Service recovery

Last updated 19 September 2019

This post covers why all service businesses should have a service recovery process and also covers some aspects of how to achieve continuous improvement through the recovery process. I also look at the role of the apology, how to deal with difficult customers, the importance of allowing mistakes (as well as learning from them and fixing them) in service innovation, and finally, I critically analyze an incident on a Jetstar flight and discuss some complexities in service recovery.

In the introduction, there are several key aspects of the service recovery process.

1. Failure will occur in complex service process delivery. Every failure is a promise not kept. If a promise is not kept then there is a perceived 'moral lack' in the organisation. Another way to look at service recovery is as a way to repair a relationship that has gone wrong.
2. Service recovery is part of a continuous improvement process.
3. Seek complaints in order to collect information about processes in order to improve them.
4. Seek complaints as learning opportunities.
5. Paradoxically an organisation needs to aim for fault-free processes, but they should also have a culture where mistakes are allowed. Without mistakes, learning cannot occur.    
6. Well-solved complaints will delight the customer and cement their loyalty.

The impact of dissatisfaction

If dissatisfaction occurs in service delivery two main things can happen: either the customer takes action about their dissatisfaction, or they don't. 

Johnston and Clark (2008). Service management. Improving service delivery.  Pearson: London. 

It might seem that the second option, 'no action' is the best option for the firm, but this is not the case. If someone takes 'no action' they are likely to not go back and then you never have the opportunity to understand what when wrong from their point of view. In the action options, both actions of public and private action are not necessarily damaging. Actually, seeking direct redress from the firm is probably the best possible outcome, because at this point the business has the opportunity to recover from the service failure, with the accompanying possibilities of creating a more loyal customer through solving the customer's problem. Also, implementing service recovery in a timely way can help mitigate the effects of legal action and complaints to other agencies like private and governmental agencies and watchdogs.  The options of private action - stop buying the product and warning friends about the product or seller - are the two actions that a service business should curtail by making sure that they encourage complaints so that people feel confident and secure in telling a service where they went wrong.

The cost of dissatisfaction is graphically shown in the next figure:

Johnston and Clark (2008). Service management. Improving service delivery.  Pearson: London. 

You can see from this figure that the number of people told increases exponentially according to how dissatisfied a customer feels. One doesn't need too much imagination to realize that with social media like facebook and twitter the number of people that can be told about a poor experience can potentially reach the thousands and even millions. The mass media can also exacerbate a problem if it is not fixed immediately. Further on in this post, I discuss an example using Jetstar who took their time implementing service recovery after a drunk passenger urinated in the aisle of a plane. This story was taken up in the media and because of a huge story over several days.

The next figure shows what types of action people take based on levels of dissatisfaction.  Actions include telling friends, complaining, making a fuss, not use again, and dissuade others.

Johnston and Clark (2008). Service management. Improving service delivery.  Pearson: London. 

One striking issue from the graph above is the impact of word-of-mouth on return custom. "The average business only hears from 4% of their customers who are dissatisfied with their products or services. Of the 96% who do not bother to complain, 25% of them have serious issues. The 4% complainers are more likely to stay with the supplier than 96% non-complainers. About 60% of the complainers would stay as customers if their problem was resolved and 95% would stay if the problem was resolved quickly. A dissatisfied customer will tell between 10 and 20 other people about their problem. A customer who has had a problem resolved by a company will tell about 5 people about their situation" (Johnston and Clark, 2008).

Approaches to service recovery

The above statistics reinforce the need to have a robust service recovery process in place. Not only does a well-carried out service recovery process cement customer loyalty, but it also turns the word-of-mouth 'bad news' stories into 'good news' stories. A further point to remember is that service recovery is not a one-off process undertaken to fix mistakes. Serve recovery should be seen as part of a systematic continuous improvement process. Businesses should seek complaints so that they can see more clearly exactly what it is customers want and provide it. They can identify where systems are not working, and fix it. In addition, and is not often mentioned, service providers can identify whether or not they can actually meet needs. If there is a gap between expectation and perceptions that is leading to dissatisfaction and complaints then how can the gap be closed? Yes, the service provider can fix an error, but they can also identify if they need to train the customer more effectively to use a service, but also by other means like selecting customers more effectively.

Four basic service recovery approaches are used by service organizations. First, there is the case-by-case approach. In this approach, each customer’s complaint is dealt with individually. The downside to this approach is that other customers may perceive unfairness. The second approach is a more systematic response. Such an approach uses a protocol to handle complaints. However, there needs to be a prior identification of critical failure points and continuous updating. The third approach is early intervention to fix any problems before the customer is affected. And finally, the fourth approach is to substitute a service. In some cases, service providers will even recommend a rival firm to provide a service. The downside of this is that such a process may lead to the loss of customers. Airlines deal with this problem by developing strategic alliances so that if one airline is booked, the overflow is pushed onto another 'sister' airline. Hotels often do the same thing.  In reality, prevention is the best policy and organizations may use all four approaches depending on the level of discretion staff have to fix a problem.

Service recovery relationship to service guarantee

The relationship between service recovery and the service guarantee should be clear. The service guarantee provides a statement to the customer about what the service 'promises' to deliver. The service recovery process 'kicks into play' when the service guarantee level is not met. All guarantees should be unconditional, easy to understand and communicate, meaningful, easy to invoke and easy to collect. The Warehouse NZ is a great example of a retail organization with an excellent and well-understood service guarantee.  Although their returns policy webpage is quite complex, it is clearly understood by customers that The Warehouse provides a money-back guarantee. This guarantee drives a lot of business for The Warehouse because it increases customer confidence. 

Apologising as part of service recovery

"Sorry is the hardest word" is a common saying about human relationships. In service recovery, one has to get over one's difficulties with saying "I am sorry". Whilst saying this, it has to be acknowledged that apologizing is a fraught subject for many service organizations. I have recently written an online book about  Air New Zealand's apology to the families of the Erebus disaster. The post covers some basic principles about organisational apologising.

Successful apologies with technology and the role of apology in customer service innovation

One service recovery actions done using technology that I thought was good is from Little Moo:

Mistakes are part of innovation, and so it is important to recognise the role of mistake-making in creativity. The following video, with Richard Moross of Moo, refers to the above email and discusses how this mistake ended up as a point of innovation for this company.

Dealing with difficult customers and apologizing

Often customers get irate and angry. This video sets out 6 steps to deal with angry customers including the role of the apology in dealing with dissatisfied customers.   This video gives lots of really good advice about how to deal with dissatisfaction for staff that work in the front-line dealing with customers. Video covers the following tips: 

1. Apologise
2. Use diplomacy
3. Go into computer mode 
4. Be solution focused 
5. Show empathy
6. Thank the customer for giving you feedback

Critical worked example of service recovery by Jetstar

Let's look at a service recovery by using an example of a poorly managed service problem experienced by  Jetstar. The incident relates to a recent incident that was reported in the media about a young man who was so drunk he stood up and urinated in the aisle of a plane as it was traveling between NZ and Asia. In looking at this incident I am using a framework often used in communications analysis called 'The dramatistic pentad', which originated in the writing of Kenneth Burke. Basically, Burke argues that all human action is dramatic. He stated: "If action, then drama; if drama, then conflict; if conflict, then victimage”. In this framework, we use five aspects that help us describe and analyse the scenario. First, agents who are the people that perform the acts. Burke suggests that there are always rescuers, persecutors, and victims. Second, there is the act - that is what took place. Third, there is the scene or the background to the situation. Fourth there is agency, or the means and instruments the agent/s employ, and finally, there is the purpose or the motives that drive the act.

The particular incident is described in more detail in relation to these five aspects below:

1. Agent/s -  Inebriated passenger (Mr. X); Other passengers; Cabin crew

2. Act –  Inebriated passenger X stood up and urinated in the airline aisle. Passenger X was not following rules of appropriate conduct in an airplane. He was not violent or difficult. Just very drunk. The other passengers reacted with understandable disgust.  There are very strict rules of interpersonal engagement in economy class and sharing bodily fluids is not one of them. Because the incident occurred in economy class other passengers were immobile and unable to act. People remained/felt polluted/dirty for the remainder of the trip. The cabin crew did not react appropriately according to other passengers. Cabin crew facilitated some self-help clean-up (by giving passengers tissues). One cabin crew member reportedly giggled. Others apparently ignored the situation. There was a puddle and a scarf that was not cleaned.

3. Scene – The flight was a Jetstar flight to Auckland-Singapore. Place space is transient and liminal.
There is a temporary allowance of people to enter into each others' private space due to cramped conditions of economy flight. What little private space that was available was transgressed and made dirty.

4. Agency –  Interpersonal agency on the flight was used in that passengers and cabin crew entered into a series of communication events involving confrontation, appeals to disgust, outright complaints, humour, and denial. The media fastened onto the story after the plane had landed and passengers complained in public.  The media named and shamed the perpetrator. People had taken photos on the plane of the drunk passenger. The cabin crew was the focus of blame in the newspaper articles. Other victim disgust stories emerged of other similar incidents on other flights and there was a general venting about poor experiences on other Jetstar flights. Jetstar management then made a service recovery response. Staff were censured about the incident.  A public apology was made to customers and recovery package was awarded (upgrades etc.).

ž5. Purpose –  In terms of analysing this incident in terms of service recovery it seems clear that a number of processes could be put into place to minimise the chances of this type of thing happening again. What could they be? For management arguably their purpose was simply to dampen down an outbreak of vehemence against the airline. Although a service recovery process was undertaken, it was done late and there is some question about how meaningful the response was. 

Overall the point of a pentad approach is to analyse the relationships between elements so that an overall critical understanding of the incident can come through. For instance, it is not enough to simply describe the event using the five factors. The question is, overall who receives the greatest attention by the powerful rhetors (speakers) in this incident?  

My view is that the 'story' of this incident was not so much about a drunk young man on a flight but about relationships between passengers and cabin crew in economy class, and the relationship between cabin crew and management. Economy class passengers felt immobilised and powerless during their long transit. They mainly blamed cabin crew for lack of action to relieve their discomfort; they are the closest to them after all. Customers could not escape the situation and so sat for hours steaming over their problem. Once out of the plane passengers went straight to the media who then exacerbated their outrage by promoting a victim-perpetrator-rescuer story made all the more powerful because of its central message of pollution. The public response to censure staff and reward passengers did not actually get to grips with the basic problem on these flights - passenger and staff dis-empowerment. In the end the media story ended up being the 'tail that wagged the dog'. This is what the service recovery process focused on - the visible symptoms of hidden underlying issues. Service recovery should focus on the underlying causes and respond to those. 

Management's response* should be to examine their internal processes and think about how to stop this incident from happening again. This is their role - process management.  Yes, stopping further negative publicity is important, but more important is to look at internal procedures. First, tighten up on drunk passengers getting on the plane in the first place (manage the customer). Second, knowing that passengers are immobilised and staff frantically busy all the time on full economy flights, how can this type of incident be stopped? Train crew to respond more appropriately is another action. Training customers to respond is another. Empower staff to respond with appropriate things they can do to resolve a situation, like moving passengers into other seats. Perhaps enabling better communication between flight and ground crew so that recovery can be implemented as soon as the plane lands would be something else.   

Whatever the service recovery approach used, it is important that Management take responsibility for the incident and that the tendency to blame the customer or front-line staff is subdued. Recovery is appropriate and important but the focus should be on learning from the incident so that processes can be improved; this is management's responsibility.

* These issues could have been addressed in Jetstar's internal review processes so this post is not meant as a criticism of Jetstar or management.  

Customer Processing - KFC

by Fitirani Sari. Thanks to Fitriani for permission to publish her work on this blog.  

Executive summary 

The purpose of this report is to analyze management problems and business issues within the Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) Restaurant Chain and to recommend methods for improvement and achievement of the best possible business solution for the company (Babbar, 2002). 

KFC is one of the biggest fast-food chain restaurants in the world, primarily selling its unique, original recipe fried chicken. Due to competition in the fast-food industry, KFC needs to constantly update its service and meet customer expectations to maintain its place as a leader in the industry. On the other hand, KFC continually receives many complaints, mostly related to its service and food safety issues. These challenges could potentially alienate customers and affect the company’s image. 

This report discusses several critical issues in the fast-food process: service quality (Parasuraman, et al., 1988), food safety control,  increased competition in the market, and innovation in the fast-food industry. 

The report suggests that KFC can improve its service by adopting new technology to ensure its fast-food service is fast, differentiate its service from fast-food competitors, and engage with customers’ needs to improve and innovate in its service provision and so be a leader in the fast-food industry. 

Introduction 

News flash: KFC Vegan option added to menu!

This report's purpose is to carry out an analysis and provide advice as to how the business can be improved. 

As one of the biggest fast-food chains in the world, KFC dictates the standard for its products and services to its restaurants all over the world. This standard applies to all its franchises, but challenges still occur. KFC  faces many issues in terms of quality, service, resources, and management. KFC needs to resolve and continuously improve service if it wants to remain a top player in the fast-food chain industry. 

As an iconic service brand, KFC needs to be perceived as a service leader (rather than a qualifier or a loser).   Using service logic is therefore imperative for KFC as this will enable them to think innovatively. Service logic (Grönroos, 2000) begins with understanding what value is being delivered to customers and this means understanding  KFC's customers' end-to-end experiences. Simply, service value for customers occurs when they feel better after the service has been experienced than they did before they had the service (Grönroos, 2008). For KFC customers, several key moments (moments of truth) in the service experience are critical: these are waiting, ordering, and the quality of the food (which includes getting what was ordered). A complicating factor for KFC is that feelings (of satisfaction) are predetermined by the nature of their customers. KFC customers tend to make larger orders - family packs and/or party orders. Consequently, large orders are fairly common, as opposed to a fast-food outlet like McDonald's which handles more small individual orders. However, KFC customers may expect their meal to arrive as fast as it does at McDonald's, but the size of orders makes this challenging for KFC. 

A 'large event' requiring a large order is used to advertise KFC in a recent advertising campaign on TV and in the Youtube clip below. This shows that these larger orders are being targeted by KFC, and as one can imagine, fulfilling an order for this type of event so that all the food arrives hot in a timely way and without waiting is challenging.  

In order to co-create service value for customers, service providers need to adopt a service logic in building their facilities or services (Grönroos, 2008). This report will evaluate the issues KFC faces in service quality, food safety, and queuing systems, suggest recommendations for these situations, and suggest how to improve its service in order for it to remain a competitive and sustainable business.

Discussion 

KFC background 

Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) is a fast-food restaurant chain, which primarily sells well-known fried chicken with a 'secret spice' recipe. It was founded in Louisville, Kentucky, United States by Colonel Harland Sanders in 1952. Sanders started serving his fried chicken at his gas station in Kentucky in 1930. He then found a way to reduce the cooking time for his fried chicken by using a pressure fryer. Soon after he created the well-known 'original recipe' fried chicken that, as is well known from their advertising, is made with eleven different ingredients. 

When a new route was built that bypassed his town of Corbin, Sanders sold his properties and began to sell his chicken to restaurants, receiving a share of the profits from each piece of chicken sold. He gained a new partner to the fried chicken business in Utah in 1952. Together, the Colonel and his partner opened the first Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet (Nii, 2007). By the early 1960s, Kentucky Fried Chicken was sold in over 600 franchised outlets in the United States and Canada.

Sanders sold the entire KFC business operation in 1964 to Louisville business people for USD $2mill, equal to USD $14,987,124 in today’s money (KFC, 2011). The chain was sold in 1986 to PepsiCo, which made it part of its Tricon Global Restaurants division, which in turn was sold in 1997, and renamed Yum! Brands (KFC, 2011). (Check for later sales)

KFC was present in 110 countries and territories around the world by 2011. It had in excess of 5,200 outlets in the United States and more than 15,000 outlets in other parts of the world (KFC, 2011). KFC have operated in NZ since 1971 and have over 97 stores in the country.  

Due to the intense competition in the fast-food industry today, KFC needs to focus on continuous improvement of their service. Throughout its development, KFC has always focused on their product - chicken and other food items. It may appear that this focus on the product means they have not been so attentive to issues around service process and facilities. Customers complain regularly about all KFC service, and like with any service industry these complaints should be welcomed. However, they should also be listened to and acted upon. KFC needs to listen to complaints so they can see the frustration customers are feeling and what they should focus on to improve their service.  People like KFC chicken. But they complain about their service as can be seen in social media and websites. For instance, go here for a typical list from a complaint and compliment website, and search fro KFC.

For a service winner in a service industry complaints can have a big impact on the business. KFC does have service problems which might stop customers from buying their product. Thus, KFC has to find methods to meet their customer service expectations which are not currently being met (Heskett et al., 1994). 

Perhaps the most critical or major issue for KFC's is being able to deal with change. In a very competitive industry, a fast-food company needs to be constantly reflecting on their external realities. Overall KFC's focus must be on surviving and flourishing in the global fast-food industry. 

Service quality 

As stressed above, KFC's biggest issue is its service, not its product. Even though KFC has procedures for all eventualities, issues still occur because employees might not always follow these procedures. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) linked customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions with service quality, saying that the success of organizations is highly related to perceived quality. Organizations providing superior service also experience high levels of customer satisfaction and positive rumor (Gilbert, Veloutsou, Goode & Moutinho, 2004; Gilbert & Veloutsou, 2006). Several studies address the issue of service quality and customer satisfaction in fast-food restaurants (Gilbert et al., 2004; Qin & Prybutok, 2008) reinforcing the applicability of general service quality measures to the fast-food industry. 

By using Parasutaman et al's (1985) SERVQUAL scale we can see the service quality of KFC from customers’ perspectives. The quality of service is determined by tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy (Gronroos, 2007). In service quality, tangible factors are related to the facilities, equipment and the appearance of the service provider. Reliability here means the accuracy of the service; that is, not making mistakes and delivering what has been promised in the setup time. Responsiveness means that the service provider is being helpful to the customers, and notifies customers when the service will be provided. Assurance is defined as an employee’s behavior, making customers feel secure, and that employees are always polite and have the information to assist customers’ requirements. Empathy means that employees understand customers’ problems and act based on customers’ interests, and give personal attention (Gronroos, 2007). 

Reviewing quality factors as identified above, and the lists of complaints available online about KFC, it appears that the service process could be improved. The commonest complaint about KFC ordering process is about accuracy. Employees often process incorrect orders and even sometimes misplace customer orders. Another common customer complaint is the waiting time for orders to be processed is too long. Customer expectations here are set by other fast-food restaurants like McDonald's and Burger King. Another common complaint is about long queues. Although KFC has drive-through options, during peak hours (lunchtime and dinner time), customers still experience long queues, both inside the store and at the drive-through. Although people enjoy the taste of KFC and it remains a popular chicken product, having a 'goods' focus to the detriment of the service process means that other important attributes of a fast-food restaurant not been dealt with satisfactorily. These factors include service response time, accuracy, and a range of other factors like cleanliness and the quality of prior service are also important factors (Qin, Prybutok & Zhao, 2010). 

Based on these issues, KFC’s problems might be understood as reliability and assurance. KFC is experiencing a service delivery gap, wherein quality specifications are not met by performance in the service production and delivery process (Gronroos, 2007). The cause of this gap can come from management and supervision, employee perspective of the procedure and a lack of technological/operational support (Gronroos, 2007). Another gap that KFC is experiencing is a perceived quality gap, in which the customers feel disappointed because the service that KFC gave is not the same as the expected service (Gronroos, 2007). The result of this could be negatively confirmed quality (bad quality) and quality problems, bad word-of-mouth and negative impacts of corporate, or local, image. All of these can lead to lost business. One thing that KFC should improve is their service recovery process so that this negative word-of-mouth can be changed to positive-word-of mouth (Spreng, Harrell, 1995).  

Service logic

Service logic from a customer perspective is when customers generate value for themselves when using resources offered by a service provider. On the other hand, from a service provider perspective, when they make interactive services, service providers create a chance to co-create value together with customers (Gronroos, 2008). KFC should employ service logic to add value creation to its customers. By employing service logic, the business should focus on building the service based on customers’ needs where they can have more freedom to choose their own product or service. Customers would like to customize their purchases and create their own service value and service providers could help the customers in the process. The form of service logic in the KFC could be self-kiosks service with nutritional details so then the customers could select their own menu and pay without influence from the employees and KFC could add value with adding nutritional information on the application. This would have the added value of helping customers to understand the healthier options KFC makes available. 

To improve the service 

When it comes to improving service fast food companies should employ new technologies, as the fast-food industry has gained a lot in terms of efficiency and customer support by applying simple ideas in technology. In fast-food restaurants reducing queue waiting time is essential. By making processes faster there is a direct improvement in customer satisfaction due to shorter waiting lines. Fast-food restaurants are now routinely using ordering channels, such as online and mobile ordering services. 

E-Commerce 

The adoption of the drive-through system by the fast-food industry was one of the main technological advances in the sector. Drive-through options helped reduce waiting times in the store and helped improve service efficiency. KFC has employed this system, yet there is still queuing in the drive-through line and inside the store. This means that KFC needs to employ other systems in order to reduce these queues; for example, takeaway and delivery services. Many fast-food restaurants apply e-commerce and m-commerce in their sales systems. KFC has delivery services in NZ now. By ordering online, however, customers can choose in their own time rather than waiting in a line to make an order, especially when in a group of people where it is harder to reach a consensus. Moreover, the advantage of online ordering is that people have access to the menu online, which makes it simple to choose from the several options normally available to customers. Whether or not these new ordering systems are reducing queues at the restaurants is unknown, but online complaints about waiting still abound. 

M-Commerce 

As Smartphones are becoming more widely used, people now do many things through their Smartphones. Smartphones have replaced the use of the computer for some people who not only browse on their phone but also buy using their Smartphone applications. Many businesses now build their shopping application platforms to attract the growing number of Smartphone users. For example, Domino’s Pizza has Domino’s mobile platforms. The company has announced £10m of sales in the UK in eight months period in 2011 via its iPhone application and almost fifteen percent of its total digital sales were made through Smartphones (Domino’s, 2012). KFC should adopt this m-commerce style as well in order to gain more customers and improve their service, giving its customers more purchase options. (Update this section)

Self-service kiosks 

The newest technology being used in the service industry are self-service kiosks, where customers control the entire process of purchasing, starting from choosing the menu to carrying out their own payment without any assistance from a staff member. Self-service kiosks are now not just used for ordering and payment, but can also display nutritional and other promotional campaigns. These kiosks are more common in Quick Service situations and are used mostly as a remedy for queues. McDonald's has already replaced cashiers with self-service kiosks. Branches in Texas USA trailed nutritional kiosks that have a 'build a meal' application to help customers review the menus and nutritional details in their selected menus (Kelso, 2010) to improve the customer service experience. KFC should employ similar technology and compete with other fast-food restaurants to win customers. Moreover, by adopting self-service counters, companies can reduce the cost of labour and eliminate human error. Many factors can affect a human cashier, with errors tending to increase during busy times (Hoeft-Wessel, 2010). 

Differentiate the service 

Other than adopting the new technologies mentioned above, KFC could provide better service to influence the waiting experience such as by providing TV and magazines so that customers could watch or read when waiting. Or KFC could provide a playground for children so they can play while their parents are waiting in line and/or eating. KFC is already very successful at differentiating its products from its competition with KFC's famous original fried chicken. To attract its customers, KFC should differentiate its service as well. This could be the way to market their brand and also give back to customers by providing better service. 

Long-term 

KFC employs a mix of low cost and differentiation leadership strategy (Peng, 2009), as it can count on its brand name and original taste and recipes to be unique, while at the same time it competes on price using the benefits of cost savings from economies of scale. One of their main goals is to take advantage of potential growth in new territories, to establish a strong position and to develop their image. Crucial factors are to continue cost savings through R&D, innovation and to adopt new technology to enhance efficiency. These methods will reduce costs and increase margins in the industry. 

KFC also needs to focus on health issues, as it has a fast-food image and is generally considered to produce unhealthy food. The current generation is, on the whole, more health-conscious than previous generations. Many people consider a healthy menu to be very important and more of a determinant to choice than price. Companies already implemented in the market are adapting their menus to make them healthier. Thus, KFC needs to find something healthier to put on the menu. 

KFC has, in the past, always concentrated on its product. To maintain its leadership in the industry KFC needs to focus on what customers want and follow market changes, as well as continue to improve their service as well as their products. In the age of social media, KFC also needs to follow the trends to engage with social media users. This is not just important for marketing, but for listening to and learning what customers want and need. With this, they can be a step ahead of their competitors in the industry. 

Conclusions

Competition has become increasingly intense in the fast-food industry. Fast food restaurants are expected to be fast and accurate in delivering orders. Complaints are common and include mistakes like packing orders incorrectly and also the ubiquitous problem of customers waiting in line. KFC has focused on their tasty product but they need to focus more on service. Complaints should be listened to and made the focus of operational improvements. Many complaints from customers indicate KFC often delivers poor service despite having detailed service process procedures.

KFC should apply a service logic to their operations.  KFC has 'drive-through' but the service world is changing very fast. Competition is very high in the fast-food industry. Competitors are building their service to keep up with customers’ needs. KFC needs to do at least the same, and preferably better than their fast-food competition.   

Recommendations

To improve the service 

KFC should use service technology to improve its service such as employing e-commerce practices in their service - for example, online ordering. Another way to improve the service is through employing m-commerce, which is now a trend for service-based business due to the growth of mobile phone technology. 

To increase service accuracy and solve the queuing problem KFC could adopt new queuing systems that separate the ordering queue and the waiting queue and provide self-service kiosks, which would minimize human error. These self-service kiosks could have an additional function which provides nutritional screens that show the calories in meals being ordered. This will allow the customers to choose and review the meal that they will buy. 

To understand its customers KFC should try to be more interactive in engaging with customers through social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. 

Long-term: 

KFC should place greater focus on product innovation. It should learn about customers preferences and create new menus. Therefore, the role of R&D is essential to remain a leader in the field. The R&D department needs to differentiate KFC products from other similar products and create a competitive advantage. For example, it should consider aiming for healthier products as people now tend to be more conscious about their health. 

KFC should use service logic, which focuses on customer needs in order to create a better service experience and improved quality

References (to be updated)

Babbar, S. (1992). A dynamic model for continuous improvement in the management of service quality. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 12(2), 38pp.

Domino’s mobile platforms taking a slice of mCommerce. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.appstechnews.com/blog-hub/2012/apr/25/dominos-mobile-platforms-taking-a-slice-of-mcommerce/ 

Gilbert, G.R. and Veloutsou. C. (2006). A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(5), 298-308. 

Gilbert, G.R., Veloutsou, C., Goode, M.M.H. and Moutinho. L. (2004). Measuring customer satisfaction in the fast food industry: A cross-national approach. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(5), 371-83. 

Grönroos, C. (2007). Service management and marketing: Customer management in service competition (3rd ed.). Chichester, West Sussex, England Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 

Grönroos, C. (2000). Creating a relationship dialogue: Communication, interaction and value. Marketing Review, 1(1), 5pp.

Grönroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: Who creates value? And who co-creates? European Business Review, 20 (4), 298-314. 

GSN. (2008). I've got a secret interview. [Radio Broadcast] originally broadcast April 6, 1964 (rebroadcast by GSN March 30, 2008).

Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W., & Schlesinger, E. (1994). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 164-170.

Hoeft-Wessel. (2010). Self-Service Shopping: Advantages for Both Retailers and Customers. Retrieved from http://www.hoeft-wessel.com/en/press/0409_Retail_Digest.pdf 

Kelso, Alicia. (2012). Kiosks helping McDonalds' customers order healthier meals. Retrieved from http://www.selfserviceworld.com/article/191550/Kiosk-helping-McDonald-s-customers-order-healthier-meals 

KFC. (2011). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.kfc.com/about/ 

Nii, Jenifer K. (2004). Colonel's landmark KFC is mashed. Retrieved from Desert Morning News http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595057690/Colonels-landmark-KFC-is-mashed.html. 

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49 (4), 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12—40.

Peng, M. W. (2009). Global strategy (2nd ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western.

Qin, H. and Prybutok, V.R. (2008). Determinants of customer-perceived service quality in fast food restaurants (FFRs) and their relationship to customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Quality Management Journal, 15 (2), 35-50.

Spreng, R., Harrell, G.and Mackoy, R. (1995) Service recovery: Impact on satisfaction and intentions, Journal of Services Marketing, 9 (1), 15 - 23