Understanding service failure and recovery: A customer-based phenomenographic approach

To date, researchers have largely considered service failure and recovery as a combination of individual constructs, often in isolation, rather than viewing failure and recovery holistically. Consequently, our understanding is fragmented. Furthermore, while some attempt has been made to gain a better understanding of service failure and recovery from both the customer and the employee’s perspective (cf. Bitner et al.1990; McColl-Kennedy and Sparks 2003), no study has employed an interpretative perspective that potentially offers a rich, in-depth approach to this important area of research. Given this gap, our paper presents the value of taking a customer-based interpretive approach to obtaining a fuller understanding of the way customers view service failure and recovery. In this paper we report the findings of our phenomenography study of twenty in-depth interviews. Not only do we argue the benefits of adopting this fresh approach to studying service failure and recovery, we also present an innovative conceptual framework derived from our phenomenographic research findings, which has significant theoretical and practical implications.

Large-scale complex IT systems

Society depends on complex IT systems created by integrating and orchestrating independently managed systems. The incredible increase in scale and complexity in them over the past decade means new software-engineering techniques are needed to help us cope with their inherent complexity. The key characteristic of these systems is that they are assembled from other systems that are independently controlled and managed. While there is increasing awareness in the software engineering community of related issues, the most relevant background work comes from systems engineering. The interacting algos that led to the Flash Crash represent an example of a coalition of systems, serving the purposes of their owners and cooperating only because they have to. The owners of the individual systems were competing finance companies that were often mutually hostile. Each system jealously guarded its own information and could change without consulting any other system.