Combining Service Blueprint and FMEA for Service Design

PAO-TIAO CHUANG1

This paper aims at combining the service blueprint and Failure Modes and Effects
Analysis (FMEA) to assist the service designers in designing a failure-free service
system. In the proposed approach, a service blueprint of a service system should
be, first, developed to identify the potential fail points and failure modes for both
the front office and the back office service activities. Based on the blueprint, the
FMEA tool is, then, applied to prioritize the critical potential failure modes of the
service system and take the required actions to ensure the service design
performance. An example regarding to a hypermarket service system was used to
demonstrate the proposed approach. The example not only identifies the most
potential failure modes but also provides the effects and possible causes for each
of the most critical failure modes. This implies that the preventive actions for
these failure modes from occurring should be the top focus in the service design
stage of the example company. Some managerial implications are also provided.
Key words: Service Design; Service Failure; Service Blueprint; Failure Modes
and Effects Analysis.

1. INTRODUCTION
Service industries have been the source of economic leadership for most developed and
developing countries in the past two decades. According to Verma [2000: 8-25], as the
post-industrial economy evolves, the service sector continues to increase in importance, both
in terms of its contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP) of all advanced economies
and in terms of the percentage of workforce employed in services. By all accounts, more than
half of the developed countries gross domestic product (GDP) is in the service sector [Menor
et al., 2002: 135-57; Pilat, 2000: 52-54]. And by the statistics data from the Department of
Statistics, Ministry of Economic Affairs, R.O.C. [2005], service related industries account
about seventy percent of the nations total GDP in Taiwan.
Service industries often provide social/personal services, transportation, finance,
advertising, repair, distribution, or communication support for manufacturing industries [Ma
et al., 2002: 15-39]. Concurrent to the economic growth, Ma et al. [2002: 15-39] addressed
1
Pao-Tiao Chuang is Professor of Department of Asia-Pacific Industrial and Business Management, National
University of Kaohsiung, Taiwan. No. 700, Kaohsiung University Road, Nan-Tzu District, Kaohsiung 811,
Taiwan.

1
that economic development and the change in the standards of living have caused changes in
human consumption patterns. Human needs are satisfied with not only physical goods but also
invisible services. Therefore, the management of new service development becomes an
important competitive concern in many service industries [Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons,
2001]. And from the service organizations perspective, designing a service means defining an
appropriate mix of physical and non-physical components [Goldstein et al., 2002: 121-34]
and the service systems should be designed for the realization of customer processes and
achieving the service performance. In the mean time, service assurance and service quality
should be embodied in the service design stage to ensure the abilities of service offerings.
Service design is an upstream management from the origin. The idea of service design is
to design high quality into the service system from the outset, to consider and respond to
customers expectations in designing each element of the service [Edvardsson, 1997: 31-46].
The goal of service design can be described in terms of attracting and keeping customers who
are satisfied, loyal and speak well of the company, but who are also profitable. Thus, the
service sector aims at optimally allocate the limited resources in designing the service system
that can satisfy customers needs and accrue high productivity for the service firms.
In this regard, most of the existing research considered the effects of process factors,
such as customers, employees, and suppliers, to the service results [e.g., Brentani, 1995:
93-103; Ma et al., 2002: 15-39]. Others suggested the role of service concept, in service
design and development, to define the how and what of service design and help linking the
customer needs and an organizations strategic intent [e.g., Edvardsson, 1997: 31-46;
Goldstein et al., 2002: 121-34]. Though existing research proposed the paradigm model for
designing service systems, an effective service system should also be designed to prevent the
failures from occurring and reduce the risk of service failures.

2. RESEARCH MOTIVATION
Even zero defects is the desired objective for most firms, it is unlikely organizations will
achieve this goal. This is particularly true of service industries where the multi-dimensional
nature of the service encounter creates an environment where service failure is almost
inevitable [Mueller et al., 2003: 395-418). A Service failure occurs when customers
expectations are not met [Mueller et al., 2003: 395-418; Weber and Sparks, 2004: 361-67]. A
service business must understand what customers really need and then delivered its service
accordingly [Chiu and Lin, 2004: 187-204]. Similar to service quality and satisfaction, it is
customers perception that determines whether a service failure occurred even if the

2
companies with the best strategic plans and the tightest quality control procedures and the
service has been performed according to the blueprint established by the service provider
[Goldstein et al., 2002: 121-34; Weber and Sparks, 2004: 361-67]. Therefore, combining
service blueprint with service failure analysis that identifies critical potential failure modes
and take the preventive actions in the design stage becomes a very important issue in the
service industries.
In this aspect, a service blueprint is a map or flowchart (called a process chart in
manufacturing) that shows all transactions constituting the service delivery process [Shostack,
1984: 134; Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons, 2001]. In facilitating the service design, it enables
the marketing manager to understand which parts in the operating system are visible to the
consumer. The visible part of the operations process, with which the consumer interacts, must
be supported by the invisible process [Hoffman and Bateson, 1997]. It is also a flow chart that
isolates potential fail points in a service process [Shostack, 1984: 134].
Moreover, to compensate and alleviate the effects of the service failure, researches on
service failure recovery strategies and actions were proposed in many literatures [e.g,
Goldstein et al., 2002: 121-34; Hocutt and Stone, 1998: 117-32; Mattila and Patterson, 2004:
196-206; Maxham, 2001: 11-24; Miller et al., 2000: 387-400; Mueller et al., 2003: 395-418;
Webster and Sundaram, 1998: 153-59; Wong, 2004: 957-63]. Whereas, Halstead et al. [1996:
107-15] mentioned that nothing is better than performing a service to a customers satisfaction
the first time, nothing is worse than failing to detect a problem or failing to obtain information
from a dissatisfied customer. Thus, a systematic approach that could identify and prioritize the
potential service failure modes with the corresponding risks during the service design stage is
very important and needed.
In this regard, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a systemized group of
activities that intent to recognize and evaluate the potential failure of a product or process,
identify actions that could eliminate or reduce the likelihood of the potential failure
occurrence and document the entire process [Johnson, 2002: 152]. The goal of FMEA is to
predict how and where systems, that were designed to detect errors and alert staff, might fail.
It is an important method of preventive quality assurance [Wirth et al., 1996: 219-29]. It can
improve operational performance of the service system and reduces the overall risk level.
Though FMEA is widely used in the manufacturing sector, literatures regarding to the FMEA
in service industries are not widely found, with few on medical surgery, health related
industries, or organizational artifacts [e.g., Busby et al., 2004: 1211-15; Cohen et al., 1994: 40;
Hollick and Nelson, 1996: 539; Monti et al., 2005: e158; Radermacher et al., 2004: 824-29;

3
Scipioni et al., 2005: 569-78; Tellefsen, 2005: e162-e163].

3. RESEARCH GOALS
This paper aims at combining the uses of service blueprint and failure analysis in a
service company to prevent the critical failures from occurring and reduce the risk of service
failures. The proposed failure-free service design model is shown in Figure 1. In the model, a
service blueprint needs to be developed, first, to identify the potential fail points and failure
modes for both the front office and the back office activities. Based on the blueprint, the
FMEA tool was applied to prioritize the critical potential failure modes.
To demonstrate the proposed approach, an example regarding to the hypermarket store
was used. The required data regarding to the severity degree, the occurrence probability, and
the detection ability are achieved from a questionnaire survey on the employees and managers
of a chain hypermarket store with four branches in Taiwan. Then, a service failure criticality
analysis is performed according to the Risk Priority Number (RPN) of each potential failure
modes. The RPNs are used to determine the risk of potential failures and prioritize the
needed preventive actions and the resource allocations before the service is delivered. This
would ensure the service quality before the service is delivered.

[take in Figure 1]

4. SERVICE BLUEPRINT
A service blueprint is a map or flowchart (called a process chart in manufacturing) of all
transactions constituting the service delivery process [Shostack, 1984: 134; Fitzsimmons and
Fitzsimmons, 2001]. It is a flow chart that isolates potential fail points in a service process
[Shostack, 1984: 134]. Haksever et al. [2000] further explains that it is a visualization of the
designers concept of the product/process together with its dimensions and tolerances.
Service blueprint is a useful tool not only for the operations manager but for the
marketing manager as well [Hoffman and Bateson, 1997]. It enables the marketing manager
to understand which parts in the operating system are visible to the consumer---the
fundamental building blocks of consumer perceptions. The visible part of the operations
process, with which the consumer interacts, must be supported by the invisible process
[Hoffman and Nateson, 1997].

In a service blueprint, some activities are processing information, others are interactions

4
with customers, and still others are decision points. The decision points are shown as
diamonds to highlight these important steps, such as providing protocols to avoid mistakes,
for special consideration. Studying the service blueprint could suggest opportunities for
improvement and also the need for further definition of certain processes [Fitzsimmons and
Fitzsimmons, 2001]. The line of visibility separates activities of the front office, where
customers obtain tangible evidence of the service, from those of the back office, which is out
of the customers view. This separation highlights the need to give special attention to
operations above the line of visibility, where customer perceptions of the services
effectiveness are formed. The blueprinting exercise also gives managers the opportunity to
identify potential fail points and to design foolproof procedures to avoid their occurrence, thus
ensuring the delivery of high-quality service.
In summary, a blueprint is a precise definition of the service delivery system that allows
management to test the service concept on paper before final commitments are made. The
blueprint also facilitates problem solving and creative thinking by identifying potential points
of failure and highlighting opportunities to enhance customers perceptions of the service.

5. FAILURE MODES AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a reliability analysis tool widely used in
the manufacturing sectors, such as automotive, aerospace, and electronics industries, to
identify, prioritize, and eliminate known potential failures, problems, and errors from systems
under design before the product is released [e.g., Guimares and Lapa, 2004a: 191-213;
Guimares and Lapa, 2004b: 107-15; Nakajima et al., 2002: 511-21; Price and Taylor, 2002:
1-10; Rhee and Ishii, 2003: 179-88; Sankar and Prabhu, 2001: 1987-94; Scipioni et al., 2002:
495-501; Toeh and Case, 2004a: 289-300; Toeh and Case, 2004b: 253-60; Xu et al., 2002:
17-29]. According to Pillay and Wang [2003: 69-85], FMEA is intended to provide
information for making risk management decisions. The goal of FMEA is to predict how and
where systems, that were designed to detect errors and alert staff, might fail. It is an important
method of preventive quality assurance [Wirth et al., 1996: 219-29]. If the potential effects of
the errors are intolerable, action is taken to eliminate the possibility of errors or to minimize
their consequences [Cohen et al., 1994: 40].
The FMEA procedure can be summarized as follows [Cotnareanu, 1999: 48-52; Johnson,
2002: 152; Lore, 1998: 144; Pillay and Wang, 2003: 69-85; Vandenbrande, 1998: 97-100]:
(1) Identify all potential failure modes of the service system.

5
(2) Relate the possible causes, effects, and hazards of each of failure.
(3) Prioritize the failure modes relative to their probabilities of occurrence, failure criticality
(or severity), and detection capability.
(4) Provide suitable follow-up or corrective actions for each type of failure mode.

6. DEMONSTRATED EXAMPLE
This section will apply the proposed approach in the hypermarket store that assist the
service design. A service blueprint of a service system was, first, developed to identify the
potential fail points and failure modes for both the front office and the back office service
activities. Based on the blueprint, the FMEA tool was, then, applied to prioritize the critical
potential failure modes of the service system and take the required actions to ensure the
service design performance.

6.1 Service Blueprint for Hypermarket Example

In this section, the research provides the service blueprint for a hypermarket Store, as
shown in Figure 2, by conducting the hypermarket practices. The hypermarket service process
starts from customers arriving at the store and getting the shopping cart. Followed by entering
the sales floor, the customers go through the procurement activities of choosing
goods/merchandise. After cashiering all the purchased goods/merchandise, the customers
leave the store, where the hypermarket store activates its post-service activities.
The front office activities involve customer arrival, getting shopping cart, entering sales
floor, choosing goods/merchandise, weighing those items that priced by its weights,
cashiering the goods/merchandise, leaving the store, and experiencing the post-service from
the service provider. The back office activities involve the inbound and replenishment
logistics that support the front office activities. They involve procurement/purchase activity,
receiving and inspecting the incoming goods/merchandise, goods/merchandise warehousing
and inventory activities, and replenishing goods/merchandise to the shelf of sales floor.
The possible fail points and the potential failure modes for each of the activities are also
provided in the service blueprint. We can also see, from Figure 2, that there are three possible
waiting points that customers might experience: looking for vehicle parking space and
shopping cart, waiting for weighing goods/merchandise pounds, as well as waiting in the
cashier line.

[take in Figure 2]

6
6.2 Failure Criticality Analysis for the Hypermarket Example and Discussions
To perform the FMEA, the service system of a hypermarket store is decomposed into
four sub-systems: service facility, pre-service, in-service, and post-service. Each sub-system
involves several sub-processes or activities. In the service failure analysis, the potential failure
modes for each sub-process/activity are developed and listed according to the service
blueprint.
To accomplish the service failure analysis systematically, the service system of a
hypermarket store is decomposed into four sub-systems: service facility, prior-service,
in-service, and post-service. Each sub-system involves several sub-processes or activities.
Among these, service facility involves sales floor facility, sales floor security, and sales floor
surroundings. Prior-service involves incoming goods/merchandise activity as well as
warehousing and inventory activity. In-service involves customer choose/purchase flow and
cashier flow. Post-service involves post-sale activity and warranty. The potential failure
modes for each sub-process/activity are then explored and listed according to the service
blueprint of the hypermarket store. In this regard, twenty three potential failure modes, in total,
are structurally listed for further analysis.
To compute the risk priority number (RPN) that differentiate the effect of each potential
failure modes, the required data of severity rating, occurrence rating, and detection rating are
collected by a questionnaire survey. This survey was assisted by a chain hypermarket store,
which has four branch stores in Taiwan (We will call it T-store in the rest of the paper). By
prior contact with the T-store and having their approvals, one hundred questionnaires were
sent to the employees of the T-store. Among those, 6 are executive managers, 16 are
middle/floor managers, and 78 are first-line servers. The respondents were asked to rate the
degree of severity, the probability of occurrence, and the degree of detection ability of each
failure modes. In the questionnaire, a five-scaled rating from 1 to 5 is used for each failure
modes. That is, for the severity rating, 1 means the least severe it is if the corresponding
failure mode occurs and 5 means the most severe; for the occurrence rating, 1 means the least
likely it is for the corresponding failure mode to occur and 5 means the most likely; for the
detection rating, 1 means that the store has the highest degree of control ability to prevent the
corresponding failure mode from occurring and 5 means the lowest degree of control ability.
The severity rating, the occurrence rating, and the detection rating for each failure mode
in the FMEA analysis were computed by the arithmetic average of the surveyed data and
shown on the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth columns, respectively, of Table 1. And the RPN
for each failure mode was computed as Equation (1) and shown on the right-most column of

7
Table 1.

RPN = S O D (1)
Where, RPN=Risk priority number; S=Severity rating; O=Occurrence rating; D=Detection
rating.
The higher the RPN is the more preventive action needed for the failure mode from
occurring is. In order to identify the more critical failure modes, these RPN values are ordered,
from lowest to highest value, to find the third quartile (Q3) as the reference value.

(n + 1)
Q3 = 3 ranked value (2)
4

where, Q3 = third quartile value and represents that 25% of the RPN values are higher than
the third quartile.
n = number of RPN values in the data set (in this example, n=23).

[take in Table 1]

From Equation (2), the Q3 falls in the 18th ranked value, 23.28. Those RPN values higher
than Q3, by priority order from the highest, are Unstable supply of goods/merchandise,
Air-conditioning malfunction, No goods/merchandise on designated shelf of the sales
floor, Slowness of cashier speed, Warranty/repair failure in timeliness, items, charge,
and Nonconforming quality of goods/merchandise. In addition, because the RPN for the
failure mode of Unable to find first-line server in the sales floor is 23.27, which is also
close to the Q3. It also needs some preventive actions in advance. Therefore, these seven
failure modes represent the most critical failure modes in the T-store.
A further analysis regarding to the effects and possible causes for each of the seven most
critical failure modes was also provided in Table 2. Thus, the preventive actions for these
failure modes from occurring should be the top focus in the service design stage of the T-
store. In the mean time, the service recovery strategy and actions regarding to these failure
modes should also attain the most attention and should be planned in advance in order to
restore the service, immediately, if they do occur.

[take in Table 2]

7. CONCLUSION
A Service failure occurs when customers expectations are not met. It is very important
for the service designer to identify the potential service failures and take the required action in

8
advance to prevent the failure from occurring. And because of the limited resource, the
service designer should prioritize the potential service failure modes in order to take the
preventive actions before the service is delivered. In addition, the service blueprint is a flow
chart that isolates potential fail points in a service process. It facilitates problem solving and
creative thinking by identifying potential points of failure and highlighting opportunities to
enhance customers perceptions of the service.
This paper combined the service blueprint and the failure criticality analysis in the
service design stage to ensure that the service system can prevent the critical failures from
occurring and reduce the risk of service failures. An example regarding to a hypermarket store
was used to demonstrate the proposed approach. The results show that the most potential
failure modes in the selected chain hypermarket example are: Unstable supply of
goods/merchandise, Air-conditioning malfunction, No goods/merchandise on designated
shelf of the sales floor, Slowness of cashier speed, and Warranty failure in timeliness,
items, charge, Nonconforming quality of goods/merchandise, and Unable to find first-line
server in the sales floor. The effects and possible causes for each of the most critical failure
modes are also provided. Thus, the preventive action for these failure modes from occurring
should be the top focus in the service design stage of the T-store. A further analysis regarding
to the failure effects and the possible causes for these five failure modes is also provided.
The research provides an approach that assists the service designer in understanding the
potential service failure modes as well as knowing how and where to take the preventive
actions for its service system. The results would not only assist the hypermarket service
company to ensure its quality assurance of the service system, it can also provide other
service industries an approach to arriving ideal service design by combining the service
blueprint and the failure analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author gratefully acknowledges the National Science Council, Taiwan, for the
sponsorship in this research under the grant (NSC 94-2213-E-390-001). I would also
appreciate Eric I-Chen Lin, store manager of the T-store, for his kind assistance in this
research.

9
REFERENCES
1. Brentani, U. (1995) New Industrial Service Development: Scenarios for Success Failure,
Journal of Business Research, 35, pp.93-103.
2. Busby, J.S., Hibberd, R.E., Mileham, A.R., and Mullineux, G. (2004) Failure Modes
Analysis of Organizational Artefacts that Protect Systems, Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers Part BJournal of Engineering Manufacture, 218(9),
pp.1211-15.
3. Chiu, H.C. and Lin, N.P. (2004) A Service Quality Measurement Derived from the Theory
of Needs, The Service Industries Journal, 24(1), pp.187-204.
4. Cohen M.R., Senders, J., and Davis, N.M. (1994) Failure Mode and Effects Analysis:
Dealing with Human Error, Nursing, 24(2), p.40.
5. Cotnareanu, T. (1999) Old Tools---New Uses: Equipment FMEA, Quality Progress,
32(12), pp.48-52.
6. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Economic Affairs, R.O.C. (2005) A-3 Structure of
Domestic Production, Web Statistics Data, http://2k3dmz2.moea.gov.tw/gnweb/main.aspx?Page=J.
7. Edvardsson, B. (1997) Quality in New Service Development: Key Concepts and a Frame
of Reference, International Journal of Production Economics, 52, pp.31-46.
8. Fitzsimmons, J.A. and Fitzsimmons, M.J. (2001) Service Management: Operations
Strategy and Information Technology, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Inc, Singapore.
9. Goldstein, S.M., Johnston, R., Duffy, J., and Rao, J. (2002) The Service Concept: The
Missing Link in Service Design Research, Journal of Operations management, 20(2),
pp.121-34.
10. Guimares, A.C.F. and Lapa, C.M.F. (2004a) Fuzzy FMEA Applied to PWR Chemical and
Volume Control System, Progress in Nuclear Energy, 44(3), pp.191-213.
11. Guimares, A.C.F. and Lapa, C.M.F. (2004b) Effects Analysis Fuzzy Inference System in
Nuclear Problems Using Approximate Reasoning, Annals of Nuclear Energy, 31(1),
pp.107-15.
12. Haksever, C., Render, B., Russell, R.S., and Murdick, R.G. (2000) Service Management
and Operations, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
13. Halstead, D., Morash, E.A., and Ozment, J. (1996) Comparing Objective Service Failures
and Subjective Complaints: An Investigation of Domino and Halo Effects, Journal of
Business Research, 36(2), pp.107-15.
14. Hocutt, M.A. and Stone, T.H. (1998) The Impcat of Employee Empowerment on the
Quality of A Service Recovery Effort, Journal of Quality Management, 3(1), pp.117-32.
15. Hoffman, K.D. and Bateson, J.E.G. (1997) Essentials of Services Marketing, The Dryden
Press, Orlando, FL.
16. Hollick, L.J. and Nelson, G..N. (1996) Rationalizing Scheduled-Maintenance
Requirements Using Reliability Centered Maintenance---A Canadian Air Force
Perspective, Microelectronics and Reliability, 36(4), p.539.
17. Johnson, K. (2002) Its Fun to Work with An F-M-E-A, Quality Progress, 35(1), p.152.
18. Lore, J. (1998) An Innovative Methodology: The Life Cycle FMEA, Quality Progress,
31(4), p.144.
19. Ma, Q, Tseng, M.M., and Yen, B. (2002) A Generic Model and Design Representation
Technique of Service Products, Technovation, 22, pp.15-39.
20. Mattila, A.S. and Patterson, P.G. (2004) The Impact of Culture on Consumers Perceptions

10
 of Service Recovery Efforts, Journal of Retailing, 80(3), pp.196-206.
21. Maxham, J.G., III (2001) Service Recoverys Influence on Consumer Satisfaction, Positive
Word-of-Mouth, and Purchase Intentions, Journal of Business Research, 54(1), pp.11-24.
22. Menor, L.J., Tatikonda, M.V., and Sampson, S.E. (2002) New service development: Areas
for Exploitation and Exploration, Journal of Operations Management, 20, pp.135-57.
23. Miller, J.L., Craighead, C.W., and Karwan, K.R. (2000) Service Recovery: A Framework
and Empirical Investigation, Journal of Operations Management, 18(4), pp.387-400.
24. Monti, S., Jefferson, J., Mermel, L., Parenteau, S., Kenyon, S., and Cifelli, B. (2005) Use
of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) to Improve Active Surveillance for
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) at a University-Affilliated Medical
Center, AJIC: American Journal of Infection Control, 33(5), p.e158.
25. Mueller, R.D., Palmer, A., Mack, R., and McMullan, R. (2003) Service in the Restaurant
Industry: An American and Irish Comparison of Service Failures and Recovery Strategies,
Hospitality Management, 22(4), pp.395-418.
26. Nakajima, S., Nakamura, S., Kuji, K., Ueki, T., Ajioka, T., and Sakai, T. (2002)
Construction of a Cost-Effective Failure Analysis Service Network---Microelectronic
Failure Analysis Service in Japan, Microelectronics Reliability, 42(4-5), pp.511-21.
27. Pilat, D. (2000) No Longer Services as Usual, The OECD Observer, 223, pp.52-54.
28. Pillay, A. and Wang, J. (2003) Modified Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Using
Approximate Reasoning, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 79(1), pp.69-85.
29. Price, C.J. and Taylor, N.S. (2002) Automated Multiple Failure FMEA, Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, 76(1), pp.1-10.
30. Radermacher, K, Zimolong, A, Stockheim, M., and Rau, G. (2004) Analyzing Reliability
of Surgical Planning and Navigation Systems, International Congress series, 1268, pp.
824-29.
31. Rhee, S.J. and Ishii, K. (2003) Using Cost Based FMEA to Enhance Reliability and
Serviceability, Advanced Engineering Informatics, 17(3-4), pp.179-88.
32. Sankar, N.R. and Prabhu, B.S. (2001) Application of Fuzzy Logic to Matrix FMECA, AIP
Conference Proceedings, 557(1), pp.1987-94.
33. Scipioni, A., Saccarola, G., Arena, F., and Alberto, S. (2005) Strategies to Assure the
Absence of GMO in Food Products Application Process in a Confectionery Firm, Food
Control, 16, pp.569-78.
34. Scipioni, A., Saccarola, G., Centazzo, A., and Arena, F. (2002) FMEA Methodology
Design, Implementation and Integration with HACCP System in A Food Company, Food
Control, 13(8), pp.495-501.
35. Shostack, G.L. (1984) Designing Services that Deliver, Harvard Business Review, 62(1),
Jan.-Feb., p.134.
36. Tellefsen, L. (2005) Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Applied to Hospital TB Program,
AJIC: American Journal of Infection Control, 33(5), pp.e162-e163.
37. Teoh, P.C. and Case, K. (2004a) Modeling and Reasoning for Failure Modes and Effects
Analysis Generation, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part
BJournal of Engineering Manufacture, 218(3), pp.289-300.
38. Teoh, P.C. and Case, K. (2004b), Failure Modes and Effects analysis Through Knowledge
Modeling, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 153-154, pp.253-60.
39. Vandenbrande, W.W. (1998) How to Use FMEA to Reduce the Size of Your Quality

11
 Toolbox, Quality Progress, 31(11), pp.97-100.
40. Verma, R. (2000) An Empirical Analysis of Management Challenges in Service Factories,
Service Shops, Mass Services and Professional Services, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 11(1), pp.8-25.
41. Weber, K. and Sparks, B. (2004) Consumer Attributions and Behavioral Responses to
Service Failures in Strategic airline Alliance Settings, Journal of Air Transport
Management, 10(5), pp.361-67.
42. Webster, C. and Sundaram, D.S. (1998) Service Consumption Criticality in the Failure
Recovery, Journal of Business Research, 41(2), pp. 153-59.
43. Wirth, R., Berthold, B., Kramer, A., and Peter, G. (1996) Knowledge-Based Support of
System Analysis for the Analysis of Failure Modes and Effects, Engineering Applications
of Artificial Intelligence, 19(3), pp.219-29.
44. Wong, N. Y. (2004) The Role of Culture in the Perception of Service Recovery, Journal of
Business Research, 57(9), pp.957-63.
45. Xu, K., Tang, L.C., Xie, M., Ho, S.L., and Zhu, M.L. (2002) Fuzzy Assessment of FMEA
for Engine Systems, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 75(1), pp.17-29.

12
Service Blueprint Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

Review the Determine potential

service failure modes
process

List potential effects of

each failure mode
Use
schematics
and
Determine the causes
flowcharts
of each failure
to identify
components
And
relations
among List current control
components process
Assign a severity
Assign an rating for each
occurrence rating effect
for each failure
mode Assign a detection
Identify
rating for each failure
operational
and mode and effect
environmental
stresses that
affect the Calculate Risk Priority
system Number (RPN) for
each effect

Design / Redesign
actions

Prioritize failure modes for

design action

Take actions to eliminate or

reduce the high risk failure
modes in design stage to
ensure service design
performance

Figure 1. Proposed Failure-Free Service Design Model

13
 Customer Insufficient parking space
arrival
F
Procurement/ Forecasting error of goods
W Purchase
F
Get
shopping Shopping cart malfunction
cart
F
Unstable supply of goods
Incoming
Air conditioning malfunction goods/ Tardiness of incoming goods
merchandise
Enter sales Escalator malfunction activity F
Incoming inspection failure
floor
F Emergency alarm failure

Inappropriate arrangement of sales floor

Goods/ Inconsistency between
actual and book inventory
Choose Nonconforming quality of goods/merchandise merchandise
goods/ Inventory
merchandise F Wrong location of
No goods/merchandise on sales shelf
warehousing goods
F
Unable to find first-line server

W Bad attitude of first-line server Replenish

goods/ Wrong replenishment of
merchandise goods in sales shelf
to sales shelf
Weigh Weigh & stick Wrong price tag
pounds F
price tag
Price tag not stick well
Yes Yes

No
F

Choose
more
goods
Symbolic Notation

No
F Fail point
W F Slowness of cashier speed

Cashier Bad attitude of cashier server

Wrong cashier amount of money

Decision point

Leave

F Inappropriate complaints adjustments

Customer wait
W
Post-Service Inappropriate returned/refund policy

Warranty failure in time, items, charge

Front office activities Back office activities

(Seen by customers) (Not seen by customers)

Line of Visibility

Figure 2. Service Blueprint for the Hypermarket Example

14
 Table 1. Failure Analysis in the Hypermarket Example
Sub- Sub- Potential Severity Occurrence Detection Risk Priority
System Process/ Failure Mode Rating Rating Rating Number (RPN)
Activity (15) (15) (15)
Insufficient parking space 2.93 2.42 3.01 21.34
Air-conditioning
Sales 3.10 2.65 3.09 25.38*
malfunction
Service Facility

Floor Escalator malfunction 2.58 2.00 2.77 14.29

Facility Shopping cart
malfunction/damage/ 2.40 2.01 3.03 14.62
impair
Sales
Floor Emergency, fire, and 2.85 1.91 3.01 16.38
Security security alarm failure
Sales Inappropriate streamline
Floor arrangement of sales floor 3.09 2.48 2.79 21.38
Surroundings
Unstable supply of
Incoming goods/merchandise
3.54 3.00 2.57 27.29*
Goods/ Tardiness of incoming
Merchandis goods/merchandise
2.83 2.76 2.89 22.57
e Activity Incoming inspection
Prior-Service

failure of 2.35 2.35 3.01 16.62

goods/merchandise
Forecasting error of
2.48 2.19 2.93 15.91
goods/merchandise
Warehousing Inconsistency between
and actual and book 2.32 2.18 2.84 14.36
Inventory inventories
Activity Wrong location of
warehousing 2.51 2.13 2.99 15.99
goods/merchandise
No goods/merchandise on
designated shelf of the 3.07 2.64 2.94 23.83*
sales floor
Customer Nonconforming quality of
Choose/ goods/merchandise
3.29 2.67 2.65 23.28*
Purchase Unable to find first-line
2.81 2.76 3.00 23.27*
In-Service

Flow server in the sales floor

Bad service attitude of
first-line server
2.84 2.45 3.10 21.57
Wrong price tag /
price tag missing
2.68 2.50 2.78 18.63
Slowness of cashier speed 2.94 2.74 2.94 23.68*
Cashier Bad attitude of cashier
Flow 2.96 2.51 2.87 21.32
server
Wrong cashier amount of
money
2.80 2.35 2.85 18.75
Inappropriate
Post-Service

Post-Sale complaints/liability 3.46 2.15 2.74 20.38

Activity adjustments
Inappropriate
returned/refund policy
3.05 2.47 2.91 21.92
Warranty Warranty/repair failure in
timeliness, items, charge
2.89 2.65 3.05 23.36*

* : the most critical failure modes

15
 Table 2. Effects and Causes Analysis for the Seven Most Critical Failure Modes
Criticality Failure Mode Effects
Priority
1 Unstable supply of *Shortage of goods/merchandise
goods/merchandise *Lost sales
*Decreasing customer loyalty
*Customer complaints
*Complicating job allocation
replenishment activity
*Adverse goodwill of store
2 Air-conditioning *Deteriorate or spoilage foods
malfunction *Customer complaints
*Customers run away
3 No goods / *Lost sales
merchandise on *customers can not find the goods
designated shelf of *customer complaints*
the sales floor
4 Slowness of *Increasing customer waiting time
cashier speed *Customer impatient
*customer complaints
*Customers run away
5 Warranty / repair *Increasing customer costs
failure in timeliness, *Adverse goodwill of store
items, charge *Lost customers
6 Nonconforming *Affect food safety
quality of goods / *Against regulations/ Be fined
merchandise *Facing lawsuit
*Adverse goodwill of store
*Increasing discard/scrap costs
7 Unable to find *Lost sales
first-line server in *customer complaints
the sales floor
16
Possible Causes
*Poor supplier evaluation and selection
*Inappropriate supplier relationship
management
*Insufficient inventory of suppliers
and *Inadequate marketing research
*Lack of upward communication
*Insufficient customer relationship focus
*Failure to match supply and demand
*Poor maintenance of air-conditioning
*Aged air-conditioning
*Fail to adjust the sales floor temperature
based on number of customers in the
sales floor
*Poor electric power design
*Insufficient replenishment of
goods/merchandise in sales shelf
*POS system failure
*Goods/merchandise in wrong shelf
*Unclear or wrong tag of goods/
merchandise
*Failure to match supply and demand
*Inadequate horizontal communication
*Over promising in advertising
*Mistakes in cashier system
*Bar-code system failure
*Deficiencies in human resource policies
such as recruitment, training
*Poor employee-job fit
*Failure to plan number of cashiers that
reflect peaks and valleys of demand
*wrong price tag or price tag missing
*Ineffective communication with
customers
*Poor design of warranty process
*Poor management of maintenance/ repair
contractors
*Lack of empowerment
*Over promising
*Poor supplier evaluation and selection
*Inspection failure for incoming
goods/merchandise
*Poor warehousing/storage
conditions/activities
*Ineffective examination/ checkout on
goods/merchandise
*Poor job allocation of employees
*Failure to match supply and demand
*Lack of empowerment
*Dawdled employees