Toward E-Knowledge Based Complaint Management

8/12/2019 Toward E-Knowledge Based Complaint Management

1/15

Toward E-Knowledge Based Complaint

Management

Samiha MjahedInstitut Suprieur de Gestion (ISG)

University of Tunis-TUNISIA

Abdelfattah TrikiInstitut Suprieur de Gestion (ISG)

University of Tunis-TUNISIA

Abstract Service failure and recovery is a well-established area of services research. Research has shown that service

recovery is critically important from a managerial perspective in terms of maintaining customer relationships. Yet few firms

excel at handling service failures. There is a growing number of managers who claim that customers tend to be dissatisfied

with their service recovery effort. Their employees cannot improve service processes when they experience recovery situations

and their companies still do not learn from service failure. [19] attribute the service recovery ineffectiveness to the competing

interests of managing employees, customers and processes. We agree with their contention that to address these criticisms,complaint management must acknowledge and find new approaches to achieve consistency and to correct the misalignment of

interests that can exist between the actions of the organisation and the needs of its customers and employees. We believe that

search in the customer knowledge management literature represents one effective means to enhance a firm ability to implement

a cohesive service recovery strategy.

A comprehensive based knowledge creation system framework where the Socialization, Externalization, Combination and

Internalization (SECI) modes, and various ba proposed by Nonaka and Konno are introduced for complaint management.

Empirical research, involving a case study is presented to illustrate the proposed framework. This framework is believed to

pave the way for e-knowledge based complaint management.

Keywords: complaint management, customer knowledge management, information technology (IT)

1. Introduction

Complaint management processes have two mainproperties. First, they utilize information technologiesto break the barrier between employees and enablecustomers to obtain information and service recoveryfrom companies. [16] believe that using acomputerized system helps to overcome problemsassociated with inter organisational communication ofadverse information, mainly complaints. According tothe traditional styles, consumers have to complain faceto face to lodge their complaints or deliver writtencomplaint to access service recovery from companies.Second, companies can communicate and processcomplaint using many electronic tools, such asnetwork, E-mail, etc. They are able to offer differentchoices of service recovery according to customersdifferent requirements such as time and place.Generally speaking, in E-age many customer servicescan be performed through the network. According torecent developments in complaint management, datamanagement and information management have to betotally implemented through computer technologies,

which mean that E-knowledge management will be themajor trend in complaint management. This is the onlyway for companies to effectively manage customercomplaints.

However, previous researches in complaintmanagement have not recognised how complaintmanagement contributes to or impedes knowledgemanagement. Although the literature has identifiedmany critical factors that affect service recovery

performance, the essential features that lead toknowledge creation have not been explored.Identifying the critical factors of the successfulimprovement of complaint management by KM andinvestigating how these key factors affect servicerecovery performance remains largely unexplored.

Moreover, complaint management practices

undermine knowledge management by pursuing thegoal of control associated with avoiding negativefailure consequences. This view is much moredeveloped than the potential positive effects of failure.Paradoxically, firms often restrict themselves in fixingwhat has been broken in order to restore satisfactionand to prevent defection. This strategy stops halfwaysince the goal of service recovery should be tocapitalize on complaint management by takingadvantage of the learning opportunities afforded byservice failures and proactively taking unexpectedactions. [6] note that if complaints are transformed intoknowledge about customers, they can provide avaluable amount of capital for enterprises.

One way to contain the negative and to promote thepositive consequences of failure is to use knowledge


2/15

management. On the control side, knowledgemanagement implies adaptive actions by quicklydetecting complaint and establishing customersatisfaction. With regard to learning from failure,knowledge management uses complaint as learningand improving opportunities. Knowledge management,thus, overcomes the inherent conflict in allocatingresources between control and learning perspectives.

This study describes a knowledge-enhanced servicerecovery implementation. We want to introduce theactual status quo of Customer KnowledgeManagement (CKM) initiative within complaintmanagement and shed light on the question of howcompanies successfully utilise knowledge about, fromand for customers to achieve superior performance incomplaint management processes. In order to addressthese issues, case study research is conducted to

identify practices of customer knowledge managementin processes of complaint management.The paper is organised as follows. After a brief

presentation of background and research methodology,we offer a case study to explore how complaintmanagement promotes knowledge creation. First weidentify the complaint management steps in a processmodel. Second we explore knowledge-creationopportunities within complaint management. ThirdSocialization, Externalization, Combination andInternalisation (SECI) modes and various ba

proposed by [21] are introduced in order to facilitate

knowledge creation within a complaint managementprocess. Last, a comprehensive complaintmanagement-based Knowledge-Creation System is

proposed.

2. Theoretical background2.1 The advent of Customer Knowledge

management

Knowledge is widely recognised to be a vital asset forthe survival and prosperity of organisations. Effectiveknowledge management offers a competitiveadvantage within the high competitive pressure in

business market and the rising customer expectationsregarding product/service delivery quality.

Knowledge management extends beyond thecollection of data and their categorisation. In

particular, knowledge management is concerned withboth people and systems, and it is important tounderstand the link between knowledge managementand organisational learning. In this context, [23]considers KM as a holistic philosophy that isconcerned with the management and exploitation of

corporate knowledge. The last takes a variety of formssuch as policy documents, contents of databases,knowledge locked away in peoples heads, know-how. There seems to be a congruence ofunderstanding that Knowledge can be either explicit or

tacit and scholars often use the word knowledge tomean both. Explicit knowledge, also known as formalor codified knowledge, can be expressed by words andnumbers and it can be shared by IT-systems, whereastacit knowledge, known as implicit knowledge isunspoken and hidden. It is knowledge that is held inworkers minds and which is embedded in thefulfilment of their job role and therefore hard toformalise and communicate.

[21] claim that these two types of knowledge interactwith and interchange into each other, in a spiralling

process, in which individuals learn from others andfrom the shared knowledge of the organisation, tocreate new knowledge that in turn becomes part ofcorporate knowledge and thus part of the new spiral ofknowledge creation. Their proposed model illustratesfour types of interaction, represented by the acronym,

SECI.Socialisationwhich involves individuals in the sharingof tacit knowledge, in the process of becoming part ofa larger self that includes the tacit knowledge ofothers;Externalisation which involves expressing tacitknowledge in a form that can be understood by others,during which the individual becomes one with thegroup;Combination which entails the collection of explicitknowledge, from sources inside and outside theorganisation, and its combination, editing, processing

and distribution;Internalisationin which the newly created knowledge,which is in explicit form, is converted into theorganisations tacit knowledge, through training andthrough individuals learning to access the knowledgerealm of the group and the entire organisation [21].

[21] also suggested the need to create an appropriateenvironment in which knowledge can be created andtransferred, describing this as a "Ba" - a shared spacefor emerging relationships, that might be physical,virtual, or mental, providing a platform for advancingindividual and/or collective knowledge [21].

With the information technology (IT) explosion thefocus that has largely dominated research is the role ofIT in Knowledge management (capture, codify andshare Knowledge). Gartner suggests that while "strictlyspeaking, KM does not require the use of software"they "believe that KM technology is necessary to agood KM program." Cited in [7].

Customer Knowledge Management (CKM) is anarea of management where KM instruments and

procedures are applied to support the exchange ofcustomer knowledge within an organization and

between an organization and its customers, and wherecustomer knowledge is used to manage customerrelationships, to improve CRM processes such ascustomer service, customer retention and relationship

profitability [24]. The CKM process as introduced by


3/15

[25] offers a process perspective to illustrate whichKM tools can be applied to the CRM sub-processes toachieve effective CKM. It introduces the four KMaspects1) content, 2) competence, 3) collaboration, and4) composition. Content refers to the knowledge aspectwhen knowledge has to be separated from individualsand codified. Competence focuses on understandingwhich customer knowledge (explicit and implicitknowledge) is required by employees in order toaccomplish their tasks in different business processesdealing with customers. Collaboration refers toknowledge that only exists in groups such as projectteams and it focuses on how this kind of knowledgecan be supported. Composition characterizes theincorporation and the cost-effective diffusion ofcustomer knowledge within an organization.

2.2 Complaint management

Given the predominance of a marketing and customerfocus in the service recovery literature, the operations

perspective has received only a limited attention [18].The interest in complaint management, from this

perspective, is the process by which complaints arehandled and customers recovered. The design,

planning, control and execution of these processes arecore operations tasks [11]. A number of attributes ofhigh quality complaints-handling processes have beenidentified [8], [11]. These include: - having clear

procedures; - providing a speedy response; - thereliability (consistency) of response; - having a single

point of contact for complainants; - ease of access tothe complaints process; - ease of use of the process; -keeping the complainant informed; - staff understandthe complaint processes; - complaints are takenseriously; - employees are empowered to deal with thesituation; - having follow-up procedures to check withcustomers after resolution; - using the data to engineer-out the problems; - using measures based on causereduction rather than complaint volume reduction.

There has also been research on complaint

management in human resources. [2] who introducedthe concept of internal service recovery, described itas the way an organisation endeavours to make front-line employees more able to deal with dissatisfiedcustomers, examined the idea of service recovery andlooked at the importance of internal customer service.The importance of supportive internal relationshipwith frontline employees through the provision ofresources (training, information technology systems,empowerment, and organisational culture) has beenwell demonstrated by a number of studies [2], [21],[1], [28], [13], [14].

It is worth noting that some researchers described theapproach to complaint management taken byorganisations, mainly as how to cope with complainingconsumers and learn from complaint. Indeed,

employees have trouble hearing a complaint asfeedback. Instead they hear it as a personal attack ontheir esteem and self-efficacy and perceive it as anexternal job stressor and as a source of role conflict[27], [11].

Technology enabled service recovery processesremain a ripe area for research. It is argued that the useof information technology and the Internet in

particular, has led to a change in the services firm-customer interaction. More services become self-services and supported by technology. Studiesfocusing on self-service technology are frequent, butstudies focusing on service recovery in a self-servicetechnology context are scarce [12]. Service recoveryhas become increasing dependant on informationtechnology to enable capabilities such as capturing,tracking, and acting on recovery data but little work

has been devoted to IT influence upon service recovery[3].

3.Research Methodology

In this study, we were especially interested inascertaining how and why complaint management can

be successful within companies and how CKM canenhance the performance of complaint management

processes. The deployment of case studies isrecommended in order to answer how and whyresearch questions [29].

In order to identify the status quo of a knowledge-enabled service recovery, we studied the case of a

bank. We conducted ethnographic fieldwork,observing and interacting with banks employees,customers, and consultants. We toured facilities andinitiated conversation with whomever we met. Whenwe understood how a complaint management isimplemented and our observation raised no furtherquestions, we agreed that our understanding hadreached saturation.

Our findings about the process and the analysis ofservice recovery were checked by a consultants team,

both to help verify the accuracy of our representationand interpretation and to provoke additionalchronological stages: before and after the bankingrestrictions recommended by the consultants. In factwe continued visiting the bank from time to time todevelop insights into the change in complaintmanagement processes that the consulting group setup for the bank.

This approach is adopted by [5] when they proposedto understand how organisations change to becomemore market oriented. They ascertain that participant

observation in the field gave insight into the livedexperience of employees engaged in everydayactivities.

To understand how firms implement successfullyservice recovery, we observed and analysed a bank


4/15

seeking to implement a knowledge based complaintmanagement. We used in depth, qualitative datacollection techniques: ethnographic observation, depthinterviews (in particular oral histories) and historicaldocumentations; methods that are common inconsumer behaviour, anthropology, sociology andorganisational research [5].

The content of the most crucial immersed episodesdescribing those moments at work when employeeswere dealing with complaints is transcribed asverbatim and interpreted. The discrepancy between

best practices of complaint management normativelyidentified in the literature and actual implementation inthe case before hand impelled us to identify anddescribe successful practices where KM helped toimprove complaint management processes effectively.The ultimate goal was to derive a guiding framework

that may help to overcome the practical challengesassociated with the topic.

4. Analysis and Discussion of Knowledge-

based complaint management practices

For our research purpose, we adopted the proposedstructure in respect of the topic of how complaintmanagement is enhanced by KM initiatives: 1. thediagnostic of the complaint management in the bank,2. Knowledge components in the complaintmanagement process and 3. Knowledge transference inthe complaint management process.

4.1The diagnosis of complaint management inthe bank

Being immersed in the routine practices of complaintmanagement, we have been part of the various task

processes. On the basis of observations, interviewswith employees and of internal documents, andreferring to [9], [4], [18], and [27] researches,complaint management in this case reveals a process of

five stages: (1) reception of complaints, (2) analysis,selection and classification of complaints, (3)formulation of replies to complainants, (4) tracking ofcomplaint information and trend analysis (see fig 1 inappendix 1).

Then strengths and weaknesses of such a process areunderlined (see table 1). The former consist in topmanagement commitment to daily complaint trackingwhich result in proper complaint handling, accountinformation sharing, and appropriate decision making.The weaknesses lie in the variability of the feedback,in the measures taken by the different bank services, in

the neglect of oral complaints in comparison to thewritten ones, and in the lack of motivation of front lineemployees.

Table 1. Strengths and weaknesses of the bank in managingcomplaints

Strengths Weaknesses

The creation of a servicededicated to complaintmanagement provides a globalview on the number and the

nature of complaints

Despite the fact that thecomplaints are transmitted tothe relevant services, the replydeadlines differ from one

service to the otherThe processing of the complaintis centralized in the banksheadquarters and decentralizedin the different services at thesame time. This mobilizes thebanks staff to a maximum andsensitises them to theimportance of customerorientation.

Apart from the face to facecomplaints received by the bankheadquarters, all othercomplaints are not recorded andare not subject to processing,monitoring and follow-up.

The complaint service isvalorized by an adequatehierarchical unit as well as bythe involvement of the person

in charge of it in meetings anddecision making.

The complaint managementsystem overemphasises writtencomplaints while oralcomplaints (i.e. telephone or

face to face) seem to beignored.

The complaints are managed ona daily basis so as to accountfor the seriousness of the case

The lack of integration of thecall centre to the complainingservice process.

The involvolvement of topmanagement in managingcomplaints is believed toimprove the processing of thecomplaints and to reinforce thechange towards a clientoriented mindset and behavior.

The system of complaintstreatment suffers from asegregation problem. It onlylistens to important customers.Small accounts are totallyignored.

The person in charge ofcomplaints is endowed with an

expertise in written as well as inoral communication that makesof her an adequate spokesmanof the bank in the media. Heractive participation in trainingon complaints managementreinforces her sense of servicequality.

The system of complaintstreatment lacks maturity in

comparison to state of the artCRM capabilities. Based on anAccess data processing tool, theapplication has the followingdrawbacks. It does not recordthe complaint data so as toidentify segments and to usemodels for the understandingand the prediction of clientbehaviours. Nor does it giveaccess to pieces of informationprovided by the differentservices about the status of thecomplaint and the decisionsmade

The person in charge ofmonitoring and updating thedata base is knowledgeableabout banking techniques andadheres totally to themanagement philosophy ofclient satisfaction. He makessure to file and answer thecomplaints and to remind thefailing service to provide theneeded piece of information.

The system of complaintstreatment cannot provide a toolfor an advanced monitoring ofservice complaints so as tomake adjustments and toimprove service quality on thebasis of indicators ofperformance such as thepercentage of customers havingreceived a reply in one or twodays, repetition of errors,number of recidivistcomplainers.

The information obtained bythe bank is diffused to thepeople that are concerned withthe problem. It is deemed

The system of complaintstreatment doesnt provide anyindication on the outcomes ofexternal investigations so as to


5/15

strategic information and issuitably exploited. Thefeedback represents a tool ofreinforcement of customerorientation.

assess client satisfaction orclient evaluation of thecomplaints treatment processesand consequences.

4.2 Knowledge components in the complaint

management process

The complaint management process reveals a strongknowledge intensity. It involves a two-way flow offeedback: an external feedback from complaint toorganisation and an internal feedback or intra-organisational feedback. This information process ischaracterized by descendant and ascendant flow (seeappendix 2).

We analyse the KM instrument supporting this

customer- oriented business process by referring to thefour KM aspects identified by [25]: 1) content, 2)competence, 3) collaboration, and 4) composition.Aspect of content:

Complaints revealing customer dissatisfaction reachthe customer care department through calls, mails, website, fax and written inquiries. The content within theorganisation was disseminated via e-mail. Eachdepartment had to use the complaint content in the waythey deemed appropriate. As the amount of contentincreased, the navigational structure become more andmore cluttered.Complaint acquisition also involves storing thisknowledge in a convenient format for future retrieval.The bank uses a management information system torecord the complaints and its related data likecomplainant name, address No document isavailable to standardize content creation processes andtherefore facilitate a review of relevant documentationacross multiple complaints cases. The portfolioestablished by the chief executive of complaintmanagement provides a means to record feedback. It isa manual transcription of the numeric database.

Actually no lessons were learnt from the complaints(See situation A in appendix 3).

Aspect of competency:Although the software is a simple managementinformation database, reports could be generated so asdifferent categories and formats provide the managerwith a basis for decision making. The service recoveryassistant benefits from this ability to consolidate andcategorize unstructured information.

There are formal documents, internal notes, companyrules and regulations, personal notes use of all

knowledge about financial techniques, but no practicalor procedural manuals about complaint managementthat describe experience of previous customer and

proposed solutions. In addition there is an informaldiscussion between staff to take measures for rapid

recovery. An informal meeting space has been set upto encourage staff to acquire knowledge from and totransfer private experience and knowledge. These tools

provide the supporting environment to enhance theacquisition of employees competency in their work.

No external source of data is formally provided forstaff use. Service recovery staff have no access to theinternet. Knowledge acquisition is possible mostlyfrom guiding the internal resources (See situations A,B, C, D in appendix 3).The aspect of collaboration

Collaboration is implemented via direct interactionbetween the chief executive of the complaintmanagement service and her assistant and through thenetwork mediated interaction between members of theservice recovery team. This collaboration enables thedispersed complaint team to store and retrieve

documents from virtually anywhere and to share anduse such documents for service recovery.The aspect of composition

The provided work space promotes knowledgeexchange between teams. In a wide space the servicerecovery unit communicates with two other units (seesituation E in appendix 3).One major shortcoming is the design of knowledgecomposition. The bank operates as a subsidiary andmore than 30 agencies in different regions providecommercial activities. The complaint management

process is not supported by systems enabling local

service organisations to be connected. The customerservice contact can not operate systematically toconceive and optimise complaints answer and servicerequests efficiently. With further investments in thetechnical infrastructure, a knowledge platform wascreated using basic web technology software andapplications. The introduction of this centralizedcomplaint base, optimised the systematic collection ofknowledge from customers about financial trendsexpectations and the support of complaint management

both for customers and employees at the call centresand local agencies. Providing a common electronic

platform for frontline staff and different servicedepartments, the new SI improved timeliness ofinformation available on the knowledge platform andsupport team service recovery agents. It enables themto provide faster answers.

Analysis was made of the high volume of complaintsin order to pursue product enhancement andinnovation. At the end of every three months, servicerecovery department provide a report to the manager togive a statistical view of complaint recovered who asan expert and advisors recommend strategic actions.Once the idea has been found and implementedsuccessfully, the new knowledge can be madeavailable organisationally by management. Despitethis banks focus on the use of knowledge frominbound customer complaints and feedback for product


6/15

enhancement and innovation through therecommendation of headquarter, there is no centralaggregation of complaints in the customer caredomain, or a connection to the global productdevelopment department.

So far there hasnt been any system to encourage orreward staffs to collaborate in order to create orinnovate a new way for their job because there is nosuch rule in the bank (See situation D in appendix 3).

4.3 Knowledge transference in the

complaint management process: Using the

SECI model to analyse the complaint

management process

To understand the process of integrating KM intocomplaint management processes, a framework is

needed for assessing and validating an organisationseffort in so doing. As stressed by [20] and [21], aknowledge forum, ba is an important platform whereknowledge can be shared and new knowledge created.

It seems that several conceptual parallels underpinthe complaint management literature and the SECI.Both streams attempt to capture the dynamic processesassociated with internal operations, as well as theinteractions of the organization with the externalenvironment, mainly the customer. The SECI modelsacknowledge that organizational members must

balance conflicting demands. Likewise,the competinginterests for managing employees, customers and

processes should be considered to ensure servicerecovery effectiveness [19]. The above verbatimillustrations show some viable connections betweencomplaint management and Nonakas knowledgecreation process.

Socialization mode

The knowledge management category comprises twoperspectives on the management of customerknowledge within the organisational context: (a)

knowledge exchange between customers and theorganisation and (b) knowledge dissemination withinthe organisation to those entities where it can be reusedmost effectively.

The complaint management process involves twoparties of exchange, we can admit that the socializationprocess in complaint management occurs whenorganizational members interact with customers, andemployees interact with each others to share tacitknowledge.

Creating tacit knowledge in complaint managementrequires both awareness of employee that facilitates

communication and understanding betweenorganisational members and dissatisfied customers,and skills for this specific context. This wasexemplified by frontline employee expression:

Based on meta-linguistic features such as the tone and facialexpressions, I understand that the customer needs help but I amunable to trigger the needs because I fear that I cant control hisanger. I used to ignore complaints

This bank fails tobuild emotional intelligence in staff.

That is: Imbue frontline employees with the ability tomore effectively gain trust and build rapport,understand emotions when dealing with angrycustomers and improve listening and questioning skillsgenerally. Overall, there is a need to build theconfidence, self esteem and desire of staff to solicitcomplaint.

I used to ignore complaints has much in commonwith [2] ``learned helplessness'' (LH) which posits thatrepeated trials of experiencing lack of control overrecovery situations lead employees to develop a senseof helplessness that is passive, alienated and

maladaptive behaviour such as being unhelpful, actingimmaturely or uncreatively or withdrawing. Thislearning inhibits trying not to be resistant to change.

The customers and the bank have different visions ofthe failure and the degree of the situation criticality.While customers tend to blame the bank, the banktends to use objective approach and to place a greatemphasis on failure evaluation from its perspective and

break through social and relational boundaries andtherefore cancelling the trust of customer.The customer-perceived acceptability of a servicefailure may be a stronger predictor of the failure than

provider-defined failure magnitude [19].A phone conversation with a complainant reveals thatthe chief executive regards complaining customers asnuisance and too demanding:

Your complaint cannot really be considered as such. It is the thirdof this type. We have already explained that we can do nothing foryou. It is not possible, it is the implemented procedures and therules which guide our decisions. I have just said to you that itisnt a complaint. Moreover, the manager banker has notappreciated your complaint letter ". Having finished this call, theperson in charge of the complaints follow-up and treatment said:"They dont know "our internal kitchen". They assimilate all theirneeds to a complaint. They believe that this service is set up toachieve all their ambitions and resolve all their problems.Customers are so selfish."

Another discourse of the person in charge of thecomplaints follow-up and treatment is indicative of herservice recovery orientation:

We must keep a distance in our relationship with the complainants,otherwise they will take an advantage and their expectationstoward this service will increase.

The bank gives hint that it views complainers withsuspicion. The following illustration shows thatmanagers doubt customers honesty when voicing acomplaint:


7/15

Several complainants write in their letters that they had receivedfrom the ATM an amount less than the one they asked for and thattheir account was debited with the wrong amount. The response tosuch complaints is as simple as this: investigations reveal that theamount withdrawn corresponds effectively to the one debited bythe account. Full stop.

The bank is a latecomer to customer orientationphilosophy.

The identified weaknesses, the absence of listeningmechanisms and of encouraging customerscomplaints and of monitoring customer satisfaction,soliciting customer feedback and communicatingcustomer success and failure stories are reflected in thefollowing frontline employee recollection:

If every customer in this bank knows about my own experience

with a complainant, any customer criticism geared towardsimproving service delivery is welcome. I never forget this famouscustomer who complained about waiting for too long. I amsurprised when the workload was alleviated as a consequence ofthe complaint.

These revealed shortcomings in this bank illustratethat the promotion of listening mechanisms whichencourage customers to complain allow socialization

between customers and the organization because itprovides vital tacit knowledge of customer unexpectedneed and customer perception. complaint management

practices that foster contact and interactions between

organizational members and customers allowknowledge to be created through socialization.

We shall add that in the organizational culture of thisbank, a complaint stands for failure and blame. Cultureof fear dominates supervisor and employee relations.The hierarchical organization renders team workdifficult. Now, service failure demands crossfunctional collaborative investigation. With the fear ofoffending authorities and the employees perceivedlack of safety, upward complaint assimilation becomesmore complicated. Some frontline employeessummarize this frustration as follows:

If we tell our supervisor what customers are saying our career willbe at stake.

In view of this shortcoming, the bank cannoteffectively socialize employees so that they buy intoa customer orientation and feel compelled to delivergood service recoveries. This is surprising given theattention that the bank would like to give todissatisfied customer within its new orientation:

The person in charge of the complaints follow-up and treatmenttold me about the privatization of the bank: "It is not only a visualchange (logo, name, and colour) but it is also a change of the bankvision. The new hierarchical management has a strong customerorientation and is concerned with the value of the internalresources. This change calls up to share this vision between the

different actors; that is, build the new signature of the bank: "youwill change your opinion about the bank". The establishment ofthis unit is the best proof. Its aim is to dissipate the customersdissatisfactions and to improve our procedures, systems andquality".

To the extent that organizations encourageinteraction between organizational members theyfacilitate the socialization process where employeescan share tacit knowledge.

Establishing friendly complaint culture is part of theoriginating ba. In this ba, employees can interact witheach other to acquire tacit knowledge in order toimprove their competence and they are therefore

proactive in initiating closer collaboration andcooperation along with a willingness to shareknowledge. In addition, this ba helps establish afoundation for shared experiences and mental models

between customers and the organization, improvingthe credibility of the complaint and enablingemployees to both resist to debilitating contingencyeffect that negative customer feedback elicits and tocope with complaining consumers and learn fromfailure. Socialization between employees andcustomers provides a basis for learning.

Thus, greater blame-free cultural understanding andopenness will increase interactions between customersand the bank, and within the bank and will lead to therapid assimilation of tacit knowledge.

Externalization conversion processTo understand the properties, the purpose of failure as

perceived by the customer, the bank needs to take anoperational view of the failure by internal reflectionand investigation (see complaint management

process). Tacit knowledge about unsatisfiedrequirement specified by the customer is recorded,documented, analysed and structured and thus becomeexplicit. This is a key manifestation of knowledge.To the extend that the bank tend to conceptualize thecomplaint it promote externalization. A crossfunctional team, including participation with the right

mix of specific knowledge is interacting ba whichserves to speed the externalisation conversion process.[10] note that by fostering opportunities for cross-functional knowledge exchange within and betweenSelf-managing teams (SMTs), tacit service recoveryknowledge may be turned into explicit knowledge thatis shared within and between SMTs. As we observed:

Having received an atypical customer complaint about thebehaviour of a frontline employee, the person in charge ofcomplaints follow-up and treatment unit to her co-worker: "I amunable to reply to this "unusual" letter, could you please help me

do so? I examined the clarification supplied by the agency managerduring two hours, but I cant write any word. It is an uncommoncomplaint. There is neither internal regulation, nor rule to beguided with. I am afraid that the customer will not be convinced ofmy answer"


8/15

The person in charge of the complaints follow-up and treatmentdepartment addressed a co-worker: is there a note addressing sucha technique? It is ambiguous for me. I need information to reply toseveral complaints." The co-worker answered: such informationis not ready yet to be put on the intranet, but you can get it from MrH who wrote it".

Combination conversion process

It is knowledge transmittable in formal, systematiclanguage. A weakness was identified concerning thecodification strategy in which knowledge is codifiedand stored in databases but where it can be onlyaccessed and used by the service recovery department.The bank implements its information system to analysethe explicit knowledge of service failure, track theweaknesses over time and make comparisons. Schemaanalyses help understand how gaps between

specifications and perceptions create customerdissatisfaction. Such configurations are a basis to newexplicit knowledge. These work activities are cyber bawhich provide synthetic knowledge of causes of

potential failures.

The words extracted from the complaint letter of a customer whohopes to get back the amount of money existing on the savings -book of her deceased husband: "I was like a ball kicked off byplayers. Every time I address a person, he sends me to hiscolleague. And after four months spent in going back and forth andin waiting, they advised me to contact Mr x in the bankheadquarter. The latter in turn directed me to you and reassured me

that only Mrs L who is responsible for the complaints follow-upand treatment would solve my problems. I am very disappointed.Such a claim was not really worth all the efforts, but what are newtechnologies useful for? How come the agency staff know nothingabout such an essential operation? What are computers used for?Such a fundamental knowledge is not shared by frontlineemployees and all the other staff"

Internalisation conversion process

The explicit knowledge gained from the complaintmanagement analysis (system information) is directedtoward managers to initiate preventive action such asnew quality policy and training programmes for

personnel performing such tasks like treasury,compensation, and accountability. The institution oftraining programs provides vital explicit knowledge oftechnical or process know-how which enhance

potential firms ability to meet escalating expectations.With the implementation of service recovery unit, a

note from the manager was circulated. It explicitly toformalizes the banks evolving complaint-handlingorientation through symbols, rituals, artefacts,

procedures and behaviours. These included structuralorganisational changes and the explicit definition ofcultural values needed for the new bank service

recovery responsiveness.This illustration clearly shows that the bank

approach in executing complaint management strategy

would ensure that all employees understand businessobjectives so as the vision becomes a reality.The knowledge gained from complaint managementstrategic deployment serves as a basis fororganizational alignment so that everyone in the bankis moving in a common direction or aim. This part ofexercising ba promotes and reinforces theinternalization of strategic complaint managementorientation in the bank.

To the extent that the bank consistently acts inaccordance with its purpose, aim, and strategy itfacilitate internalization.[17] Underline quality management practices that helpthe organization act consistently in accordance with its

purpose, aim, and strategy and that allow knowledge tobe created through internalization.

A curious phenomenon occurs during the life of

service recovery: Employees develop divergentcommitment to service recovery. Given thesevariations for ongoing complaint managementconnection activities, the bank relies on the powerattributed to the unit in charge of the complaintsfollow-up and treatment to make decisions and act on

behalf of the firm in an effort to ensure that theirorganisationally shared complaint managementunderstandings were up-to-date, that employees

participate and adopt the identical system and thus tomaintain a fit between service recovery departmentand the workforce. This was clear from this phone

conversation between one employee from the banksubsidiary and the assistant of service recoveryexecutive.

X: X from the complaint follow-up and treatment departmenthello; I sent you an e-mail three days ago, to enquire about thehandling of our client Z complaint but I have received no answerso far.Y: I beg your pardon, but I do not know who you are?X: I am in charge of complaints follow-up with my supervisor MrsL. Our unit which was set up eight months ago is connected withthe new board of the bank. In fact complaints are sent to the topmanager who gave instructions to treat the complaint in three days.Y: OK! I will send you the answer today.A couple of hours later, the person in charge received the answerand told me: I wouldnt have obtained the complaint reply asquickly were it not for the position of our unit which I underlined.

Complaint management-policy communication workto be exercising ba. In this ba, managementdisseminates complaint management consciousnessdown the organisational hierarchy in order to makesure all employees are committed to meeting thedisappointed customers requirements:

In sum, based on the various situations describedwe conclude that within these knowledge-enrichingactivities, learning by continual improvement andcontinuous self-refinement through on-the job training,formalisation, strategic alignment is stressed inexercising ba and triggering the internalisation mode.


9/15

5. Conclusion

Our research model focused on an organisations KMexecution structure-the ba of service recovery KM-and how this knowledge structure helps manage

knowledge throughout the complaint managementprocess.By explicitly identifying the KM steps within each

complaint management phase, we have demonstratedhow the organisation improves its ability to implementa KM- enhanced service recovery. For each phase ofcomplaint management, knowledge cycle through thefour quadrants of the SECI model (fig 3 in appendix4). Organisations implement effective service recovery

by engaging in a four stage continuous process ofknowledge creation: (1) socialisation, (2)externalisation, (3) combination and (4) internalisation.

This process imbues the organisation with a set ofcultural values and behaviours that support complaintmanagement activities (tab 3 in appendix 4)

The results of this study build upon previous worksthat described complaint management and discussedantecedents of service recovery. The current studyidentified also the importance of such factors inknowledge management. We find that suchantecedents must not only be present but must be

brought into play in the correct sequence to ensuresuccessful complaint management. Indeed the analysisidentifies both the dynamic sequence of actions as a

key and the value that the sequence of actions creates.In particular, we identify factors that firms embrace forthe successful improvement of complaint management

by KM.In order to unleash the full potential of customer

knowledge we argue that firms must excel at managingall four processes of knowledge creation: (1)socialisation, (2) externalisation, (3) combination and(4) internalisation. These directions enable us toestablish evidence on how the joint orchestration of allfour modes of knowledge flows creates superiorcustomer complaint management-relating capability.

Service recovery performance depends upon anorganisations commitment to incorporate KM into thecomplaint management process and upon its ability tomanage knowledge assets in each complaintmanagement step.

To enable the companies meet the requirements ofknowledge economy and effectively manage theircustomers complaint, companies should develop theE-knowledge management system to value theadvantages of knowledge management in complaintmanagement.

6. Future researches

The proposed complaint Knowledge Managementmodel should be operational as a basis for service

recovery implementation. Such a development couldassist firms to strategically select factors to optimizeknowledge creation and transfer which underpinsuccessful complaint management. Future issuesshould also lead to a refinement of the proposedframework and ensure its generalizability.

Further case studies are needed to deduce a commonknowledge enabled complaint management processand identify its stage, the obstacles impeding progressfrom one stage to the next and the characteristics offirms that successfully navigate through the process.

Future research should focus on conceptualising andevaluating the concept of spiral knowledge loopwithin complaint management processes. This isconsistent with [25]s proposition which wasintroduced in customer knowledge, not in the specificcontext of service recovery.

Depending on the measured intensity of factors forknowledge enabled- service recovery it will bepossible to classify different service recoveryorientations and to predict on which development stagea company is situated. A connection could be seenwhen comparing the level of competence andcorporate success in term of service recovery. The

presumption is that organisations managing complaintsthat do not support all of the knowledge creation

processes will be less effective at recoveringconsumers.


10/15

Appendix 1

Figure 1, Complaint management process before restructuring Figutre 2. Complaint ma

Adapted from Hermel. L (2006), Gilly .M. C et al (1991), Mitchell (1993) and Tax. S et al (1998)


11/15

Appendix 2

Ascendant Flux: from Business Center to Customer relationship Center (CRC)

Business Center CRCCanalaccess Customers In charge of Business/others Correspondent In charge of follow up

Mail/fax

telephone

Face to Face

E-mail

acknowledgedreceipt

Saving on Satisfollow / reply to customer

Transmit mail toCRC

/ in charge of Business (1)

Customer relationship Center (CRC) Business CenterCanalaccess teleconsulting In charge of follow up Correspondent

Telephone

Letter /faxE-mail

Call Transfer to CRC Call Transfer to CRC

Idem (1)

Saving requestson Satis

Idem (1)Oriented towards

correspondentProcess the request

related to hisperimeter

Re-forwarding message

to the CRC address

Descendant Flux: From CRC to Business Center

Qualification of

customer requestfollow / Reply to customer/ in charge

of Business (1)

Perimeter processingInternal Service

Contrats

immediate process /

Perimeterprocessing

Internal ServiceContrats

Reply to customer / Business in chargeReply to customer

Reply to customer / Business in charge

Customer request Qualification localprocess / follow


12/15


13/15

Table 3. Using the SECI model to analyse the complaint management process

Knowledge

before

conversion

Knowledge

conversion

mode

Ba and knowledge tools Type of ba Knowledge after

conversion

Complaint

stimulation

Customerfocus

Internalorientation

Socialisation friendly complaint culture:promotion of external andinternal listeningmechanisms(monitoringcustomer satisfaction,soliciting customerfeedback and thecommunication ofcustomer success andfailure stories

Originatingba

Knowledge aboutcustomer:Dissatisfiedcustomerexpectationperception,enquiries

Complaint

related

process:

complaint

transmission

Customercomplaint

Responsecreation

Externalisation cross functional teamcomposition, cooperation

interactingba

Knowledge forcustomer: definedresponse

Complaint

analysis

Operationalweakness

Combination Technology adoptionsoftwareData warehouse

cyber b Knowledge fromcustomer: Rootcauses of thefailure

Use of

complaint

information

in decision

Documentedkey domainsknowledge,report

Internalisation continual improvementand continuous self-refinementthroughtraining, formalisation,strategic alignment

exercisingba

technical orprocess know-how,complaint recoveryability

Appendix 4


14/15

Appendix 4

E

The design of service recovery process

A cross functional team, includingparticipation with the right mix of specific

knowledge

ExternalisationComplainttransmission

definedresponse

Customer need behind the voice

IG

Org

EE

G

G

G

G

Org

Combination

Complaintanalysis

Use ofcomplaint

informationindecision

Socialisation

I I

Complaint

sollicitation

Customerfocus

Unsatisfied requirement expressedby the customer

Friendly-complaint culture(Embrace recovery, free blame and openness): (+) build skills and emotional intelligence in staff (-) different vision of the failure and the degree of the

situation criticality (-) doubt about customer honesty (+) promotion of listening mechanisms (-) fear offending authorities (-) employees perceived lack of safety (+) encourage interaction between organizational

members

O

erationalweakness

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

II

I

G

Internalisation

Technic

alorprocessknow-how,

complaintrecoveryability

Synthetic report of causes ofpotential failures

Root cause of failure

Codification and configurationsstrategy: using technologies for the

weaknesses representationContinual improvement and self-refinement throughtraining, formalisation of complaint management

strategic deployment (organisation structure, culturalvalues, power) and strategic alignment.

Figure 3. Knowledge transference in the complaint managementAdapted from Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998)


15/15

References

[1] Ashill Nicholas J., Carruthers Janet, Risjanous Jayne K.(2005), Antecedent and outcomes of service recoveryperformance in a public health-care environment , Journal ofServices Marketing, 19 (5), pp. 293-307.

[2] Bowen, D.E., Johnston, R. (1999), "Internal service recovery:developing a new construct", International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management, 10 (2), pp. 118-31.[3] Brown w. Stephen (1997), Service recovery through IT:Complaint Handling Will Differentiate Firms in the Future,Marketing Management, Vol 6, N3, pp.25-27.[4] Gilly Mary C.; Stevenson William B.; Yale Laura J.(1991),Dynamics of Complaint Management in the ServiceOrganisation , the Journal of Consumer Affaire, Vol. 25, N 2,pp. 295-32.[5] Gebhardt Gary F, Gregory S Carpenter, John F Sherry (2006),Creating a Market Orientation: A Longitudinal, Multifirm,Grounded Analysis of Cultural Transformation, Journal ofmarketing Vol. 70, N 4, pp. 37-55.[6] Gonzlez Bosch Vernica, Tamayo Enrquez Francisco

(2005), TQM and QFD: exploiting a customer complaintmanagement systemVolume: 22, Issue 1, p p. 30-37.[7] Grant Kenneth A. and Grant CandaceT. (2008), Developinga Model of Next Generation Knowledge Management Volume5, pp. 571-590.[8] Hart, C., Heskett, J. and Sasser, W. E. (1990), The profitableart of service recovery, Harvard Business Review, pp. 56-148.[9] Hermel. L (2006), Stratgie de gestion des rclamationsclients , 2edition, ANOR, pp. 166.[10] Jong Ad de and Ruyter ko de (2004), Adaptive versusProactive Behavior in Service Recovery: The Role of Self-Managing Teams,Decision Sciences35 (3), 457491.[11] Johnston Robert and Mehra Sandy (2002), Best-practicecomplaint management,Academy of Management Executive,

16 (4), pp. 145-154.[12] Johansson Niklas E (2006) Self-Service Recovery,DISSERTATION, Faculty of Economic Sciences,Communication and IT Information Systems; KarlstadUniversity Studies[13] Homburg Christian, Frst Andreas. (2005), HowOrganizational Complaint Handling Drives Customer Loyalty:An Analysis of the Mechanistic and the Organic Approach ,Journal of Marketing, 69 (3), pp 95-114.[14] Homburg Christian, Frst Andreas. (2007), See no Evil,Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil: A study of defensive organisationalBehavior towards customer, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 35 (4), pp 523-536.[15] Homburg Christian, M. Grozdanovic, M. Klarmann (2007),

Responsiveness to Customers and Competitors: The Role ofAffective and Cognitive Organizational Systems Journal ofMarketing, 71 (3), pp 18-38.[16] Lam N. W.W. and B.G. Dale (1999), Customer complaintshandling system: Key Issues and concerns, Total QualityManagement, Aug, 10, 6, pp 843-851.[17] Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S., Liedtke, C.,Choo, A.S., (2004), "Integrating quality management practiceswith knowledge creation processes." Journal of OperationsManagement 22(6): 589607.[18] Mitchell, VW. (1993), Handling Consumer ComplaintInformation: How and Why? Management Decision, 31, 3, pp21-28.[19] Michel, Stefan, David Bowen, and Robert Johnston (2007),Service Recovery Management: Closing the Gap Between Best

Practices and Actual Practices, revise and resubmit fromAcademy of Management Perspectives.[20] Nonaka Ikujiro (1994), A dynamic theory of organisationalknowledge creation; organisation science, 5 (1) Feb, pp 14-37.

[21] Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998), The concept of "Ba:Building foundation for knowledge creation, CaliforniaManagement Review, 40 (3), pp 40-54.[22] Netemeyer Richard G., Maxham III James G.(2007), Employee versus supervisor ratings of performance inthe retail customer service sector: Differances in predictivevalidity for customer outcomes , Journal of Retailing, 83,

pp.131-145.[23] Rowley E. Jennifer (2002), Reflections on customerknowledge management in e-business, Qualitative MarketResearch, 5 (4), pp. 268-279.[24] Rollins, Minna & Halinen, Aino (2005), CustomerKnowledge Management Competence: Towards a TheoreticalFramework Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii InternationalConference on System Sciences.[25] Salomann. H, Dous. M, Kolbe, L., Brenner. W (2005),Rejuvenating Customer Management: How to Make KnowledgeFor, From and About Customers Work, European ManagementJournal, 23 (4), pp. 392403.[26] Salomann Harald, Malte Dous , Lutz Kolbe, Walter Brenner(2006), Advancing CRM Initiatives with Knowledge

Management, Journal of Information Science and Technology,3(2), pp. 22-43.[27] Tax, Stephen S. and Stephane W. Bowen (1998),Recovering and learning from service Failure, SloanManagement Review, Fall, pp 75-88.[28] Yavas Ugur, Karatepe Osman M., Avci Turgay, TekinkusMehmet (2003), Antecedents and outcomes of service recoveryperformance: an empirical study of frontline employees inTurkish banks ,International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21(5),pp. 255-265.[29] Yin (2003).Robert K, Case Study Research: Design &

Methods, Third Edition, Sage publications, 2003.

Samiha Mjahed is a doctoral

student at Institut Suprieur deGestion (ISG) University of Tunis.Her research interests are gearedtowards customer knowledgemanagement and service recovery.E-mail: [email protected]

NGSM: 216 23 239 920

Abdelfattah Trikiwas a Fullbright scholar at BostonUniversity Business school in the USA in 1986-1987.

He then obtained a PhD inmarketing from NorthumbriaUniversity at Newcastle in1999. He is a member of theAcademy of Marketing (GB)since 1997 and a reviewer forseveral British academic

journals. He is presently asenior lecturer of marketing and

of research methodology at the Institut Suprieur deGestion of Tunis University. He also directs severaldoctoral research projects on information andcommunication technologies, innovation, and

knowledge management. E-mail: [email protected] address : Institut Suprieur de Gestion,41, Avenue de la Libert - Cit Bouchoucha, Bardo2000, Tunisia.
http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2087987http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2087987http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/revista?tipo_busqueda=CODIGO&clave_revista=798http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/revista?tipo_busqueda=CODIGO&clave_revista=798http://www.springerlink.com/content/l422q06u1226/?p=0d083b745f1e4aefba5035c14fb609d4&pi=0mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.springerlink.com/content/l422q06u1226/?p=0d083b745f1e4aefba5035c14fb609d4&pi=0http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/revista?tipo_busqueda=CODIGO&clave_revista=798http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/revista?tipo_busqueda=CODIGO&clave_revista=798http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2087987http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2087987

Documents

Toward E-Knowledge Based Complaint Management