The Complaint That Arrives Three Times
A guest emails the hotel on Monday: the shower in room 512 ran cold both mornings of a weekend stay, and he waited 25 minutes on hold Saturday night trying to report it. He says he 'expects to be compensated' and mentions he books 8-10 nights a year for his company. The email is forwarded to you, the assistant GM. You check the log: housekeeping noted 'shower temp low - reported to maintenance' on Saturday at 9 a.m.; maintenance's ticket shows 'resolved - reset valve' Saturday at 4 p.m.; the guest's Sunday morning shower was still cold. The guest never received a reply to his Saturday call because the call abandoned in queue. The room has since been resold twice with no further complaints.
1. Diagnose what actually went wrong across the three touchpoints (housekeeping note, maintenance ticket, phone queue), and identify which failure is the root cause versus a symptom.
Read the worked answer
Map the chain: housekeeping identified the issue and logged it - that touchpoint worked. Maintenance closed the ticket as resolved without verifying with the guest, and the guest's Sunday shower proves the fix didn't hold or wasn't the right fix - that's a repair-verification failure. The phone queue abandoning a call is a separate service-access failure that compounded the guest's frustration.
The root cause is the closed-loop failure: maintenance treated 'valve reset' as resolution without a guest-confirmation step, and no one reopened the ticket when the guest's experience contradicted the log. The abandoned call is a symptom-amplifier, not the origin - but it's the reason the guest never got a human response, which is what he's angriest about.
State the principle: a ticket is not resolved when the technician is done; it's resolved when the guest confirms the problem is gone. The absence of a follow-up call is the gap that turned a mechanical fault into a complaint about being ignored.
2. Draft the substance of your reply to the guest, and justify each element against what he actually asked for.
Read the worked answer
He asked for two things: an explanation and compensation. The reply should address both without arguing.
Elements: (1) Acknowledge specifically - name the cold shower, both mornings, and the 25-minute hold, so he knows you read it. (2) Own the closed-loop gap plainly: 'We logged the issue and marked it fixed, but we never confirmed with you that it was actually resolved, and we didn't call you back.' (3) Explain the fix without excuses - valve was reset Saturday, it didn't hold, and the room has since been re-inspected (only claim this if true). (4) Offer a concrete, proportionate remedy: a refund of one night or a credit, stated as a specific amount, plus a note on his profile. (5) Give a direct contact and a commitment for the next stay.
Justification: specificity signals he was heard; owning the verification failure addresses the real injury (being ignored); a precise remedy avoids a second negotiation; and a named contact converts a complaint into a relationship. Don't lead with policy or with the resold-room evidence - that reads as deflection.
3. Leadership wants to prevent recurrence. What two process changes would you propose, and how would you know they're working?
Read the worked answer
Change 1 - verification step on maintenance closures: no ticket closes until either the guest confirms or a staff member physically re-tests the fixture and logs the test. Change 2 - abandoned-call recovery: any call that abandons in queue generates a callback task within 30 minutes, owned by a named person per shift.
Measure them: for change 1, audit a weekly sample of closed tickets for a verification entry; track the rate of re-opened tickets and repeat complaints on the same room within 14 days. For change 2, track abandoned-call count, callback completion rate, and time-to-callback; the leading indicator is that abandoned calls get a callback the same shift.
The reasoning to state: both changes target the specific broken links (verification and access), and each has a metric that would move if the change is real. A change with no measurable signal is a hope, not a control.