Talk:Service recovery paradox

this article should be deleted for lack of notability of the subject matter

This so-called paradox is not well known enough to warrant having its own article. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you please substantiate your point of view? The term is subject of 476 academic publications www.scholar.google, and is an important topic for practioners. User:Michelstef 07:00, 2014 January 11

Example

Clearly a large monetary reward is provide in return of a slight inconvenience. I can understand and relate to this paradox, that's how I came across it in the first place. However, the example is clearly over the top.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.40.14 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 15 September 2015‎

Good point. It does seem unnecessarily detailed, and it's inappropriate to namecheck an actual company in a hypothetical example. And although the example is sourced, it's not a great source. I'll have a go at writing a replacement. --McGeddon (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Memokerobi (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not finish editing, I will include everything that was already in the initial article. I'm changing as I go along so that it isn't seen as vandalism. Memokerobi (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I am now finished Memokerobi (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Article under reconstruction

I have made a few minor changes to this article, but intend to work on it in a more substantive way. There are many problems with it in its current form:

1. Lack of focus: Much of the article is about customer satisfaction in general terms. However, the SRP is fundamentally concerned with satisfaction following a service failure. Thus the factors should consider the factors that contribute to service failures and how consumers perceive them rather than discussing the factors that contribute to satisfaction in general.

2. Major Omissions:

(a) SRP draws heavily on attribution theory - that is how customers attribute blame for service failures. The attribution of blame has a major bearing on how services recover from failures. This issue really should be addressed in any article on SRP.

(b) In terms of how companies manage recovery from failure justice theory has been very useful and this should be discussed in the article. Equally this issue should be addressed.

3.Service failures are normal: The tone of the article needs to reflect the fact that from time to time service failures are normal. The nature of services - capacity constraints, uneven demand, impact of external factors (e.g. inclement weather) etc means that no service can deliver exceptional quality all the time. Therefore service firms need to plan for failures and be ready to execute recovery plans at a moment's notice.

There is a very sizeable body of literature on this topic which can be used to rework this article with an improved focus and an up-to-date understanding of the key issues. Please let me know if there are any specific aspects that you think should be included by posting on this talk page. BronHiggs (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up

I have addressed most the issues in the preceding comment. There is a section headed "factors" which seems to be is rather more concerned with general commentary on customer satifaction rather than addressing service recovery related issues. My feeling is that this section adds no value and could be deleted. WP already has ample coverage of customer satisfaction, so the commentary merely duplicates other articles, and it does little to clarify service recovery and the so-called paradox. Anything that adds to verbiage without adding to value should be deleted. Do people have any strong views about this? BronHiggs (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Most of this article is not about the paradox at all! Perhaps it should be split into two articles, one about service recovery and the other the paradox. --31.48.186.151 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)