions were considered, ranging from apology In comparing the effectiveness of recovery actions according to the
and intangible compensation to tangible compensation. According to three dimensions of justice theory (McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003),
justice theory, “Apology”; “Explanation” and “Managerial Intervention” the effectiveness of each dimension depends on each service failure.
meet the criteria of interactional justice, “Free Additional Service”; Therefore, it can be concluded that in most situations “Immediately
“Upgrade/Change Room”; “Discount” and “Replacement” are belong to Correct Problem” is the most effective action, which means that when
the dimension of distributive justice”, while “Immediately Correct solving problems the dimension of procedural justice is more effective
Problem” not only belongs to distributive justice, but also to procedural than the others. Therefore, empowering customer-contact employees
justice. In contrast, the action of “Do Nothing” belongs to none of the may be useful in this situation (Ha and Jang, 2009). However, with
dimensions. service failures related to the behavior of staff, “Apology” is the most
The importance ratings of service failures from customers’ point of effective action, meaning that interactional justice can be more effec-
views indicate that service failures in relation to “Guestroom” (28.9%) tive than the other two dimensions. Employees should thus give a
are the most important; followed by “Arrival, Billing/Departure” sincere apology with an explanation of the problem so that the service
(27.1%); “Restaurant, Food and Beverage” (19.7%); “Staff” (15.2%); recovery efforts would be more effective, because a simple apology
and “Facilities and Other Services” (9.1%). The findings further suggest would not be accepted by the customers (Ha and Jang, 2009).
that customers care very much about the core-service offered by the Turning to correlations between the service recovery solutions that
service provider. With regard to a further grouping of the service fail- appeared in the roof of HOQ, from a hotel manager’s point of view it is
ures, “Slow check-in” was the most critical service failure for customers. necessary to combine at least to actions. The action of “Apology” is
with the highest importance weight. This means that customers are very often accompanied by other forms of compensation, especially in-
concerned about being able to check-in quickly, and if not they will feel tangible ones such as “Explanation”, “Immediately Correct Problem”,
disappointed. In addition, “dirty bed sheets”; “non-high quality food”; “Managerial Intervention”, “Replacement” and “Do Nothing”.
“unwillingness of the staff to help”; and “laundry service is not good” Customers are more satisfied with the apologies they receive from staff
are some of the most important service failures that should be taken with a smile and good attitude, along with other actions. In relation to
care of. Customer satisfaction is the main goal in the hospitality in- the action of “Do Nothing”, only “Apology” can accompany this. For
dustry, and thus it is important to ensure that hotel services make example, if a failure is related to the behavior of staff, no compensation
guests feel comfortable. Bed sheets should be clean and neat; food is more effective than “Apology”. This is because when employees show
should be high quality; and staff shall be friendly, especially those in the customer respect, politeness, and an appreciation of their thoughts,
feelings, and efforts (Aguilar-Rojas et al., 2015) by apologizing for their

55
W.-Y. Wu et al.
mistakes, then customers will feel relief, which further creates positive
behavior. Overall, The outer relationships (relationships among the
three dimensions) are stronger than the inner relationships (relation-
ship among the recovery actions in one dimension).
5.2. Managerial Implications
The purpose of this study was to explore service failures in the hotel
industry and identify the importance different failures from the custo-
mers’ point of view. Firstly, in terms of service failure, core-service
failure, such as failures related to the “Guestroom”, such as “bed sheet
dirty”, “room not clean” or “lack of amenities”, are the most important
to customers. However, according to justice theory, customers can be
satisfied if they treated fairly by recovery actions (McColl-Kennedy and
Sparks, 2003). Based on this, hotel managers should put more efforts
into recovering service failures when they occur and try to avoid them
from happening as much as possible. Therefore, managers need to
provide an appropriate level of compensation according to the type of
mistake their staff have made (Kim and Jang, 2016), and then custo-
mers may choose not to complain after experiencing a service failure.
Furthermore, the results also demonstrate the vital role of housekeeping
in hotels. The results of this study suggest that managers need to ensure
the core product, such as the guestrooms, have consistent high quality.
Housekeeping staff should thus have monthly training because it can
help them do their work better. As explained by Lee et al. (2016), by
having frequent training or seminars, employees can experience im-
provements in important work-related details and feel greater life sa-
tisfaction.
Secondly, the failures that are related to the front office such as
“Slow check-in”, “Receptionist Unfriendly” or “Bill Incorrect” are con-
sidered as the second most important to customers. The front office
section plays a key role in the hotel industry, because it represents the
whole condition of the hotel. Therefore, managers need to assign a
person as receptionist who has good communication, professional skills
and a friendly attitude.
Thirdly, the failures related to the behavior of staff cannot be cov-
ered by any tangible compensation, and these failures are one of the
reasons why customers will not be willing to return to the hotel.
Therefore, hotel managers should hold staff training that can help
employees to improve and share their professional and communication
skills when working with customers. Moreover, training is also need to
ensure that staff are friendly, polite and helpful at all times.
Finally, the most effective recovery action is “Immediately Correct
Problem”, as a quick response plays an important role that contributes
to customer satisfaction. Therefore, a well-organized technical section
is important in a hotel. This means that the technical engineer-in-chief
should establish a repair process that quickly reacts when complaints
are received from customers. In addition, to prevent failures from oc-
curring to items such as telephones, the internet, and other equipment
and facilities, technical engineers need to regularly inspect these.
As a summary, critical incidents related to service failures and re-
covery actions of hotel are explored in this study. The findings can help
hotel managers to classify different service failures and recovery actions
by using CIT, and thus develop management strategies for recovery
solutions. Specifically, service failures related to guestrooms, such as
dirty bed sheets, dirty rooms, or lack of amenities, are considered as the
most critical failures that need to be solved immediately. Furthermore,
the behavior and quality of the staff are also important, because they
interact directly to the customers. The bad behavior and poor person-
ality of staff create bad impressions on customers, leading to greater
dissatisfaction Therefore, hotel managers should hold staff training to
help employees improve their professional and communication skills.
5.3. Limitation and Suggestions
Like all other studies, this research also has notable limitations that
56
International Journal of Hospitality Management 75 (2018) 48–57
could be investigated further in future research. First, the results and
their implications are only targeted at the hotel industry in Vietnam,
and thus applying them in other countries may not be suitable.
Second, the sample size in this study is still small, and future studies
can extend this work not only to more Vietnamese people, but also to
those from other nations. Third, the demographic characteristic of
customers — young and highly educated − may not reflect those of
typical hotel guests.
References
Aguilar-Rojas, O., Fandos-Herrera, C., Flavián-Blanco, C., 2015. What may lead you to
recommend and revisit a hotel after a service failure instead of complaining? Int. J.
Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 27 (2), 214–235.
Akao, Y., 1990. Quality function deployment: integrating customer requirements into
product design. Productivity Press, Cambridge.
Baker, T.L., Meyer, T., Johnson, J.D., 2008. Individual differences in perceptions of ser-
vice failure and recovery: the role of race and discriminatory bias. J. Acad. Market.
Sci. 36 (4), 552–564.
Bhandari, M.S., Tsarenko, Y., Polonsky, M.J., 2007. A proposed multi-dimensional ap-
proach to evaluating service recovery. J. Serv. Market. 21 (3), 174–185.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., Tetreault, M.S., 1990. The service encounter: diagnosing fa-
vorable and unfavorable incidents. J. Market. 1 (1), 71–84.
Boshoff, C., 1997. An experimental study of service recovery options. Int. J. Serv. Ind.
Manage. 8 (2), 110–130.
Bouchereau, V., Rowlands, H., 2000. Methods and techniques to help quality function
deployment (QFD). Benchmarking Int. J. 7 (1), 8–20.
Camgöz-Akdag, H., Tarim, M., Lonial, S., Yatkin, S., 2013. QFD application using
SERVQUAL for private hospitals: a case study. Leadersh. Health Serv. 26 (3),
175–183.
Colgate, M., Norris, M., 2001. Developing a comprehensive picture of service failure. Int.
J. Serv. Ind. Manage. 12 (3), 215–233.
del Río-Lanza, A.B., Vázquez-Casielles, R., Díaz-Martín, A.M., 2009. Satisfaction with
service recovery: perceived justice and emotional responses. J. Bus. Res. 62 (8),
775–781.
Frederick, F.R., Thomas, T., 1996. The loyalty effect: The hidden force behind growth,
profits, and lasting value. Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard.
Golden, B.L., Wasil, E.A., Harker, P.T., 1989. The analytic hierarchy process: Applications
and studies. Verlag: Springer.
González, M.E., Quesada, G., Mack, R., Urrutia, I., 2005. Building an activity-based
costing hospital model using quality function deployment and benchmarking.
Benchmarking Int. J. 12 (4), 310–329.
González, M.E., Quesada, G., Picado, F., Eckelman, C.A., 2004. Customer satisfaction
using QFD: an e-banking case. Managing Serv. Qual. 14 (4), 317–330.
Ha, J., Jang, S.C., 2009. Perceived justice in service recovery and behavioral intentions:
the role of relationship quality. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 28, 319–327.
Hess, R.L., Ganesan, S., Klein, N.M., 2003. Service failure and recovery: the impact of
relationship factors on customer satisfaction. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 31 (2), 127–145.
Hoffman, K.D., Chung, B.G., 1999. Hospitality recovery strategies: Customer preference
versus firm use. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 23 (1), 71–84.
Huang, M.-H., 2011. Re-examining the effect of service recovery: the moderating role of
brand equity. J. Serv. Market. 25 (7), 509–516.
Karsak, E.E., 2004. Fuzzy multiple objective programming framework to prioritize design
requirements in quality function deployment. Comput. Ind. Eng. 47 (2), 149–163.
Kelley, S.W., Hoffman, K.D., Davis, M.A., 1994. A typology of retail failures and re-
coveries. J. Retail. 69 (4), 429–452.
Kim, J.-H., Jang, S.C., 2016. Factors affecting memorability of service failures: a long-
itudinal analysis. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 28 (8), 1676–1701.
Kuenzel, S., Katsaris, N., 2009. A critical analysis of service recovery processes in the
hotel industry. TMC Acad. J. 4 (1), 14–24.
Kunz, W.H., Hogreve, J., 2011. Toward a deeper understanding of service marketing: the
past, the present, and the future. Int. J. Res. Market. 28 (3), 231–247.
Kwong, C., Bai, H., 2003. Determinizing the importance weight for the customer re-
quirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. IIE Trans. 35
(7), 619–626.
Lam, C.M.T., 1997. Hotel and tourism development in Vietnam. J. Travel Tour. Market. 7
(1), 85–91.
Lee, K.-H., Choo, S.-W., Hyun, S.S., 2016. Effects of recovery experiences on hotel em-
ployees’ subjective well-being. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 52, 1–12.
Lee, M.J., Singh, N., Chan, E.S., 2011. Service failures and recovery actions in the hotel
industry: a text-mining approach. J. Vacat. Market. 17 (3), 197–207.
Lewis, B.R., McCann, P., 2004. Service failure and recovery: evidence from the hotel
industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 16 (1), 6–17.
Lin, Y., Cheng, H.-P., Tseng, M.-L., Tsai, J.C., 2010. Using QFD and ANP to analyze the
environmental production requirements in linguistic preferences. Expert Syst. Appl.
37 (3), 2186–2196.
Mattila, A.S., Patterson, P.G., 2004. Service recovery and fairness perceptions in col-
lectivist and individualist contexts. J. Serv. Res. 6 (4), 336–346.
Maxham III, J.G., 2001. Service recovery's influence on consumer satisfaction, positive
word-of-mouth, and purchase intentions. J. Bus. Res. 54 (1), 11–24.
McCole, P., 2004. Dealing with complaints in services. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 16
(6), 345–354.
W.-Y. Wu et al.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Sparks, B.A., 2003. Application of fairness theory to service fail-
ures and service recovery. J. Serv. Res. 5 (3), 251–266.
Nguyen, D.T., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Dagger, T.S., 2012. Matching service recovery so-
lutions to customer recovery preferences. Eur. J. Market. 46 (9), 1171–1194.
Ok, C., Back, K.-J., Shanklin, C.W., 2005. Modeling roles of service recovery strategy: A
relationship-focused view. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 29 (4), 484–507.
Pakdil, F., Işın, F.B., Genç, H., 2012. A quality function deployment application using
qualitative and quantitative analysis in after sales services. Total Qual. Manage. Bus.
Excellence 23 (11–12), 1397–1411.
Palmer, A., Beggs, R., Keown-McMullan, C., 2000. Equity and repurchase intention fol-
lowing service failure. J. Ser. Market. 14 (6), 513–528.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 64 (1), 140–147.
Paryani, K., Masoudi, A., Cudney, E., 2010. QFD application in the hospitality industry: a
hotel case study. Qual. Manage. J. 17 (1), 7–28.
Prasad, B., 1998. Review of QFD and related deployment techniques. J. Manuf. Syst. 17
(3), 221–234.
Satty, T.L., 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill New York, New York.
Sumaco, F.T., Hussain, K., 2011. Evaluation of service recovery strategies in the hotel
industry: Perspective of the front office department. Team J. Hosp. Tour. 8 (1),
44–51.
57
International Journal of Hospitality Management 75 (2018) 48–57
Temponi, C., Yen, J., Amos Tiao, W., 1999. House of quality: a fuzzy logic-based re-
quirements analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 117 (2), 340–354.
Tyler, T.R., 1994. Psychological models of the justice motive: antecedents of distributive
and procedural justice. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67 (5), 850–857.
Vázquez-Casielles, R., Suárez Álvarez, L., Díaz Martín, A.M., 2010. Perceived justice of
service recovery strategies: impact on customer satisfaction and quality relationship.
Psychol. Market. 27 (5), 487–509.
Wan, L.C., Hui, M.K., Wyer Jr., R.S., 2011. The role of relationship norms in responses to
service failures. J. Consum. Res. 38 (2), 260–277.
Xie, D., Heung, V.C.S., 2012. The effects of brand relationship quality on responses to
service failure of hotel Consumers. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 31, 735–744.
Xu, X., Li, Y., 2016. The antecedents of customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction toward
various types of hotels: a text mining approach. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 55, 57–69.
Further reading
Kelley, S.W., 1994. A typology of retail failures and recoveries. J. Retailing 69 (4), 429-
452.