Ijopm R1

International Journal of Operations and Production Management
Applying Quality Function Development in Proactive

Recovery and Failure Prevention Strategies: Taiwans
Restaurant Industry
r
Fo
Journal:
Manuscript ID:
Manuscript Type:
IJOPM-10-2014-0475.R1
Research Paper
service failure , service recovery, proactive recovery and failure prevention
strategy, quality function deployment, analytic hierarchy process
er
Pe
Keywords:
ew
vi
Re
Page 1 of 55
1
2
3
4
Applying Quality Function Deployment in Proactive Recovery and Failure

Prevention Strategies: Taiwans Restaurant Industry
5
6
Introduction
Because a firm whose relative service quality is in the top 20% of its industry can surpass the
7
8
9
prices of its competitors by 8% (Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman, 1996), the assessment and
management of service failures are crucial for firms. Service failures are inevitable (Hart, Heskett,
& Sasser, 1990). Identifying which service failures bother customers the most enables restaurant
10
11
managers to focus on critical service failure and to prevent customers from defecting (Namkung &
Jang, 2010). In most instances, especially in that of severe severe failures, the loss of customers and
12
service providers is unavoidable (McCollough, 2009). However, it can serve as an opportunity for
13
14
15
16
17
18
firms to review and improve their service operation system and actively identify and solve the
causes of the service failure (Smith, Bolton, and Wagner, 1999). Therefore, constructing an
effective service recovery system is crucial for enterprises.
Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml (1991) reported that a complete service recovery system
should include two aspects: a reactive strategy, in which the customers complaint initiates a
recovery effort, and a proactive strategy, in which the organization initiates a recovery effort. Many
19
20
studies have focused only on reactive recoveries or those failure situations in which customers made
a complaint with the organization (e.g., Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault, 1990; Hoffman et al., 1995;
21
22
23
Mueller et al., 2003). La and Kandampully (2004) stated that service recovery should not be
considered solely a damage-control mechanism for enterprises and that enterprises should design
proactive recovery strategies to minimize the impact of service failures. Related studies showed that
24
25
26
proactive recovery strategies could conserve the unsatisfied customers who have not expressed their
complaints and effectively enhance customer evaluations (Smith et al., 1999). Proactive recovery
strategies should receive more attention from enterprises.
27
28
29
30
Hart et al. (1990) indicated that more than half of customers negative impressions are
worsened following enterprises inappropriate responses to service failures. Mueller et al. (2003)
reported similar findings and revealed that customer satisfaction following service recovery
activities is generally not good. Although enterprises can implement proactive recovery strategies to
31
32
33
34
35
mitigate the consequences of service failures, remedying the service failures so as to fully satisfy
customers is not sufficient. Berry, Zeithaml, and Parasuraman (1990) stated that managers should
use every opportunity to build a do it right first attitude and reward error-free service. Berkley
and Gupta (1995) claimed that the most effective service is preventive rather than passive. Cranage
(2004) mentioned that developing preventive strategies for failures and successfully executing
36
37
38
39
recovery strategies could greatly enhance customer satisfaction, loyalty, and profits. Enterprises
reducing service failures from the beginning can lower the costs of service recoveries and benefit
business operations (La and Kandampully, 2004).
As previous literature mentioned, firms should take service recovery efforts at three moments:
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
before the service failure occurs (preventative), just as the service failure occurs (concurrent), or
sometime after the service failure occurs (post hoc) (Schweikhart, Strasser and Kennedy, 1993).
Miller, Craighead, and Karwan (2000) also proposed a three-phase recovery framework: a
4
5
prerecovery phase, an immediate recovery phase, and a follow-up recovery phase to completely
remedy service failures. However, most previous studies, such as Smith et al. (1999) and Maxham
6
7
(2001), have emphasized only reactive recovery strategies after customer complaints. Relatively
few studies have elaborated on proactive recovery strategies after service failures but before
8
9
10
customer complaints, especially on preventive strategies before service failures (e.g., Cranage, 2004;
La and Kandampully, 2004) in a complete recovery system. Therefore, developing proactive
recovery and failure prevention (PRFP) strategies is critical for enterprises.
11
In addition, previous service failure research paid little attention to classification models of
12
13
PRFP strategies and mostly used critical incident technique (CIT) method, and focused on the
customers encountering specific critical incidents rather than on general customers encountering
14
15
16
non-specific critical incidents. However, general customers impression or perception toward the
severity and classification of service failures may be critical to developing execution order of PRFP
strategies of enterprises. Research on linking the corresponding relationship between service failure
17
18
19
20
categories and PRFP strategies and effectively identifying the execution priority of PRFP strategies
for various service failure categories have been even rarer. Such research gaps triggered the
motivation for the current study.
Koch (1997) reported that 80% of company profits come from 20% of the customers and that
21
22
23
80% of customer complaints come from 20% of the customers. Similarly, when critical failure
categories are identified and corresponding PRFP strategies are used to proactively recover or
prevent failures, enterprises can profit by using 20% of the workload to generate 80% of the
24
25
26
rewards. Quality function deployment (QFD) is equipped with a function that can convert the voice
of a customer (VOC) into a technical design and integrate the needs of customers at the stage of
service design and planning (e.g., Jeong & Oh, 1998). Through a series of deployment activities, the
27
28
needs of customers can be satisfied. Therefore, QFD can offer solutions for the aforementioned
research gaps.
29
30
31
The purposes of the present study are to develop a service failure classification model and a
PRFP strategy classification model for the restaurant industry, by integrating the two models in a
house of quality (HOQ) of QFD, using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to measure the
32
33
34
severity of service failure categories, and ultimately applying the HOQ to prioritize PRFP strategies
for various failure categories. Restaurant managers can design execution order of effective PRFP
strategies by systematically conducting an HOQ for responding to service failure needs. Finally, a
35
36
37
set of effective PRFP strategies and methods can be constructed to facilitate designing service
operation management systems for the restaurant industry, provide a reference for other service
industries, and remedy the shortcomings of academics in proactively recovering and preventing
38
39
from service failures.
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 2 of 55
Page 3 of 55
1
2
Literature Review and Theoretical Background

Service Failures and Recoveries
3
4
Classification of Service Failures and Recoveries

Palmer, Beggs and Keown-McMullan (2000) stated that whenever services go wrong,
regardless of the attributed responsibility, they should be named service failures. Bitner, Booms,
6
7
and Tetreault (1990) pioneered research on service failure classification. They showed that service
failures can be divided into three groups of 12 categories: employee response to service delivery
8
9
10
system failure, employee response to implicit and explicit customer requests, and unprompted and
unsolicited employee actions. Hoffman, Kelley, and Rotalsky (1995) referred to Bitner et al. (1990)
to divide failures into three groups of 14 categories and divide service recoveries into eight
11
categories. Mueller et al. (2003) compared the differences in service failures and service recoveries
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
between restaurants in the United States and Ireland. They divided failures into three groups of 15
categories and classified service recoveries into six groups of 11 categories. Lin, Huang, and Huang
(2003) surveyed customers of the restaurant industry in Taiwan and divided failures into three
groups of 22 categories and divided service recoveries into 16 categories. Sizoo, Kpper, and
Agrusa (2011) compared the cognitive differences of American tourists who had encountered
service failures in the United States with those of Japanese and German tourists in the United States,
dividing failures into three groups of 11 categories.
Hoffman et al. (1995) claimed that information obtained from service failure and recovery
analysis can be used to minimize service failure occurrences and improve recovery efforts through
21
22
23
employee training programs. The aforementioned literature review provided a basis of failure
classification framework for subsequent research.
24
25
26
Severity of Service Failure

Smith et al. (1999) determined that, in addition to the influence from the service failure
categories, customer satisfaction is affected by failure severity. Previous studies (e.g., Hoffman et
27
28
29
30
31
32
al., 1995; Richins, 1987) have reported that the higher the severity of service failure is, the lower
the level of customer satisfaction, and, accordingly, the higher the customer expectation of service
recovery. When customers encounter service failures, the responses of the enterprise may lead to
either a restoration of customer satisfaction and reinforced loyalty or to worsened relations and lost
customers (Smith et al., 1999). Especially in severe failure situations, even when firms conduct
recovery strategies, losses may be inevitable (Magnini et al., 2007). Because failure severity is
33
34
35
closely related to recovery strategies offered by firms (Hoffman et al., 1995) and directly affects
customer satisfaction (Weun, Beatty, & Jones, 2004), the assessment of failure severity for various
failure categories is critical.
36
37
38
39
Measurements of failure severity have mostly involved using a 5-point (e.g., Mueller et al.,
2003) or 10-point semantic differential scale (e.g., Hoffman et al., 1995) in a CIT. Traditional QFD
often used a 5-point or 7-point Likert scale to measure the weightiness of the required items
(Chuang, 2001). The two kinds of scale easily leads to a relatively high score results in arbitrary
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
decisions and inaccurate sorting results. They could also lead to inconsistent quantification of the
customers judgments (Lu et al., 1994). Because this paper focused on customers' general
3
4
5
impression or perception toward the severity of service failure categories and regarded the service
failure categories as the attributes or criteria assessing service performance of restaurant industry,
we used AHP rather than CIT to measure failure severity. The AHP excels at intangible
quantification, relative measurement, and consistency in group decisions more than other tools do
(Raharjo et al., 2007). Hence, AHP was applied to measure the severity of service failure categories
7
8
in the HOQ.
9
10
11
To summarize, developing a service failure classification model and measuring the severity of
service failures according to the aforementioned studies was crucial.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PRFP Strategies
Establishing PRFP strategies is crucial for business operators (Cranage, 2004). In the current
study, the term PRFP strategies was defined as all of the strategies adopted by the restaurants to
proactively recover and prevent service failures. A complete restaurant customer service system
contains a front of the house, back of the house, and service encounter points (Grnroos, 1983). In a
restaurant, the front of the house refers to the service delivery system including the equipment,
environment, and personnel. The back of the house refers to the service operation system including
the internal personnel (e.g., kitchen personnel and managerial staff), management (e.g., human
resources), and equipment systems (e.g., logistics support system). A restaurant delivers products
from the back of the house to customers at service encounter points in the front of the house through
a service delivery system (Lovelock & Wirtz, 2007). Therefore, the initial PRFP strategies were
divided into four groups of 15 strategies: the front of the house (three strategies), back of the house
24
25
26
(i.e., the kitchen) (three strategies), human resources (six strategies), and logistics support system
management (three strategies). These strategies were regarded as forming a critical theory basis for
generating a PRFP strategy classification model. They are presented in detail as follows.
27
28
29
Front of the House Management

Bitner (1990) stated that the more effective the design of a stores physical environment is, the
30
31
32
lower the chance of service failures. Berry, Parasuraman, and Zeithaml (1994) considered the
design of a service delivery system extremely valuable because it can be converted into tangible
service details through a series of intangible transformations, rendering the service system much
33
34
35
more manageable, controllable, and improvable. To prevent service failures, managers should take
the necessary actions to improve the service delivery process (Bowen and Johnston, 1999). A
successful analysis of the service environment, system, and personnel could guarantee timely,
36
37
38
39
consistent, and quality services (Cranage, 2004). Michel, Bowen, and Johnston (2009) advocated
that enterprises adopt complete service recovery by integrating action for customer recovery (i.e.,
reestablishing customer satisfaction and loyalty), process recovery (i.e., ensuring that failures
encourage learning and improve the process), and employee recovery (i.e., training and rewarding
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 4 of 55
Page 5 of 55
1
2
employees).
As aforementioned, the current study determined that the Design of a service delivery
3
4
5
system, Dining facilities and equipment maintenance, and Environmental hygiene and dining
atmosphere are critical strategies for the front of the house.
6
7
Back of the House Management

To prevent or reduce the failures of Quality defects in food and beverages, Cook error,
8
9
10
11
Request for replacement meals, and Failure to respond to the special needs of customers,
kitchens should be well managed. Lin et al. (2003) concluded that managing the back of the house
in restaurants (e.g., ingredients procurement and acceptance, product development, and cooking
skill enhancement) shares equal importance with managing the front of the house. As Kotschevar
12
and Withrow (2008) mentioned, an ingredient is cut, ground, minced, cubed, sliced, pared, or kept
13
14
15
16
whole affects its visual appeal as well as its mouth feel. Nowadays, Customers pay more
attention on food cooking methods and ingredients quality because various cooking methods will
affect meals texture as much as their ingredients (Kotschevar and Withrow, 2008). In addition,
consumers today are much more aware of the importance of the health and quality food. Therefore,
17
18
19
20
it is essential and critical to offer healthful food, as well as develop new quality products to
proactively satisfy customer needs for a restaurant.
As aforementioned, Ingredients procurement and acceptance, Product design and
development, and Cooking skill enhancement are critical PRFP strategies for the back of the
21
22
23
house.
24
25
26
Robbins and Judge (2007) mentioned that human resource management is crucial to
enterprises. Chung and Hoffman (1998) stated that analyzing service failures allows managers to
minimize the occurrence of future service failures through operational adjustments and human
27
28
29
resource planning (e.g., selection, training, performance appraisals, and rewards). However, some
firms in the restaurant industry lack effective human resource management. Lin et al. (2003) stated
that properly evaluating human resource needs and appropriately allocating human resources could
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
reduce service failures. Furthermore, Bowen and Johnston (1999) advocated that managerial staff
understand the causes of service failures and improve the service process to solve service problems.
Lin et al. (2003) mentioned that, in addition to stronger educational training such as professional
knowledge, attitude, and skills for employees, professional expertise and training at the managerial
level must be enhanced. Berry et al. (1994) reported that educational training and empowerment for
employees can enhance the effectiveness of service recovery. Cranage (2004) claimed that
employee empowerment is conducive to reducing service failures.
As aforementioned, Professional expertise and leadership of the managerial level, Human
resource allocation, and Employee empowerment are critical strategies for human resource
39
management.
r
Fo
ew
vi
Re
Human Resources Management
er
Pe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
In addition, Bitner (1990) indicated that the screening, training, supervising, and motivating of
service personnel are critical for enhancing customer satisfaction with enterprise services. Tehrani
3
4
5
(1995) claimed that enterprises should develop interview skills to identify whether applicants
possess the appropriate personality and develop educational training courses for them. Hoffman et
al. (1995) posited that if employees receive adequate education and training, then positive attitude,
6
7
enthusiasm, and other capabilities for problem solving among employees could enhanced. Cranage
(2004) suggested that firms must actively plan screening, reward, and punishment mechanisms to
8
9
10
11
prevent service failures.

Therefore, Recruitment and screening of employees, Educational training of employees,
and Staff appraisal, reward, and punishment systems are crucial PRFP strategies for human
resource management.
12
r
Fo
13
14
15
16
Logistics Support System Management

A logistics support system is also crucial in the restaurant industry (Lin et al., 2003). Bell and
Zemke (1987) claimed that a feedback mechanism is necessary for a recovery strategy. Berry et al.
(1994) and Hoffman et al. (1995) have concluded that firms should establish a simple, time-saving,
17
18
19
20
and diverse complaint management system to systematically listen to the VOCs. Cranage (2004)
recommended that enterprises encourage customers to complain and then simplify the complaint
process to enhance the willingness of customers to complain. Tax, Colgate, and Bowen (2006)
mentioned that the root causes of service failures can offer valuable clues. A robust complaint
21
22
23
channel is conducive to service failure remedy. Priluck (2003) revealed that when service failures
occur, the close relationship between customers and enterprises can assist enterprises in conserving
customers and offer a possibility for recovery.
24
25
26
Hedrick, Beverland, and Minahan (2007) claimed that a satisfactory customer relationship
renders customers relatively insensitive toward some service failures or allows them to feel the
effects of service recovery easily. Sajtos, Brodie, and Whittome (2010) revealed that the protective
27
28
29
layer of customer relationships can protect the process of customer value and loyalty from the
negative impact of service failure. Jones, Dacin, and Taylor (2011) stated that a proactive and
preventative strategy is one in which a service company invests resources, developing and
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
strengthening relationships with customers to mitigate the negative effects of possible service
failures. Consequently, customer relationship management is critical for proactively recovering and
preventing service failures. In addition, Berry et al. (1994) held that the establishment of a
communication and information technology system is conducive to enhancing the effects of service
recovery. An effective communication and information technology system prevents service failures.
Therefore, a Robust complaint channel, Customer relationship management, and an
Information technology management system are crucial PRFP strategies for a logistics support
system.
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
39
6
Page 6 of 55
Page 7 of 55
1
2
Service Failure Classification Model
3
4
To ensure the comprehensiveness of the service failure classification for the restaurant industry,
based on industry characteristics and the classification framework of Bitner et al. (1990) and other
failure literature (Table 1), the current study adopted research team brainstorming to determine and
6
7
summarize the classification of service failures into three groups of 31 categories. Dorussen, Lenz,
and Blavoukos (2005) stated that the identity of the actor matters more for expert coherence than
8
9
10
the number of experts. Robbins (1994) indicated that five to seven experts are an appropriate
number for expert group decision making. A focus group interview of five experts (two
restaurant-related field professors and three restaurant managers) with 10 to 20 years of work
11
experience was conducted to evaluate the importance of the failure categories and the validity,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
accuracy, appropriateness of the classification based on the agreements of four experts at least, as
well as to receive pertinent suggestions, which were later combined, revised, and summarized, and
to form a consensus. For example, Product defect, as proposed by Hoffman et al. (1995), was
similar to Hygiene problem of food and beverage and Quality defects in food and beverages, as
proposed by Lin et al. (2003), and was thus deleted. Finally, an initial service failure classification
model was created, comprising three groups of 27 categories (Table 1). This focus group interview
facilitated consensus building in an expert group decision-making. Because all of the service failure
categories were quoted from related literature and were discussed and revised through a reasonable
expert focus group interview, their professional opinions and consensus were acceptable for a
21
22
23
service failure classification model.
Research Method
r
Fo
er
Pe
Re
[Insert Table 1 here]
24
25
26
PRFP Strategy Classification Model

To ensure the comprehensiveness of the PRFP strategy classification, five experts were invited
27
28
29
to participate in a focus group interview. Based on characteristics of the restaurant industry and
referencing Bitner et al. (1990), Hoffman et al. (1995), and other studies (e.g., those in the
Literature Review and Theoretical Background section), the current study followed the
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
suggestions of these experts to determine and summarize PRFP strategies for the restaurant industry,
by including an initial four groups of 15 strategies. According to the corresponding requirements of
the failure categories, Improvements in cooking methods and procedures was added to the back
of the house group. Ultimately, the formal PRFP strategies were divided into four groups of 16
strategies (Table 2). Because most of these items were quoted from related literature, they have a
theoretical basis and were deemed reasonable PRFP strategies after the research team brainstorming
session and revision suggestions from the expert focus group interview.
ew
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
39
7
1
2
Pretest of Questionnaires and Factor Analysis

To establish a more specific and concise classification model, item analysis and factor analysis
3
4
5
were used to simplify the service failure categories. A 5-point Likert scale with agreement was used
as the measure on the questionnaire pretest. Convenience sampling was used to survey 200
restaurant customers; 186 effective pretests were returned. A t-test was conducted on the data to
6
7
evaluate the statistical differences between the high- and low-scoring items. The results found that
6) Environmental problem and 13) Deficiency of service during dining were not significant,
8
9
10
11
and those items were deleted.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) was 0.913 and the significance of Bartlett sphericity test was
nearly zero, indicating that the remaining 25 failure categories were suitable for factor analysis. The
maximum variation rotation in the principal component analysis was conducted. The eigenvalue
12
was set to 1 or above for the factor extraction. The results showed that factor loadings for 1)
13
14
15
16
Hygiene problem of food and beverage, 11) Deficiency of preparation work before services, 23)
Poor professional techniques, and 24) Poor hygiene habits of employees were less than 0.5, with
the average agreement for most of these items being less than 3. Therefore, these items were deleted.
Finally, five groups and 21 failure categories (Table 3) were extracted with the 60.16% accumulated
17
18
19
20
explanatory variance, forming a service failure classification model. The name of each group was
based on the commonality of its failure categories, thus yielding Service system efficiency,
Service system guarantee, Responses to customer needs, Professional abilities of employees,
and Individual employee behavior. The construct validity of these failure categories was
21
22
23
satisfactory. Regarding reliability, the overall Cronbachs value was 0.92, and the Cronbachs
value of each group was between 0.68 and 0.85. The reliability of this questionnaire was acceptable
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
er
Pe
vi
Re
24
r
Fo
25
26
27
28
Questionnaire Design and Survey

The samples were collected from restaurants with fixed places of business in Taichung, Taiwan,
in which employees provide seats, assist customers in ordering food, and deliver services. The
samples were divided into two sections: customers and experts (management or professors). The
29
30
31
32
first section applied to customers defined as having experiences of encountering non-specific

service failures in the restaurants, with AHP questionnaires being conducted to evaluate the severity
of all service failure categories through pairwise comparison. Because we focus on customers
general impression or perception toward the severity of all failure categories in the current study,
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
the service failure categories were regarded as the attributes or criteria assessing service
performance of restaurant industry. The questionnaire was divided into three parts. The first part
was the description of the questionnaire, which illustrated the content of the service failure
categories to facilitate respondent understanding of each category. The second part showed how to
complete the AHP questionnaire. Instructions for completion and examples were provided, enabling
the respondents to easily grasp the essential points. It also includes the completion of the formal
questionnaire. The third part collected the respondents basic information.
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 8 of 55
Page 9 of 55
1
2
The random sampling was not trivial in this study. Based on the purposive sampling method of
Hoffman et al. (1995) and similar research, this study was begun with a purposive sampling method
3
4
5
and endeavored to collect data proportionately (male to female ratio of 1:1; age group ratio of
1.5:1:1:1.5 for participants aged 1530, 3140, 4150, and 5170 years, respectively) (Ministry of
the Interior, 2012). From March 2013 to April 2013 (2 months), three groups (each with two trained
6
7
interviewers) were positioned in front of the gates of various restaurants or parking lots to hand out
questionnaire invitations to customers who had previously experienced service failures and just
8
9
10
11
finished eating in the restaurants. Because completion and collection of the AHP questionnaire are
not easy and the AHP is not affected by the assumption of a large sample in statistics, a total of 250
copies were distributed. After the questionnaires missing values or violating consistency were
deducted, 169 valid questionnaires were returned (68%).
12
A second sampling was targeted at the managers, or above, of restaurants with extensive
13
14
15
16
experience and at assistant university professors, or above, of related academic fields to conduct an
HOQ correlation matrix survey of service failure categories and PRFP strategies. The expert
questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part was the same as in the AHP questionnaire. The
second part required the completion of a survey measuring the degree of correlation between the
17
18
19
20
PRFP strategies and service failure categories and began with an illustration of how to complete the
questionnaire, with examples provided to assist the experts in grasping the essential process for
completion. The third part involved collecting the personal information of the experts. The expert
questionnaire adopted the purposive sampling method for selecting the interviewees. Thus, 15
21
22
23
experts from academia and the restaurant industry were invited. On receiving their consent, the
questionnaires were sent through the mail. In the current study, 15 copies of the QFD questionnaires
were distributed, and 15 valid questionnaires were returned (100%).
24
25
26
Implementation Processes of the HOQ

The current study adopted an HOQ technique to develop execution priority of PRFP strategies
27
28
29
for various failure categories that comprises the following five steps:
Step 1. Developing a service failure classification model:
A service failure classification model with five groups of 21 categories (Table 3) for
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
restaurants was developed by structuring (Service Failure Classification Model section) and
simplifying (Pretest of Questionnaires and Factor Analysis section) an initial service failure
classification model. These failure categories were used as the customer requirement items in the
HOQ.
Step 2. Measuring the severity of service failure categories:
The current study conducted a pairwise comparison AHP questionnaire to ascertain the
severity of service failure categories, evaluating and calculating the relative severity and order of
the service failure categories in the HOQ.
Step 3. Developing a PRFP strategy classification model:
39
A PRFP strategy classification model with four groups of 16 strategies (Table 2) for
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
restaurants was developed (PRFP Strategy Classification Model section). These strategies were
used as the technique requirement items in the HOQ.
3
4
5
Step 4. Constructing the correlation matrix for service failure categories and PRFP strategies:
According to the correlation strength assessed to each PRFP strategy (column) and service
failure category (row) by the experts, scores were determined (0 = uncorrelated, 1 = lowly
6
7
correlated, 3 = moderately correlated, and 9 = highly correlated) and plotted on the intersection grid
of the HOQ (Raharjo et al., 2007) to form a correlation matrix. Following this process, the
8
9
10
11
arithmetic mean was adopted to integrate the expert group decisions and achieve a consensus
(Appendix 1).
Step 5. Confirming the importance and order of PRFP strategies:
To assess the importance and order of the PRFP strategies, an independent collocation method
12
was adopted. The value of the importance was calculated by multiplying and summing each
13
14
15
16
correlation score and the relative severity of each service failure category. The importance and
order of all PRFP strategies were calculated and identified (Appendix 1). Restaurant operators can
conduct service quality improvement plans based on the analytical results of the HOQ.
r
Fo
Pe
17
18
19
20
AHP Questionnaire Survey Results

Sample Profile
Regarding gender, the proportion of females (52.07%) was slightly higher than that of males
21
22
23
(47.93%). Regarding age, most respondents aged 15 to 30 years (30.77%) and 51 to 70 years
(29.59%) (close percentages); young adults aged 31 to 40 years (19.53%) and those aged 41 to 50
years (20.12%) were relatively fewer (also close percentages). The sample structure was highly in
24
25
26
line with the proportionately purposive-sampling plan, indicating that the samples were
representative. Regarding educational level, most respondents had a college or university degree
(65.09%). Regarding profession, most respondents were involved in the service industry (36.09%),
27
28
29
followed by students (23.08%), manufacturing workers (15.38%), housewives (13.02%), those

serving in the government (10.06%), and others (2.37%).
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Severity of Service Failure Categories

Expert Choice 2000 was adopted to conduct the AHP severity analysis of the service failure
categories. The results are shown in Table 3.
39
the highest severity, with the other top two being Cheating customers, and Failure to respond to
Empirical Data Analysis
er
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Regarding service failure groups, the respondents reported that the severity of Responses to
customers needs was the highest, with the other top two being Individual employee behavior
and Service system efficiency. Regarding service failure categories, Reservation mistakes had
10
Page 10 of 55
Page 11 of 55
1
2
the special needs of customers. Restaurant operators should pay special attention to these service
failure categories. The top three least-severe failures were Out of stock, Cultural norms
3
4
5
violated, and Wrong meals delivery. The classification and severity results are different with the
previous studies (e.g., Bitner et al., 1990; Hoffman et al., 1995) because they may be cross-cultural,
or not generated from CIT method. Factor analysis techniques may also lead to a different number
6
7
of classifications or the critical incidents would possibly be categorized differently (Mueller et al.,
2003).
8
9
10
11
HOQ Questionnaire Survey Results

Sample Profile
Regarding gender, the proportion of male experts (66.67%) was higher than that of female
12
experts (33.33%). Regarding profession, six experts held positions in restaurants and were also
13
14
15
16
part-time university instructors (40%), six experts were full-time university instructors in the
restaurant field (40%), and three were full-time restaurant managers (20%). Regarding ranking,
seven experts were restaurant managers or above (46.67%), and eight were assistant professors or
above in universities (53.33%). Regarding years of service, those experts with 16 years or more in
17
18
19
20
restaurant industry (including schooling) accounted for the majority (60%); three had 11 to 15 years
(20%), and three had 6 to 10 years (20%). They all had extensive and comprehensive experience in
the restaurant industry and their opinions were representative.
21
22
23
Results of HOQ Analysis

Based on the correlation strength between each PRFP strategy and failure category judged by
the experts, scores were accorded and plotted on the intersection grid of the HOQ. Correlation
24
25
26
matrices were then constructed. The opinions of the 15 experts were integrated according to the
arithmetic mean in the correlation matrices of the HOQ and consensuses were achieved. The
importances of all PRFP strategies were calculated for proactively recovering and preventing each
27
28
29
service failure category, as shown in each row of Appendix 1. Regarding overall service failures,
after correlation strength in correlation matrix and the severity of corresponding failure category
had been multiplied and summed, the importance of each PRFP strategy was acquired. Finally, the
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
percentage and ranking of the importance of each PRFP strategy were determined (Appendix 1,
three bottom rows).
From the perspective of overall service failures, six PRFP strategies of highest priority were
Educational training of employees, Professional expertise and leadership of the managerial
level, Staff appraisal, reward, and punishment system, Customer relationship management,
Design of service delivery system, and Recruitment and screening of employees, with the total
importance occupying approximately 73%. The first three of these and the sixth strategy belonged
to human resource management. The fourth strategy, Customer relationship management
belonged to the logistics support system. The fifth strategy, Design of service delivery system,
39
belonged to front-of-the-house management. When restaurant operators can effectively implement
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
11
1
2
these strategies, the leverage effects of the 80/20 principle will take effect and can proactively
recover and prevent service failures.
3
4
5
From the perspective of individual failure categories, the importance of the PRFP strategies for
each failure category was different. Restaurant operators can select the failure categories that pose
the highest severity when conducting the design and execution of corresponding PRFP strategies.
6
7
As Appendix 1 shows that the three failure categories with the highest severity levels were
Reservation mistakes, Cheating customers, and Failure to respond to the special needs of
8
9
10
11
customers. For restaurant operators identifying the execution order of PRFP strategies for
Reservation mistakes, the three PRFP strategies of highest importance were Educational training
of employees, Staff appraisal, reward, and punishment system, and Professional expertise and
leadership of the managerial level. If operators need to prevent employees from Cheating
12
customers, the three strategies of highest importance were Educational training of employees,
13
14
15
16
Recruitment and screening of employees, and Staff appraisal, reward, and punishment system.
Regarding preventing Failure to respond to the special needs of customers, the three strategies of
highest importance were Educational training of employees, Professional expertise and
leadership of the managerial level, and Customer relationship management. According to the
17
18
19
20
operational needs or strategies of a restaurant, the execution ordering of PRFP strategies can be
identified from the viewpoint of overall service failures or individual service failure categories of
high severity.
21
22
23
Conclusions and Suggestions

Conclusions
The design and execution of PRFP strategies may provide a solution and complement the
24
25
26
shortage of reactive recovery strategies for enterprises. Nevertheless, previous service recovery
studies have placed the emphasis on the exploration of reactive recovery strategies and few of them
have explored the corresponding PRFP strategies based on service failure categories. Through a
27
28
29
literature review, research team brainstorming, and expert focus group interview rather than using
the CIT, the current study constructed satisfactory and complete models of service failure categories
and PRFP strategies in an HOQ. The integration of the two models is critical but has rarely been
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
mentioned in other restaurant-related studies.

AHP has been widely applied in macro (complex and real) and people (managerialsubjective)
oriented problems, especially in operations management (Subramanian and Ramanathan, 2012).
However, AHP has not been used in the determination of service failure severity. The service failure
categories in AHP were regarded as the attributes or criteria assessing service performance of
restaurant industry in the current study. Therefore, AHP is suitable for determining service failure
severity. AHP is different from the 5-point (Mueller et al., 2003) or 10-point semantic differential
scale (Hoffman et al., 1995) adopted in CIT research, possibly accounting for the difference.
Although research results did not totally agree with the failure severities presented in previous
39
studies (e.g., Bitner et al., 1990; Hoffman et al., 1995; Mueller et al., 2003), Lin et al. (2003)
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
12
Page 12 of 55
Page 13 of 55
1
2
reported that the two most severe failure categories are Cheating customers and Reservation
mistakes in Taiwans restaurant industry which are the same with the results of the current study.
3
4
5
As Mueller et al. (2003) stated, there are significant differences in the severity of different failure
categories between American and Irish people. The current study concurs with the conclusion that
failure category severities may vary by culture.
6
7
Through the integration of the AHP and HOQ, a correlation matrix of the failure categories
and PRFP strategies was obtained. This matrix effectively introduced failure categories with various
8
9
10
11
severities into the design and execution of PRFP strategies and recognized the failure categories
requiring improvement, along with the execution order of PRFP strategies to respond to the needs
of various failure categories. The methodology proposed in the present paper contributes to
academia and complements the insufficient research on service failures and recoveries in the
12
restaurant industry.
13
14
15
16
The current study adopted the HOQ so that restaurant operators would understand the essential
PRFP strategies and allocate resources to PRFP strategies for proactively recovering and effectively
preventing service failures. Restaurant operators can determine the design and execution order of
the PRFP strategies from the perspectives of overall service failures or individual service failure
17
18
19
20
categories. Thus, the chance of service failures could be reduced from the beginning. Even when
service failures occur, they can be corrected before the delivery of products or services. This study
offers methods for restaurant operators to enhance service quality and customer satisfaction from
PRFP perspectives and complements insufficiency of related studies.
21
22
23
Managerial Implications
Human Resources Management and Educational Training
24
25
26
Cranage (2004) suggested that if firms actively plan effective staff training systems, then
service failures could be effectively reduced. However, many restaurants lack well-designed human
resource management and are not willing to invest more in educational training, leading to a higher
27
28
29
turnover ratio and a far-reaching negative influence regarding organizational development (Robbins
and Judge, 2007). A good training program can reduce turnover, improve soft skills, and teach new
skills and capacities to an employee (Kotschevar and Withrow, 2008).
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Most of Taiwans restaurants are small-scale enterprises, and their education and training
funds are limited. Even when restaurant operators know the value of educational training, a training
program is not easy to implement. How to conduct effective training in a relatively short time and
with little expense is of paramount concern for restaurant operators. Workforce Development
Agency (WDA) in Taiwan have proposed and executed Dual Training Flagship Plan for several
years (Workforce Development Agency, 2015). WDA could provide a cooperation platform and
partial funding grants for restaurant industry and university of technology. To meet the needs of the
enterprise and reduce the gap between industry and academia, the restaurants provide trainees
(students) job training (three days per week), at the same time, the school units conduct professional
39
knowledge education (three days per week) for training high-quality professional and technical
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
13
1
2
manpower. Hence, restaurant industry can cooperate with government and academia to acquire
low-cost and well-educated employees through this way. In addition, brief morning meetings or
3
4
5
review meetings can be held for half an hour before or after work to highlight crucial daily tasks,
encourage morale, or share service cases, thereby pooling practical experience and improving the
ability of employees to solve professional problems. With the increasing prevalence of cloud
6
7
services, operators of restaurant chains could adopt cloud learning and conduct long-distance
educational training to save enormous time and labor costs.
8
9
10
11
Resturant management should understand their employees well, be capable of picking the right
employee for the right job. In addition, they should guide, support, encourage, and empower
employees to enable them to fully manifest their professional abilities and perform their jobs well
(Cranage, 2004). Senior management is responsible for establishing satisfactory policies, systems,
12
and work environment. Thus, Professional expertise and leadership of the managerial level had a
13
14
15
16
direct impact on the prevention of service failures and the success of a business. Therefore, the
selection and cultivation of the managerial level is crucial.
Business operators should establish a complete Staff appraisal, reward, and punishment
system, to shape a fair and promising work environment that allows employees to feel comfortable
17
18
19
20
and to enjoy their work (Cranage, 2004). For example, employees can be regarded as the
early-warning system for companies because employees are in touch with the service delivery
system. They are often aware of problems in the system before customers are (Berry et al., 1994)
and can solve those problems before exposing the customers. The current study suggests that
21
22
23
restaurant operators emulate the quality control circle activities successfully held in Japan and
reward employees who expose and solve problems. Conversely, employees who cover up problems
or are slow to address them should receive appropriate warning and punishment.
24
25
26
Front-line employees sometimes must help unreasonable and troublesome customers and show
appropriate emotions in an unpleasant work environment (Chu, Baker, & Murrmann, 2012). Sohn
and Lee (2012) found that employees who are extroverted, agreeable, and conscientious can more
27
28
29
effectively handle their emotions. The emotional devotion and control of front-line employees has
become a crucial factor affecting service quality and customer satisfaction. Therefore, regarding
Recruitment and screening of employees, enterprises should develop a sound plan and interview
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
skills to effectively recruit and screen potential employees exhibiting the appropriate personality
traits (Tehrani, 1995; Cranage, 2004). Thus, service failure categories such as Individual employee
behavior may be reduced. These potential employees should excel more than others in professional
knowledge learning and at handling customer relationships.
To summarize, these strategies of screening (e.g., Recruitment and screening of employees),
retaining (e.g., Staff appraisal, reward, and punishment system), making full use of employees
talents (e.g., Professional expertise and leadership of the managerial level) and cultivating (e.g.,
Educational training of employees) in human resource management are critical for proactively
recovering from and preventing service failures in the restaurant industry. They can also be applied
39
to other organizations or enterprises.
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
14
Page 14 of 55
Page 15 of 55
1
2
Inseparable Operation Management and Community Sense
3
4
5
Enterprises should perform careful analyses for determining service processes and ascertaining
the service encounter points in the service delivery system at which service failures can be easily
generated. These failures can then be prevented through service process design to ensure rapid,
6
7
consistent, and quality services for customers (Cranage, 2004). As Bitner (1990) mentioned, service
personnel, environmental design, service processes, and other factors can be the causes of service
8
9
10
11
failures. Regarding these factors, various personnel in both the front and back of the house are
involved, and cross-sector coordination and cooperation are required to successfully solve problems.
Kotschevar and Withrow (2008) noted a restaurant management team, composed of employees
highly qualified in many skills, is usually be more effective than one manager working alone. In
12
addition, frontline apology has greater influence on consumers satisfaction when a manager's
13
14
15
apology is also present (Guchait, Kim, and Namasivayam, 2012). Hence, restaurant management
should not completely dichotomize the work in the workplace but ensure cross sections for
integrating information, communication, and coordination at any time and for preventing service
failures.
16
r
Fo
Pe
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
When some principles such as self-care, communication, motivation, promotion, reward and
treating employees with dignity and respect are put into action, they will help to encourage
employees commitments to an enterprise and cross-sector coordination and cooperation, as well as
employees are proud to be a part of the organization. Thus, a sense of community at the workplace
can then be created and will be conducive to preventing and proactively recovering service failures.
As a result, the communication and cooperation between the front and back of the house (or
frontline and management or cross sections) will be more effective and closer.
30
31
32
perceive the benefits of service recoveries (Priluck, 2003; Hedrick et al., 2007). Because data on
customer relationship management are more extensive and complex, an information technology
management system can rapidly and accurately analyze customer data and offer possible solutions,
33
34
35
making it a crucial tool for customer relationship management and marketing in a growing
restaurant industry.
Although a complaint channel is not a core business of the restaurant industry, a robust
36
37
38
complaint channel plays a critical role in a logistics support system. It is a mechanism that enables
organizations to listen to VOCs and prevent or proactively recover service failures. There are three
methods for overcoming the problems for which customers are unwilling to make complaints. First,
39
restaurants can facilitate the customer complaint process, thereby encouraging those customers who
er
Re
Integration of the Logistics Support System

Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, and Gremler (2002) revealed that relationship benefits and
relationship quality have a positive influence on customer loyalty and are crucial factors for
enterprises in establishing satisfactory customer relationships. Effective customer relationship
management can render customers insensitive toward service failures while enabling them to easily
ew
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
15
1
2
never desire to take the first step. Second, customers complaints should be appropriately valued
and rapidly addressed (Albrecht & Zemke, 1985). Third, a complete information technology system
3
4
5
should be established to respond to customers individual needs rapidly. When employees access
the system, it would offer data related to individual customers, show the causes and possible
solutions for problems, and even assist employees in solving the problems themselves.
6
7
The integration of the customer relationship management, complaint channel, and information
technology management system is critical for firms. It can form a complete logistics support system
8
9
10
11
and offer a powerful logistics support for the front of the house, back of the house, and human
resource department, enabling restaurant operators to be free from worry.
Research Limitations and Future Research Directions
12
The research methods for service failures and service recoveries are typically divided into two
13
14
15
16
types: those using the CIT (e.g., Bitner et al., 1990) and those employing a role-playing method
with virtual scenarios (e.g., Smith et al., 1999). The current study adopted a literature review,
research team brainstorming, and a focus group interview to construct a service failure classification
model and a PRFP strategy model. They may not describe the feelings of customer satisfaction or
17
18
19
20
dissatisfaction with in-depth and copious details like CIT or manipulate experimental situations like
the role-playing method with virtual scenarios. However, the service failure classification model is
more comprehensive and extensive than previous failure classification models. In addition, the
current study integrated AHP and QFD methods to assess the severity of service failure categories
21
22
23
and the execution order of PRFP strategies. The severities of service failure categories calculated
from AHP may be different with the ones assessed from CIT. Research results cannot be applied to
the context encountering specific critical incidents but can be used to general customers
24
25
26
encountering non-specific critical incidents. The different research methods such as expert focus
group interview and AHP will make comparison of results difficult with other previous CIT
literature. Also, they will affect the applicability of results from this research to other environments.
27
28
29
The current study adopted a literature review, research team brainstorming, and a focus group
interview with five experts for developing two models involving service failure categories and
PRFP strategies. The Delphi method may be considered in the future for conducting the same
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
process with improved group decision making. The HOQ approach was used to prioritize PRFP
strategies for overall service failure or individual service failure categories. Future research could
also use it to develop reactive service recovery strategies for various service failure categories.
Because service failure classification and failure severity may be different for different cultures
(Mueller et al., 2003), future research could compare the differences and similarities of PRFP
strategy design for the restaurant industry in a cross-cultural setting. Additionally, the current study
mainly prioritized improvements according to service failure severity but without considering
failure frequency. Kelley and Davis (1994) posited that the timing, frequency, and severity of
service failures have a considerable effect on service performance. Because the timing of service
39
failures is difficult to control and evaluate, future research should examine the frequency and
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
16
Page 16 of 55
Page 17 of 55
1
2
severity of service failures concurrently to prioritize service failure improvements more effectively.
Restaurant operators can use the proposed study methods and further promote the Six Sigma project
3
4
5
to generate additional quality services, thereby enhancing the overall competitiveness of their
restaurants.
6
7
8
References
Albrecht, K. and Zemke, R. (1985), Service America, Dow-Jones Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Bell, C.R. and Zemke, R.E. (1987), Service Breakdown: the Road to Recovery, Management
9
10
11
Review, Vol. 7 No. 10, pp. 32-35.

Berkley, B.J. and Gupta, A. (1995), Identifying the information requirements to deliver quality
service, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 16-35.
12
Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A. and Parasuraman, A. (1990), Five imperatives for improving service
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
quality, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 2938.

Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1994), Improving service quality in America:
lessons learned, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 32-45.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), The service encounter: Diagnosing
favorable & unfavorable incidents, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Bowen, D.E. and Johnston, R. (1999), Internal service recovery: developing a new construct,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 10 Nol 2, pp. 118-131.
22
23
Chuang, P.T. (2001), Combining the analytic hierarchy process and quality function deployment
for a location decision from a requirement perspective, International Journal of Advanced
24
25
26
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 18 No. 11, pp. 842849.

Cranage, D. (2004), Plan to do it right: and plan for recovery, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 210219.
27
28
29
30
31
Chu, K.H., Baker, M.A. and Murrmann, S.K. (2012), When we are onstage, we smile: The effects
of emotional labor on employee work outcomes, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 906-915.
Chung, B.G. and Hoffman, K.D. (1998), Critical incidents: Service failures that matter most,
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 66-71.
32
33
34
35
Dorussen, H., Lenz, H. and Blavoukos, S. (2005), Assessing the reliability and validity of expert
interviews, European Union Politics, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 315337.
Grnroos, C. (1983), Strategic management and marketing in the service sector, Marketing Science
Instruct, Boston.
36
37
38
39
Guchait, P., Kim, M.G. and Namasivayam, K. (2012). Error management at different
organizational levelsFrontline, manager, and company, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 31 No.1, pp. 12-22.
Hart, C.W.L., Heskett, J.L. and Sasser Jr, W.E. (1990), The profitable art of service recovery,
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
17
1
2
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 148-156.

Hedrick, N., Beverland, M. and Minahan, S. (2007), An Exploration of Relational Customers
3
4
5
Response to Service Failure, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 64-72.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P. and Gremler, D.D. (2002), Understanding relationship
marketing outcomes: an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality, Journal of
6
7
Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 230-247.

Hoffman, K.D., Kelley, S.W. and Rotalsky, H.M. (1995), Tracking service failures and employee
8
9
10
11
recovery efforts, Journal of Service Marking, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 49-61.

Jeong, M. and Oh, H. (1998), Quality function deployment: An extended framework for service
quality and customer satisfaction in the hospitality industry, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 375-390.
12
Jones, T., P. A. Dacin, and S. F. Taylor (2011), Relational Damage and Relationship Repair,
13
14
15
16
Journal of Service Research, 14 (3), 31839.

Kelley, S.W. and Davis, M.A. (1994), Antecedents to Customer Expectations for Service
Recovery, Journal of Academy of Marketing Service, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 52-61.
Koch, R. (1997), The 80/20 Principle: The Secret of Achieving More with Less. Nicholas, Brealey
17
18
19
20
Publish Ltd, London.

Kotschevar, L.H. and Withrow, D. (2008), Management by Menu, Wiley, New Jersey.
La, K.V. and Kandampully, J. (2004), Market oriented learning and customer value enhancement
through service recovery management Managing Service Quality, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 390401.
21
22
23
24
Lin, Y.H., Huang, D. and Huang, Y.L. (2003), An Analysis of the Typology of Service Failures
and Recoveries: A Study of Sit-Down Restaurants in Taiwan, Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 39-59 (Taiwan, TSSCI).
Lovelock, C.H. and Wirtz, J. (2007), Services Marketing, Prentice Hall, New York.
Lu, M.H., Madu, C.N., Kuei, C.H. and Winokur, D. (1994), Integrating QFD, AHP, and
er
Pe
vi
Re
benchmarking in strategic marketing, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 4150.
Magnini, V.P., Ford, J.B., Markowski, E.P. and Honeycutt Jr, E.D. (2007), The service recovery
ew
25
26
27
28
r
Fo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
29
30
31
paradox: justifiable theory or smoldering myth? Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 213-225.
Maxham III, J.G. (2001), Service Recoverys Influence on Consumer Satisfaction, Positive
32
33
34
35
Word-of-Mouth, and Purchase Intentions, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp.
11-24.
McCollough, M.A. (2009), The recovery paradox: The effect of recovery performance and service
failure severity on post-recovery customer satisfaction, Academy of Marketing Studies Journal,
36
37
38
39
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 89-104.

Michel, S., Bowen, D. and Johnston, R. (2009), Why service recovery fails: Tensions among
customer, employee, and process perspectives, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 253-273.
18
Page 18 of 55
Page 19 of 55
1
2
Miller, J. L. Craighead, C. W. and Karwan, K. R. (2000), Service recovery: a framework and

empirical investigation, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 387400.
3
4
5
Ministry of the Interior in Taiwan (2012), Monthly Bulletin of Interior Statistics, available at
http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/month/list.htm (accessed 12 September 2013).
Mueller, R.D., Palmer, A., Mack, R. and McMullan, R. (2003), Service in the restaurant industry:
6
7
8
an American and Irish comparison of service failures and recovery strategies, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 395418.
Namkung, Y. and Jang, S. (2010), Service failures in restaurants: which stage of service failure is
9
10
the most critical? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 323343.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
11
Palmer, A., Beggs, R. and Keown-McMullan, C. (2000), Equity and repurchase intention
12
13
14
15
16
following service failure, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 513-528.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991), Understanding Customer Expectation of
Service, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 39-49.
Priluck, R. (2003), Relationship Marketing Can Mitigate Product and Service Failures, The
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 37-51.
17
18
Raharjo, H., Xie, M., Goh, T.N. and Brombacher, A.C. (2007), A Methodology to Improve Higher
Education Quality using the Quality Function Deployment and Analytic Hierarchy Process,
19
20
21
22
23
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 18 No. 10, pp. 10971115.
Richins, M.L. (1987), A Multivariate Analysis of Responses to Dissatisfaction, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 2431.
Robbins, S.P. (1994), International Management (4th ed.), Prentice-Hall, New York.
Robbins, S.P. and Judge, T. (2007), Organizational Behavior (12th ed.), Pearson Education, New
24
25
26
Jersey.
Sajtos, L., Brodie, R. J., & Whittome, J. (2010). Impact of service failure: the protective layer of
customer relationships. Journal of Service Research, 13(2), 216-229.
27
28
Schweikhart, S.B., Strasser, S. and Kennedy, M.R. (1993), Service recovery in health services
organizations, Hospital & health services administration, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
29
30
31
32
Sizoo, S., Kpper, E. and Agrusa, J. (2011), Tracking Cross-Cultural Service Failures: The Case of
Japanese & German Visitors in the USA, International Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp.
58-65.
Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N. and Wagner, J. (1999), A Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service
33
34
35
Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp.
356-372.
Sohn, H.K. and Lee, T.J. (2012), Relationship between HEXACO personality factors and
36
37
38
39
emotional labour of service providers in the tourism industry, Tourism Management, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 116-125.
Subramanian, N. and Ramanathan, R. (2012), A review of applications of Analytic Hierarchy
Process in operations management, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 138,
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
19
1
2
pp. 215241.
Tax, S.S., Colgate, M. and Bowen, D.E. (2006), How to Prevent Your Customers from Failing,
3
4
5
MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 3038.

Tehrani, N. (1995), Loyalty marketing, because companies live or die by repeat business,
Telemarketing, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 2-6.
Weun, S., Beatty, S. E., & Jones, M. A. (2004). The impact of service failure severity on service
7
8
9
10
11
recovery evaluations and post-recovery relationships. Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No.
2, pp. 133-146.
Workforce Development Agency in Taiwan (2015), Dual Training Flagship Plan, available at
http://www.wda.gov.tw/home.jsp?pageno=201310280008&acttype=view&dataserno=201311280
006 (accessed 15 Feb. 2015).
12
13
14
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), The behavioural consequences of service
quality Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 3146.
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
20
Page 20 of 55
Page 21 of 55
Appendix 1 HOQ of service failure categories/PRFP strategies

PRFP strategies
Front of the house
management
Back of the house management
Human resources management
Logistics support system
Educational training of employees
Recruitment and screening of
1.467
5.800
2.400
0.067
0.400
0.333
4.200
1.333
0.200
0.867
0.467
0.467
0.333
0.400
0.200
0.200
0.200
3.200
0.200
0.467
0.200
0.000
0.200
0.000
0.200
7.600
3.867
0.000
0.0359
0.467
0.200
0.267
R1
0.0451
0.714
0.267
R2
0.0445
1.133
R3
0.0522
R4
R5
0.0385
1.800
1.067
0.600
2.600
0.0488
5.667
1.267
0.400
0.800
E4
0.0365
2.867
0.667
0.200
E5
0.0232
1.867
0.267
G1
0.0687
4.400
G2
0.0328
G3
E3
rR
ev
Information technology
4.600
E2
management system
3.533
Robust complaint channel

0.533
Customer relationship
0.667
0.067
management
1.400
0.200
Staff appraisal, reward and
7.800
0.267
punishment system
0.667
5.267
employees
Human resources allocation

0.800
0.0286
Professional expertise and
0.067
E1
and procedures
1.200
ee
Cooking skill enhancement
0.333
rP
acceptance
0.000
atmosphere
0.200
Fo
maintenance
Service system Responses to customer

needs
guarantee
Employee empowerment
leadership of the managerial level
Improvements in cooking methods
Product design and development
Ingredients procurement and
Environmental hygiene and dining
Dining facilities and equipment
Design of service delivery system
Relative severity
Service system efficiency
service failure categories
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1.067
3.200
0.067
3.600
0.600
7.800
1.800
1.400
1.467
1.133
0.200
3.600
0.667
3.600
0.867
7.000
1.267
1.467
1.667
1.067
0.667
4.400
0.267
0.267
0.333
3.800
0.600
0.867
0.533
0.933
0.000
0.267
3.400
1.000
1.467
0.467
7.800
2.667
1.733
0.933
0.467
0.000
0.000
0.067
3.267
0.133
0.267
0.067
1.000
0.200
1.667
1.067
0.267
0.200
0.000
0.200
0.200
5.733
1.267
1.000
0.400
3.933
0.800
3.400
1.467
0.200
0.000
0.400
4.267
1.267
5.467
1.267
0.467
0.200
0.600
6.600
1.800
1.667
0.533
0.200
0.067
0.133
1.000
2.067
0.800
1.733
2.000
4.400
0.200
0.467
6.400
1.267
2.533
1.067
0.200
1.067
0.067
0.867
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.533
2.400
0.333
1.000
7.067
2.133
2.133
0.533
0.400
0.0927
1.867
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.467
0.786
0.533
0.800
8.000
2.800
2.333
1.133
1.733
0.0765
0.933
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.600
0.200
0.800
2.667
1.857
0.333
0.800
8.600
1.933
2.200
0.867
0.667
21
iew
Professional abilities of
employees
P1
0.0305
1.600
0.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.067
0.000
0.667
1.400
9.000
2.933
1.267
1.733
0.667
P2
0.0267
4.200
0.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.800
0.000
1.467
1.200
9.000
2.867
1.267
1.733
1.000
P3
0.0283
0.400
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.000
0.071
1.000
3.067
9.000
3.467
1.267
1.667
0.400
P4
0.0245
1.333
0.200
0.000
0.000
0.133
0.067
1.067
1.267
0.000
0.467
1.067
8.467
2.267
0.800
1.667
0.400
P5
0.0579
0.733
0.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.133
0.000
0.667
1.200
8.600
3.133
1.267
2.000
1.933
Individual
employee
behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Page 22 of 55
I1
0.0802
0.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.400
1.800
1.067
4.800
6.467
4.800
1.800
2.000
0.267
I2
0.0742
0.667
0.000
0.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.133
0.400
0.867
4.800
7.267
3.800
1.600
2.067
0.067
I3
0.0540
0.600
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.200
0.000
3.267
0.933
0.933
2.733
7.267
4.333
1.867
2.067
0.667
0.458
0.263
0.313
0.551
0.218
0.746
2.965
0.940
0.945
1.530
7.094
2.516
1.713
1.344
0.718
1.91
1.10
1.30
2.29
0.91
3.11
12.35
3.91
3.94
6.37
29.54
10.48
7.13
5.60
2.99
13
15
14
12
16
10
11
Fo
Importance of strategy
1.698
Percentage of importance (%)
7.07
Ranking of Importance
rP
ee
rR
ev
iew
22
Page 23 of 55
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
23
Table 1 Initial service failure classification model

Failure groups
Employee
service
responses
delivery
to
system
failure
Service failure categories
Literature sources
1.Hygiene problem of food and beverage
2.Quality defect of food and beverage
2, 3, 5
3.Food and beverage omission
3, 5
4.Slow/Unavailable services
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
5.Facility problem
2, 3, 5
6.Environmental problem
7.Out of stock
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
8.Unclear policy
2, 3, 5
9.Failure to serve customers in order
10.Reservation mistakes
11.Deficiency of preparation work before services
12.Ordering reception mistakes
13.Deficiency of service during dining
14.Seating problems
2, 3
15.Cook error
1, 2, 4
16.Request a replacement meals
1, 3
r
Fo
Employee
responses
implicit/explicit
to
customer
er
requests
Pe
17.Failure to meet the customers special requirements for

meals
18.Wrong meals order
19.Wrong meals delivery
2, 3
20.Mischarged
2, 3, 5
vi
21.Cultural norms violated
4
3
23.Poor professional techniques
24.Poor hygiene habits of employees

25.Poor service attitude
26.Cheating customers
ew
22.Lack of professional knowledge

Unprompted/unsolicited
employee actions
1, 4, 5
2, 5
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
27.Failure to inform the customer what they should have
3
3, 4, 5
3
3
known
Note: 1= Bitner et al. (1990); 2=Hoffman et al. (1995); 3=Lin et al. (2003); 4=Mueller et al. (2003) ; 5=Sizoo et
al. (2011)
Page 24 of 55
Page 25 of 55
Table 2 PRFP strategy classification model

Strategy groups
Strategies
Literature sources
1.Design of service delivery system
2; 4; 7; 13
Front of the house
2.Dining facilities and equipment maintenance
2; 10
management
3.Environmental hygiene and dining atmosphere
2; 10
4.Ingredients procurement and acceptance
8
5.Cooking skill enhancement
8
Back of the house
management
6.Product design and development
8
7.Improvements in cooking methods and procedures
14
8.Professional expertise and leadership of the managerial level
3; 7; 8
9.Employee empowerment
4; 5; 7; 10; 13
10.Human resources allocation
8
Human resources
management
11.Recruitment and screening of employees
2; 6; 10
12.Educational training of employees
2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 10
13.Staff appraisal, reward and punishment system
2; 10
14.Customer relationship management
9; 12
Logistics support system 15.Robust complaint channel
1; 4; 5; 10; 11
16.Information technology management system
4
Note: 1=Bell and Zemke (1987); 2=Bitner (1990); 3=Bitner et al. (1990); 4=Berry et al. (1994) ; 5=Hoffman et al.
(1995); 6=Tehrani (1995); 7=Bowen and Johnston (1999); 8=Lin et al. (2003); 9=Priluck (2003); 10=Cranage
(2004); 11=Tax et al. (2006); 12=Hedrick, et al. (2007); 13=Michel et al. (2009); 14=Added item
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Table 3 Severity analysis of service failure groups and categories
Service system
efficiency
(0.176)
Service system
guarantee
(0.137)
Responses to
customer needs
(0.311)
Severity within
group
Severity cross
groups
Ranking
E1.Food and beverage omission
0.163
0.0286
17
E2.Quality defect of food and beverage
0.219
0.0385
12
E3.Slow/Unavailable services
0.278
0.0488
E4.Ordering reception mistakes
0.208
0.0365
13
E5.Out of stock
0.132
0.0230
21
G1.Failure to serve customers in order
0.500
0.0687
G2.Facility problem
0.239
0.0328
15
G3.Unclear policy
0.261
0.0359
14
R1.Cook error
0.145
0.0451
10
R2.Request a replacement meals
0.143
0.0445
11
R3.Seating problems
0.168
0.0522
R4. Reservation mistakes
0.298
0.0927
0.246
0.0765
0.182
0.0305
16
0.159
0.0267
19
P3.Lack of professional knowledge
0.169
0.0283
18
P4.Cultural norms violated
0.146
0.0245
20
P5.Mischarged
0.345
0.0579
0.385
0.0802
0.356
0.0742
vi
Failure groups
0.0540
r
Fo
R5.Failure to respond to the special needs
Pe
of customers
P1.Wrong meals order
Professional abilities P2.Wrong meals delivery

of employees
(0.168)
er
I1.Cheating customer
Individual employee
behavior
(0.208)
I2.Poor service attitude
Re
I3.Failure to inform the customer what

they should have known
Note: ( ) represents the severity of failure groups
0.259
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 26 of 55
Page 27 of 55
Applying Quality Function Development in Proactive Recovery and Failure

Prevention Strategies: Taiwans Restaurant Industry
Responses to Reviewers
Thank you very much for your careful reviews and providing valuable suggestions. This paper
has been modified substantially for improvements. In addition, the full paper has been proofread
and corrected for grammar, punctuation, spelling, verb usage, sentence structure, and native English
usage. The revised words, sentences and paragraphs in the manuscript (ID IJOPM-10-2014-0475)
have been edited by a word processing program. Here are the point-by-point responses to the
reviewers comments and suggestions.
# Reviewer 1:
r
Fo
Reviewer 1
Responses to reviewer 1
Page no.
Pe
Recommendation: Major Revision We

Comments:
I need the questionnaires to
evaluate the methodology.
have
translated
the
Chinese
questionnaires
(AHP
and
QFD
questionnaires) into English version and
uploaded them to the reviewing website.
er
1. Originality: Does the paper 1. We deeply appreciate the reviewers p.1 (Line 14-21,
comments. We have revised and 25-26, 30-33); p.2
contain new and significant
highlighted the originality in the (Line 5-19)
information adequate to justify
Introduction to demonstrate the
publication?:
significance of the current paper.
I have doubts.
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
2. Relationship to Literature: 2-1 Thanks for reviewers comments. We pp.3-6

Does the paper demonstrate an
have checked the literature citation
carefully and have reorganized the
adequate understanding of the
structure of Literature Review and
relevant literature in the field
and cite an appropriate range
of literature sources? Is any
significant work ignored?:
Literature revisin is wide.
Theoretical Background to facilitate the

reader's understanding.
2-2 We have revised and improved the p.3 (Line 19-22,
contents of Literature Review and 31-35); p.4 (Line
2-8, 22-26); p.5
Theoretical Background.
(Line 11-18); p.6
(Line 26-31)
3. Methodology: Is the paper's 3. We have uploaded the AHP and QFD pp.7-10
argument
built
on
an
appropriate base of theory,

concepts or other ideas? Has
the research or equivalent
intellectual work on which the
paper is based been well
designed? Are the methods
questionnaires to the reviewing website. p.7 (Line 3-14,

Please
kindly
examine
the 17-21); p8 (Line
questionnaires. We also reorganized and 26-34, 38-39); p.9
improved the Research Method, such (Line 26-27)
as p.7 (Line 4-12, 15-19), p8 (Line
22-25, 29-36) and p.9 (Line 1-2; 28-29),
to make it more clearly.
employed appropriate?:
I have doubts on the methods,
since I have not been able of
understanding the methodology. I
would
need
to
see
the
questionnaires that have been
used to evaluate it.
r
Fo
4. Results: Are results presented 4. We have uploaded the AHP and QFD pp.10-12
clearly
and
analysed
questionnaires to the reviewing website.
appropriately?
Do the
Please kindly examine the questionnaires
conclusions adequately tie
and evaluate the results in Empirical
together the other elements of
Data Analysis.
the paper?:
I will evaluate it when I can
er
Pe
understand the methodology.

for
research, 5-1 We have uploaded the AHP and QFD p.12 (Line 26-36,
practice and/or society: Does
questionnaires to the reviewing website. 38-39); p.13 (Line
the paper identify clearly any
Please
kindly
examine
the 1-2, 10-12)
questionnaires. We reorganized and
implications for research,
ew
vi
5. Implications
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 28 of 55
practice
and/or
society?
improved the contents in Conclusions,
Does the paper bridge the gap
such as p.12 and p.13, to make it more
between theory and practice?
clearly.
How can the research be used 5-2 We reorganized and improved the
in practice (economic and
contents in Managerial Implications,
commercial
impact),
in
such as p.13, p.14 and p.15, to make it
teaching, to influence public
more clearly.
policy,
in
research
p.13 (Line 28-29,

33-39); p.14 (Line
1-2, 38-39); p.15
(Line
10-13,
17-23)
(contributing to the body of

knowledge)?
What is the 5-3 We also reorganized and improved the p.16 (Line 14-24)
impact
upon
society
contents in Research Limitations and
(influencing public attitudes,
Future Research Directions, such as
Page 29 of 55
affecting
quality
of
life)?
Are
these
implications
consistent with the findings
p.16 (Line 14-24), to make it more

clearly.
and conclusions of the paper?:

I will evaluate it when I can
understand the methodology.
6. Quality of Communication: 6
Does the paper clearly express
its case, measured against the
The explanation of methodology has p.7 (Line 3-14,

been revised and improved.
17-21); p8 (Line
26-34, 38-39); p.9
technical language of the

fields and the expected
knowledge of the journal's
(Line 26-27)
r
Fo
readership?
Has attention
been paid to the clarity of
expression and readability,
such as sentence structure,
jargon use, acronyms, etc.:
The explanation of methodology
should be improved.
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
# Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 2
Responses to reviewer 2
Page no.
Recommendation: Major Revision

Comments: Revisions should be
aimed at:
i) identifying the research gap, i) We have reorganized and revised p.1 (Line 14-21,
Introduction section to identify the 25-26, 30-33); p.2
and stressing the rationale and
research gap and stress the rationale and (Line 5-19)
need for this kind of research;
need of the present study.
ii) strengthening the methodology ii) We have reorganized and improved the p.7 (Line 3-14,
Methodology section to make it more 17-21); p8 (Line
used in the research;
26-34, 38-39); p.9
clearly.
(Line 26-27)
r
Fo
Pe
iii)
using
more
analytical iii) We have used more analytical approach
to interpret the research results, reveal
approach when interpreting the
the results new and significant, and
results; why are these results new
compare to results of previous research.
and significant, compared to
results of previous research?
er
Re
Additional Questions:
vi
1. Originality: Does the paper 1-1 I deeply appreciate the reviewers

comments and suggestions. The present
contain new and significant
study used literature review, research
information adequate to justify
publication?:
team brainstorming and expert focus
group interview to establish the service
The topic of service failure
failure category/PRFP strategy models in
prevention is an attractive one.
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 30 of 55
However, the results obtained

from the research lack generality
(also noted by Author(s) himself),
and have mainly managerial
implications, adding little to
scientific part of the field, thus
decreasing
significance.
the
paper's
p.12 (Line 26-36,

38-39); p.13 (Line
1-2, 10-12, 28-29,
33-39); p.14 (Line
1-2, 38-39); p.15
(Line
17-23)
10-13,
p.12 (Line 26-36,

38-39); p.13 (Line
1-2, 10-12, 28-29,
33-39); p.14 (Line
1-2, 38-39); p.15

(Line
10-13,
a HOQ for recovering and preventing 17-23)
service failures. The integration of the
two models is critical but rarely
mentioned in other restaurant-related
studies. In addition, this study integrated
AHP and HOQ methods to identify the
corresponding PRFP strategies for
individual service failure categories. It
also contributes to the academia and
complements the shortage of service
Page 31 of 55
failure and recovery research in the

restaurant industry. Therefore, we have
strengthened these research results to
increase the papers significance in
Conclusion.
1-2 The AHP was adopted in the current p.4 (Line 2-8)
study to collect data on the severity of
service failures. Although the severities
of the AHP may be different from the
r
Fo
ones of general CIT research on service

failure classifications, the severities of
failure categories may vary by culture.
We have stressed the rationale of using
the AHP at Line 2-8 on p.4. For
example, the AHP excels at intangible
quantification, relative measurement,
and consistency in group decisions more
than other tools do (Raharjo et al., 2007).
1-3 We have also responded the problem p.2 (Line 11-19)
about generality at p.2 (Line 11-16) p.16 (Line 14-24)
and p.16 (Line 18-28).
er
Pe
Re
2. Relationship to Literature: 2-1 The literature review has been

reorganized and presented in a more
Does the paper demonstrate an
systematic and analytical way.
adequate understanding of the
relevant literature in the field 2-2 The selected strategies for a certain
strategy group are a subset of all
and cite an appropriate range
of literature sources? Is any
possible strategies mentioned in
literature. The classification model of
significant work ignored?:
vi
The paper does cite the

appropriate range of literature.
However, the review should be
done in a more systematic and
analytical way. For example, it is
not completely clear whether
selected strategies for a certain
strategy group are the only ones
recognized in the literature, or is it
just a subset of all possible
strategies mentioned in literature,
pp.3-6
p.3 (Line 19-22,

31-35); p.4 (Line
2-8, 22-26); p.5
(Line 11-18); p.6
PRFP strategies is constructed according (Line 26-31)
to the literature review, research team
brainstorming and expert focus group
interview. We have revised and
improved the literature review. For
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
instance, the present paper classifies the

PRFP strategies into four strategy groups
including front of the house, back of the
house (i.e., kitchen), human resources,
and
logistics
support
system
management to form a PRFP strategy
and if it is a subset, how was it
classification model.
formed.
In addition, some statements were 2-3 We have reorganized and strengthened p.6 (Line 26-31)
the theoretical basis of selected PRFP
quoted without sufficient amount
strategies in Literature Review and
of analysis (i.e. line 57 on page 5
Theoretical Background Section. For
and lines 1 to 8 on page 6; it is not
clear
whether
good
customer
relationship management helps in

service failure prevention, or just
mitigates the consequences).
r
Fo
example,
.Sajtos
et
al.
(2010)
revealed that the protective layer of

customer relationships can protect the
customer value-loyalty process from the
negative impact of service failure. Jones
et al. (2011) stated that a proactive
strategy is one in which a service
company invests resources in the
development and strengthening of
relationships with customers to mitigate
the negative effects of possible service
failures and is also characterized as a
er
Pe
preventive action. Therefore, good

customer relationship management helps
in service failure prevention and
Re
mitigates negative effects of service

failures.
2-4 Some other literature review and p.3 (Line 19-22,
theoretical background also was added 31-35); p.4 (Line
2-8, 22-26); p.5
and improved.
(Line 11-18)
ew
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 32 of 55
3. Methodology: Is the paper's 3-1 The research gap has been stressed out
more clearly. The research value and
argument
built
on
an
importance of the current paper has been
appropriate base of theory,
figured out.
concepts or other ideas? Has
the research or equivalent 3-2 Also, the research aimed at restaurant
industry described on p.8.
intellectual work on which the
paper is based been well
designed? Are the methods
employed appropriate?:
The research gap should be
p.1 (Line 14-21,

25-26, 30-33); p.2
(Line 5-19)
p.8(Line 26-27)
Page 33 of 55
stressed out more clearly. Was

research
aimed
at
restaurant
industry in specific, or was

restaurant industry used as a mean
to present a wider point? It is not
clear what is the research
question, and why is there a need
for this kind of research.
I'm not sure that brainstorming 3-3 The literature review and research team p.7 (Line 3-14,
brainstorming were executed to create 17-21)
can provide sufficient amount of
two
initial classification models.
scientific rigor. In addition, the
Sequentially, an expert focus group
Author(s) state that "focus group
interview was conducted to construct the
only has five professionals, their
formal models. For example, , based
professional
consensus
and
r
Fo
opinion should be accepted", but

do not offer a rationale in that part
of manuscript on why their
opinion should be accepted. How
on the characteristics of this industry and

the classification framework of Bitner et
al. (1990) and other failure literature
(Table 1), this study adopted research
team brainstorming to conclude and

summarize the classification of service
failures with three groups and 31
categories
in
Service
Failure
Classification Model subsection.
3-4 In addition, for strengthening the
appropriateness of focus group method, p.7 (Line 9-14,
we have added The focus group 17-21)
interview facilitated consensus building
ew
vi
Re
was reliability of expert data

checked (besides the years of
working experience)?
er
Pe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
in the expert group and decision

making . The validity, accuracy, and
appropriateness of the service failure and
PRFP strategy classification is endorsed
by four experts at least in the expert
group. After thorough discussion and
confirmation by the experts, on p.7.
Questionnaire design and analysis 3-5 Design and construction of the two pp. 3-6;
follow sufficient amount of rigor.
models is based on literature review (pp. pp. 7-8
However, the results might be
3-6) and expert group opinions (pp. 7-8). p.8
questioned, having in mind the
To establish a more specific and concise
way models were devised.
service failure classification model, we

also conduct Pretest of Questionnaires
and Factor Analysis. (p. 8) Therefore,
questionnaire design and analysis should
be rigorous.
4. Results: Are results presented 4-1 This paper focused on the construction p.2 (Line 29-38);
of service failure and PRFP strategy p.12 (Line 26-36)
clearly
and
analysed
classification
models
and
the
appropriately?
Do the
integration of the two models through
conclusions adequately tie
together the other elements of
AHP and QFD.
4-2 We have added some statement on p.2 p.2 (Line 11-19)

the paper?
(Line 11-16) and p.16 (Line 18-28) to p.16 (Line 14-24)
The results lack generality, and
respond the generality of research
even the Author(s) is aware of
results.
that. I agree with the Author(s)
that the perception of severity of 4-3 We have added the research limitation p.16 (Line 24-26)
The different research methods such as
service failure is related to
expert focus group interview and AHP
characteristics of a certain culture,
will make comparison of results
which
might
affect
the
r
Fo
research to other environments in the

final section.
vi
methodology differs in some ways

(according to Author(s)) from
methodology used in other similar
difficult with other previous CIT

literature. Also, they will affect the
applicability of results from this
Re
applicability of results from this

research to other environments. In
addition,
the
research
er
Pe
research,
which
makes
comparison of results difficult.
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 34 of 55
The manuscript would benefit 4-4 We have compared the findings with p.11(Line 3-7);
p.12 (Line 38-39);
from the discussion section. other research such as p.11-p.13.
p.13(Line 1-2)
Comparison with findings from
other research in the same field
would be good too.
research, 5-1 The present study used literature review, p.12(Line 26-39);
research team brainstorming and expert p.13(Line 1-2)
society:
focus group interview to establish the
Does the paper identify clearly
service failure category/PRFP strategy
any implications for research,
models in a HOQ for recovering and
practice
and/or
society?
5. Implications for
practice
and/or
Does the paper bridge the gap
preventing
service
failures.
The
Page 35 of 55
between theory and practice?
integration of the two models is rarely
How can the research be used
mentioned in other restaurant-related
in practice (economic and

commercial
impact),
in
teaching, to influence public
studies. In addition, this study integrated

AHP and HOQ methods to identify the
corresponding PRFP strategies for
policy,
in
research
(contributing to the body of
individual service failure categories. It
knowledge)?
complements the shortage of service

failure and recovery research in the
What is the
impact
upon
society
(influencing public attitudes,
affecting quality of life)?
Are
these
implications
consistent with the findings
r
Fo
also contributes to the academia and
restaurant industry. Therefore, we have

strengthened the scientific implications
to increase the papers significance in
Conclusion.
and conclusions of the paper?

The paper has little scientific 5-2 We also improved managerial
implications, and is mostly
implications in restaurant industry to
focused
on
managerial
reinforce the significance of the present
implications. However, most
paper.
suggestions are more in line with
p.13 (Line 28-29,

33-39); p.14 (Line
1-2, 38-39); p.15
(Line
10-13,
17-23)
common
sense,
and
the 5-3 At the same time, we transfer the p.14 (Line 38-39)
suggestions, as they are now,
implications of restaurant industry to
could easily be made according to
some other industry.
literature review only. Also, it
would be good to see the
possibilities
of
transferring
er
Pe
ew
implications to restaurant industry

to some other industry.
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
6. Quality of Communication: 6. The full paper has been proofread and

Does the paper clearly express
corrected for grammar, punctuation,
its case, measured against the
spelling, verb usage, sentence structure,
technical language of the
and native English usage to improve the
fields and the expected
manuscript quality and make it more
knowledge of the journal's
readable. The Introduction has been
readership?
Has attention
revised and improved to clarify the
been paid to the clarity of
research aim. Also, we reorganized and
expression and readability,
such as sentence structure,
jargon use, acronyms, etc.
The structure and style are such
improved the Literature review,

Research method, and Conclusions
and suggestions sections.
that make the manuscript hard to

follow at certain parts. The aim of
research
was
not
clearly
communicated. More attention
should be paid to readability, and
sentence structure should be
checked, preferably by English
native speaker.
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 36 of 55
Page 37 of 55
Questionnaire on the Cognition and Comparison of Severity of the Service Failure

Categories in Restaurant Industry
Ladies and Gentlemen:

This academic research questionnaire aims to compare the severity of the service failure categories
for restaurants with a fixed place of business. These restaurants offer seating and employees to help
customers order their food and delivery services. Restaurants that are excluded include fast-food
restaurants, roadside stalls, native chicken restaurants, mountain and sea food specialty shops, cheap
buffets, snack bars for dumplings and noodles, beer houses, bars and beverage shops for coffee and
bubble black tea. The survey results will then become the development basis of proactive recovery and
failure prevention strategies for subsequent research. This questionnaire is only used for academic
r
Fo
research, please feel free to answer the questionnaire. With your help, the questionnaire will be
conducted smoothly. We really appreciate your help.
Best wishes for good health and all the best.
er
Pe
Associate Professor: Chen, Hsi-Tien

Department of Leisure Industry Management,
National Chin-Yi University of Technology
Emailtien7845@gmail.com
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Part I. Directions for Questionnaires

This questionnaire regards the service failure categories (or groups) as the attributes or criteria
assessing service performance of restaurant industry. Main purpose of this questionnaire is to compare
the severity of the service failure categories for the restaurant industry. The data will be used as the
development basis of proactive recovery and failure prevention strategies for subsequent researches. The
directions for the hierarchal frameworks and questionnaire content for the service failure categories are
illustrated as follows.
1.1 The hierarchical framework of severity assessment of service failure classification model
Assessment goal
Service failure groups
r
Fo
Food and beverage omission

Quality defect of food and beverage
Slow/Unavailable services
Ordering reception mistakes
Pe
Out of stock
Failure to serve customers in order
er
Service system guarantee
Unclear policy
Responses to customer needs
Cook error
Request a replacement meals
Seating problems
ew
vi
Severity
assessment of
service failure
classification
model
Facility problem
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 38 of 55
Reservation mistakes
Failure to respond to the special

needs of customers
Wrong meals order
Wrong meals delivery
employees
Lack of professional knowledge

Cultural norms violated
Mischarged
Cheating customer
Individual employee
behavior
Poor service attitude

Failure to inform the customer what
Page 39 of 55
1.2 The definition and description of the service failure groups and categories
All service failure groups and categories are defined and described as below.
1.2.1 The definition of the service failure groups
Definition
When a problem occurs with the service delivery system efficiency,

the service personnel fail to notice or respond to the service failures
(such as omission in food ordered, quality defects or the food
delivery is too slow, etc.)
When a problem occurs with the service delivery system guarantee,

(such as failure to serve customers in order, facility problem or
unclear policy, etc.)
r
Fo
abilities
Due to the lack of professional abilities or knowledge, the service

of personnel fail to offer services to the customer satisfaction (for
example, the service personnel fail to order the right food, deliver the
wrong food or fail to offer professional advice in a timely way, etc.)
er
Professional
employees
For the special needs or customized services required by customers,

the service personnel fail to respond in a timely manner, which leads
to service failures (for example, customers require a special cooking
method, change of food, special seats or changes, etc.)
Pe
Service failures caused by the personal behavior of employees that

are not expected by customers (for example, service personnel cheat
Individual employee behavior
the customers, the service attitudes are bad or the service personnel
fail to notify the customers of their appropriate rights, etc.)
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1.2.2 The content description of service failure categories

Failure
groups
Content description
The restaurant missed the food ordered by the customers or food ordered
failed to be delivered on time.

Quality defects
beverages
in food
and
Service
system
efficiency
The food and Beverage or other products has hygiene or quality defects
(for example, the food is not heated enough, the food is too cold, or the
flavor or ingredients are not right, etc.)
The services or food delivery are too slow or service system fails to offer
the right services, leaving the customers in the cold.
Reception ordering mistakes
Service failures occur during the reception of the customer ordering (for
example, the service personnel are too busy to offer ordering services or
there are no service personnel taking a seat for the customers, etc.)
Out of stock
The food materials are used up or the food is sold out.
Failure to serve customers in The restaurant fails to serve customers in the order that customers arrive or
order
order their food.
Service
system
guarantee
r
Fo
Facility problem
Facility problems in the restaurant (such as water leaks, tableware defects,

air conditioning problems, the lack of lighting, etc.)
Unclear policy
There is a gap between the actual feelings of the customers and the policies
published by the restaurant, leading to customer complaints (such as
business hours, price, discount, etc.)
Cooking error
Pe
Request a replacement meal
The restaurant fails to change or replace dishes according to the customers

needs.
The restaurant fails to arrange or change the seating according to the
customers preference, or there are mistakes in the seat replacement.
The customers requested a reservation, but the restaurant fails to reserve a
seat or the restaurant accepts repeated seating, failing to satisfy the
customers needs.
Re
Responses to
Seating problems
customer
needs
During ordering, customers require a certain cooking method, but the

kitchen fails to do this, which means that the flavor fails to satisfy the
customers needs.
er
The restaurant fails to satisfy the special needs of the customers (such as
adding or deleting food flavors, the degree of spices or salt, the degree of
needs of customers
sweetness or ice, etc.)
vi
Wrong meals order
Due to the operational mistakes of the service personnel, the wrong meals
are ordered for the customers.
are delivered to the customers.
Professional
abilities of Lack of professional knowledge
employees
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 40 of 55
Due to the lack of professional knowledge of the service personnel, the

restaurant fails to offer professional services or advice in a timely way.
The service personnel violate cultural norm (for example, their words or
deeds show disrespect towards some religions or races)
Mischarged
Due to the operational failure of the counter personnel, the restaurant

mischarged customers or returned with the wrong change.
Cheating the customers
For the sake of convenience or work performance, the service personnel

made excuses to cheat the customers or high-pressure selling to customers.
Individual
employee Poor service attitude
behavior
The attitudes of the service personnel are bad or the service personnel are
unwilling to respond the customer requests in a timely way.
The service personnel fail to inform the customer what they should know,
Failure to inform the customer
leading to the damage of customer rights (such as the collocation of
what they should have known
ingredients and the dining time, etc.)
4
Page 41 of 55
Part II. Completing the Questionnaires

2.1 Comparison of the Severity of Service Failure Categories for the restaurant industry
2.1.1 Directions for Completing the Questionnaires
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) conducts a pairwise comparison for the failure categories (or
groups) and evaluates the relative severity. The evaluation scale is divided into nine levels, which is
shown in the following table.
Relative
Severity
Definition of Relative
Severity
Equally severe
Slightly severe
r
Fo
Explanation
The severity of two indicators (or categories) are the
same
Based on the experience and judgment, one indicator (or
categories) is slightly severe.
categories) is very severe.
categories) is extremely severe.
Enough evidence to show that one indicator (or
categories) is totally severe.
Very severe
Extremely severe
Totally severe
Pe
Mean of the neighboring

indicators (or categories)
2468
When a compromise is needed.
er
2.1.2 Examples for Completing the Questionnaires

Example 1: Under the assessment goal of the severity assessment of the service failure classification
model (see the detailed hierarchical framework figure), this questionnaire compares the
relative severity of the failures caused by the professional abilities of employees with
Re
individual employee behavior. If you believe that the professional abilities of employees have
extremely relative severity than that of individual employee behavior, please tick in the
7:1 grid.
9:1
8:1
7:1
Professional
abilities of
employees
6:1
5:1
4:1
The ratio of relative severity

3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3
ew
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1:4
1:5
1:6
1:7
1:8
1:9
Individual
employee
behavior
Example 2: Under the failure group of Service system efficiency, this questionnaire compares the
relative severity of the failure categories of Food and beverage omission with Quality
defects in food and beverages. If you believe that Quality defects in food and beverage has
a higher relative severity than that of Food and beverage omission, please tick in the 1:5
grid.
9:1
8:1
7:1
6:1
5:1
4:1

3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3
Food
and
beverage
omission
1:4
1:5

5
1:6
1:7
1:8
1:9
Quality
defect in
food and
beverages
2.1.3 Completion of the Formal Questionnaire

1. Comparison of Relative Severity of the Service Failure Groups
This study divides service failure groups in the restaurant industry into Service system efficiency,
Service system guarantee, Responses to customer needs, Professional abilities of employees,
and Individual employee behavior. Please conduct a pairwise comparison of the relative severity for
the failure groups and tick in the appropriate space based on your understanding of the relative
severity.
9:1
7:1
6:1
5:1
4:1

3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3
1:4
1:5
1:6
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
Service
system
efficiency
Service
system
efficiency
Service
system
efficiency
Service
system
efficiency
Service
system
guarantee
Service
system
guarantee
Service
system
guarantee
Responses
to customer
needs
Responses
to customer
needs
Professional
abilities of
employees
8:1
r
Fo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 42 of 55
1:7
1:8
1:9
Service
system
guarantee
Responses to
customer
needs
Professional
abilities of
employees
Individual
employee
behavior
Responses to
customer
needs
Professional
abilities of
employees
Individual
employee
behavior
Professional
abilities of
employees
Individual
employee
behavior
Individual
employee
behavior
Page 43 of 55
2. Comparison of the Severity of the Service Failure Categories

(1) Under the failure group of Service system efficiency, please conduct a pairwise comparison for the
relative severity of all service failure categories based on your understanding and tick in the
appropriate space.
9:1
8:1
7:1
6:1
5:1
4:1

3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3
1:4
1:5
1:6
1:7
1:8
Food and
beverage
omission
1:9
Quality defects
in food and
beverages
Food and
Slow/Unavailab
le services
beverage
omission
Food and
Reception
ordering
mistakes
beverage
omission
Food and
beverage
omission
Quality defects
beverages
Quality defects
in food and
in food and
Slow/Unavailab
le services
Out of stock
vi
Slow/Unavailab
Reception
ordering
mistakes
Re
beverages
Slow/Unavailab
le services
er
beverages
Quality defects
Out of stock
Pe
in food and
r
Fo
le services
Reception
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
ordering
mistakes
Reception
ordering
mistakes
Out of stock
Out of stock
(2) Under the failure group of Service system guarantee, please conduct a pairwise comparison for the
relative severity of all service failure categories based on your understanding and tick in the
appropriate space.
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
Failure to serve
customers in order
Failure to serve
customers in order
Facility problem
Unclear policy
Facility problem
Unclear policy
(3) Under the failure group of Responses to customer needs, please conduct a pairwise comparison for
the relative severity of all service failure categories based on your understanding and tick in the
appropriate space.
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
Request a replacement
meals
Seating problems
Failure to respond to
the special needs of
customers
Cook error
Cook error
Cook error
Cook error
meals
meals
meals
Seating problems
Seating problems
customers
customers
customers
er
Pe
Seating problems
r
Fo
(4) Under the failure group of Professional abilities of employees, please conduct a pairwise
comparison for the relative severity of all service failure categories based on your understanding and
tick in the appropriate space.
Re
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
vi
Wrong meals order

Wrong meals order
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 44 of 55
Wrong meals order

Wrong meals order

Lack of professional
knowledge
Mischarged
knowledge

knowledge
knowledge
Mischarged
Mischarged
Mischarged
Page 45 of 55
(5) Under the failure group of Individual employee behavior, please conduct a pairwise comparison
for the relative severity of all service failure categories based on your understanding and tick in
the appropriate space.
9:1 8:1 7:1 6:1 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9
Cheating customer

Failure to inform the
customer what they
should have known
customer what they
should have known
Cheating customer
r
Fo
Part III. Basic profile

1. Gender:
2. Age:
3. Educational level:
4. Profession:
Male
Female
15-30 years
31-40 years
41-50 years
High school and below
College/university
Master and above
Manufacturing industry
Service industry
Government
Housewives
Others
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
51-70 years
Students
Questionnaire for Experts on the Cognition of Proactive Recovery and Failure

Prevention Strategies in the Restaurant Industry
Dear experts and scholars:

This academic research questionnaire aims to assess the cognition of proactive recovery and failure
prevention strategies of various failure categories for restaurants with a fixed place of business. These
restaurants offer seating and employees to help customers order their food and delivery services.
Restaurants that are excluded include fast-food restaurants, roadside stalls, native chicken restaurants,
mountain and sea food specialty shops, cheap buffets, snack bars for dumplings and noodles, beer
houses, bars and beverage shops for coffee and bubble black tea. The survey results will then be used to
proactively recovery and prevent service failures of various service failure categories for restaurant
industry in the future. This questionnaire is only used for academic research, please feel free to answer
r
Fo
the questionnaire. With your help, the questionnaire will be conducted smoothly. We really appreciate
your help.
Pe
Best wishes for good health and all the best.
er
ew
vi
Associate Professor: Chen, Hsi-Tien

Department of Leisure Industry Management,
National Chin-Yi University of Technology
Emailtien7845@gmail.com
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 46 of 55
Page 47 of 55
Part I. Directions for Questionnaires

This questionnaire regards the service failure categories (or groups) as the attributes or criteria
assessing service performance of restaurant industry. Main purpose of this questionnaire is to investigate
the correlation cognition between the service failure categories and proactive recovery and failure
prevention strategies for the restaurant industry. The analyzed results will be used to proactively
recovery and prevent service failures for various service failure categories. The directions for the
hierarchal frameworks and content for the service failure categories are illustrated as follows:
1.1 The hierarchical framework of severity assessment of service failure classification model
Assessment goal

r
Fo
Quality defect of food and beverage
Ordering reception mistakes
Out of stock
Pe
Failure to serve customers in order
er
Unclear policy
Cook error
Request a replacement meals
Seating problems
ew
vi
Severity
assessment of
service failure
classification
model
Facility problem
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

needs of customers
Wrong meals order
employees

Mischarged
Cheating customer
Individual employee
behavior

Failure to inform the customer what
2
1.2 The definition and description of the service failure categories

All service failure groups and categories are defined and described as below.
1.2.1 The definition of the service failure categories
Definition
When a problem occurs with the service delivery system efficiency,
(such as omission in food ordered, quality defects or the food
delivery is too slow, etc.)
When a problem occurs with the service delivery system guarantee,

r
Fo
(such as failure to serve customers in order, facility problem or

unclear policy, etc.)
abilities
Due to the lack of professional abilities or knowledge, the service

of personnel fail to offer services to the customer satisfaction (for
example, the service personnel fail to order the right food, deliver the
wrong food or fail to offer professional advice in a timely way, etc.)
er
Professional
employees
For the special needs or customized services required by customers,

the service personnel fail to respond in a timely manner, which leads
to service failures (for example, customers require a special cooking
method, change of food, special seats or changes, etc.)
Pe
Re
Service failures caused by the personal behavior of employees that

Individual employee behavior
are not expected by customers (for example, service personnel cheat

the customers, the service attitudes are bad or the service personnel
fail to notify the customers of their appropriate rights, etc.)
ew
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 48 of 55
Page 49 of 55
1.2.2 The content description of service failure categories

Failure
groups
Content description
The restaurant missed the food ordered by the customers or food ordered
failed to be delivered on time.

The food and Beverage or other products has hygiene or quality defects
Quality defects
in food
and
beverages
system
(for example, the food is not heated enough, the food is too cold, or the
flavor or ingredients are not right, etc.)
Service
The services or food delivery are too slow or service system fails to offer
efficiency
the right services, leaving the customers in the cold.

Service failures occur during the reception of the customer ordering (for
Reception ordering mistakes
r
Fo
Out of stock
example, the service personnel are too busy to offer ordering services or
there are no service personnel taking a seat for the customers, etc.)
The food materials are used up or the food is sold out.
Failure to serve customers in The restaurant fails to serve customers in the order that customers arrive or
order
Service
Facility problem
order their food.
Pe
Facility problems in the restaurant (such as water leaks, tableware defects,
air conditioning problems, the lack of lighting, etc.)
system
guarantee
There is a gap between the actual feelings of the customers and the policies
Unclear policy
er
published by the restaurant, leading to customer complaints (such as

business hours, price, discount, etc.)
Re
During ordering, customers require a certain cooking method, but the

Cooking error
kitchen fails to do this, which means that the flavor fails to satisfy the
customers needs.
vi
The restaurant fails to change or replace dishes according to the customers

Request a replacement meal
Responses to
Seating problems
customer
needs.
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
The restaurant fails to arrange or change the seating according to the

customers preference, or there are mistakes in the seat replacement.
needs
The customers requested a reservation, but the restaurant fails to reserve a

seat or the restaurant accepts repeated seating, failing to satisfy the

customers needs.
The restaurant fails to satisfy the special needs of the customers (such as

needs of customers
adding or deleting food flavors, the degree of spices or salt, the degree of
sweetness or ice, etc.)
Professional Wrong meals order
are ordered for the customers.
abilities of
employees Wrong meals delivery
are delivered to the customers.
4
Due to the lack of professional knowledge of the service personnel, the

restaurant fails to offer professional services or advice in a timely way.
The service personnel violate cultural norm (for example, their words or
deeds show disrespect towards some religions or races)

Due to the operational failure of the counter personnel, the restaurant
Mischarged
mischarged customers or returned with the wrong change.

For the sake of convenience or work performance, the service personnel
Cheating the customers
made excuses to cheat the customers or high-pressure selling to customers.
Individual
employee
The attitudes of the service personnel are bad or the service personnel are
unwilling to respond the customer requests in a timely way.
behavior
Failure to inform the customer
what they should have known
r
Fo
The service personnel fail to inform the customer what they should know,
leading to the damage of customer rights (such as the collocation of
ingredients and the dining time, etc.)
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 50 of 55
Page 51 of 55
Part II. Completing the Questionnaires

2.1 Directions for Questionnaires
Taking the relationship matrix for the House of Quality (service failure categories/proactive
recovery and failure prevention strategies) as an example, in order to ensure every service failure
category has corresponding proactive recovery and failure prevention strategy strategies, this study first
takes the association and correlation degree of proactive recovery and failure prevention strategies and
corresponding service failure categories into consideration, offering scores for the service failure
category grids and cross grids for proactive recovery and failure prevention strategies (0 = irrelevant ( ),
r
Fo
1 = lowly correlated (), 3 = moderately correlated (), and 9 = highly correlated ()). The higher the
scores, the higher the degree (the higher correlation) the proactive recovery and failure prevention
strategies will be for the corresponding service failure categories of prevention and solution. Please
Pe
conduct an evaluation of the correlation of the service failure categories and the corresponding proactive
recovery and failure prevention strategies.
er
2.2 Example for Completing the Questionnaires
Re
For example, in terms of the strategy to prevent Quality defects in food and beverages, if you
believe that Enhanced cooking skills is very helpful in reducing the gap (or is highly correlated),
vi
please draw (or 9 points) for the cross grids for these two items; If you believe that Improvements in
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
cooking methods and procedures is moderately conducive to improving the gap (moderately correlated),
please draw (or three points) in the cross grids; If you consider that Environmental hygiene and
dining atmosphere only has a low correlation (lowly correlated) with improving the gap, please draw
(or 1 point) in the cross grids; If you hold that Customer relationship management and other
preventive strategies are not helpful (irrelevant) at all, please leave a blank (or 0 point) in the cross grid.
An example is shown in the following table.
Proactive Recovery and Failure Prevention Strategies

Front of the house
management
Back of the house management
Logistics support
system
Information
technology
management system
of
relationship
Customer
management
training

punishment system
Educational
employees

employees
Professional expertise and

leadership at managerial level
Improvements in cooking
methods and procedures
and
system
failure
Slow/Unavailable
services
ee
and
Product
design
development
rP
Enhanced cooking skills
Food
procurement
acceptance
Fo
Environmental hygiene and

dining atmosphere

maintenance
Service
efficiency
Food
and
beverage
omission
Quality defectsin food
and beverages
Design of service delivery

system
Highly Correlated = 9
Moderately Correlated =3
Lowly Correlated =1
( ) Irrelevant =0
Service
categories
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Page 52 of 55
rR
ev
iew
2.3 Formal Questionnaire (Relationship matrix between service failure categories, and proactive recovery and failure prevention strategies)
There are no fixed standard answers to the relationship between service failure categories and their corresponding proactive recovery and failure
prevention strategies. Please complete the questionnaire based on your professional recognition (the example is shown in the above section). Whilst
completing the questionnaire, please fill in the grids to specify the degree of the relationship between service failure categories (row) and their
corresponding proactive recovery and failure prevention strategies (column) from top to bottom. If you believe that there is no relationship, please
leave blank (or 0 point). Do not miss any items, thank you.
7
Proactive Recovery and Failure Prevention Strategies
Information
management system
technology
relationship

Customer
management
of
training
punishment system
Educational
employees
employees
and
guarantee
expertise
Unclear policy
Professional
Facility problem
Service system
customers in order
leadership at managerial level
Out of stock
cooking
mistakes
in
ordering
Improvements
and
and
and
services
methods and procedures

design
hygiene
Slow/Unavailable
Product
development
procurement
Enhanced cooking skills

Food
acceptance
Environmental
dining atmosphere
and beverages
Quality defects in food
maintenance
( ) Irrelevant=0
Design of service delivery
Lowly Correlated=1
iew
Reception
serve
to
Failure
and
Food
system
Moderately Correlated=3
ev
omission
rR
beverage
ee
rP
Fo
Highly Correlated=9
Logistics support system

Back of house management
Front of house management
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Page 53 of 55
Cooking error
meals
Seating problems
Failure to respond to the
special
needs
of
customers
Wrong meals ordered
Individual employee
behavior
employees
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Page 54 of 55
Cheating the customer
Wrong meals delivered

Lack
of
professional
Fo
rP
ee
rR
knowledge
ev
Mischarged
iew
Poorservice attitude
customer
what
they
should have known
Part III. Basic profile

Male
1. Gender:
Restaurant industry
2. Profession:
Restaurant manager or above
3. Ranking
4. Years of service 5 years or less
Female
University instructors
Assistant professor or above
6-10 years
Others
Others
11-15 years
16
years or more
Page 55 of 55
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
10

Ijopm R1

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ijopm R1

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

Applying Quality Function Development in Proactive

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

Applying Quality Function Deployment in Proactive Recovery and Failure

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

from service failures.

Literature Review and Theoretical Background

Classification of Service Failures and Recoveries

Severity of Service Failure

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

Front of the House Management

Back of the House Management

Human Resources Management

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

prevent service failures.

Logistics Support System Management

Service Failure Classification Model

service failure classification model.

[Insert Table 1 here]

PRFP Strategy Classification Model

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

[Insert Table 2 here]

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

Pretest of Questionnaires and Factor Analysis

and those items were deleted.

Questionnaire Design and Survey

first section applied to customers defined as having experiences of encountering non-specific

Implementation Processes of the HOQ

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

AHP Questionnaire Survey Results

followed by students (23.08%), manufacturing workers (15.38%), housewives (13.02%), those

Severity of Service Failure Categories

Empirical Data Analysis

[Insert Table 3 here]

HOQ Questionnaire Survey Results

Results of HOQ Analysis

belonged to front-of-the-house management. When restaurant operators can effectively implement

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

Conclusions and Suggestions

mentioned in other restaurant-related studies.

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

to other organizations or enterprises.

Inseparable Operation Management and Community Sense

Integration of the Logistics Support System

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

Review, Vol. 7 No. 10, pp. 32-35.

quality, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 2938.

Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 18 No. 11, pp. 842849.

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

International Journal of Operations and Production Management

Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 148-156.

Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 230-247.

recovery efforts, Journal of Service Marking, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 49-61.

Journal of Service Research, 14 (3), 31839.

Publish Ltd, London.

Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 89-104.