# Guest messaging migration: recovery inventory | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/guides/workflow-service-recovery-approvals
Last updated: 2026-10-19

Before a guest messaging migration, inventory the records that show who promised a guest what, who approved the remedy that was actually given, and how the property checked it: the messaging threads with timestamps and staff names, the complaint or service request records, folio adjustments with their reason codes, and the follow-up that closed the case. Note the years covered, the system and owner for each, and the date the old messaging tool stops being readable.

## What should be inventoried before a guest messaging migration affects service recovery approvals history?

The thread history that the property system never received, the years it covers, who owns the messaging contract, and the date the outgoing tool goes dark. The property system usually keeps the remedy; the messaging tool keeps the promise.

| Question for the company | Why it matters | Who usually knows |
|---|---|---|
| Which record classes sit only in the messaging tool: threads, staff assignment, tags, attachments such as photos? | These are the parts lost if only contacts migrate | Guest operations director |
| How many years of threads exist, and are older ones archived or purged on a schedule? | Sets the real coverage, not the contract length | Messaging administrator |
| Does the new platform import old threads, or start empty? | Decides whether history survives the switch | IT or the implementation lead |
| When does the current contract end, and is there a read-only period? | The actual access deadline | Procurement or finance |
| Are complaints logged as service requests with reason codes, and since when? | Shows whether the property side of the case exists | Front office manager |
| What does the company's privacy and retention policy say about guest communications? | Limits what may be kept at all | Counsel or the privacy lead |

Ask about exports; do not assume them. Whether a given messaging vendor exports full threads with staff names and timestamps is a question for its administrator, and the answer goes in the inventory as "unknown" until confirmed. Contract terms on getting data out are covered in [SaaS data export rights](/guides/saas-data-export-rights-contract).

## Why do the promise and the remedy sit in different systems?

Because guest conversations happen where guests are, and money moves where the folio is. The property system is built to record the remedy in a structured way; the messaging tool is built for fast replies, not for audit.

Oracle's OPERA Cloud documentation shows how much the property side can hold when it is set up for it:

- **Service requests.** OPERA Cloud service requests track incidents, complaints and general requests linked to a profile, reservation or room. Each is resolved and later followed up, recording who closed it and the action taken.
- **Service recovery adjustments.** A Service Recovery Adjustment associates a department, a reason code and clarifying text with an adjustment to a charge, so the folio credit carries its reason.
- **Reason code types.** Adjustment reason codes come in Adjustment, Deletion and Service Recovery types. The Service Recovery type indicates resolution of an issue with a dissatisfied guest, and it appears only when the Service Requests control is active.

That last point is a coverage question in itself: a property that did not activate service requests may have folio adjustments without the recovery link, and the explanation of why a credit was given then lives only in the messaging thread. Either way, the thread is where the first promise, the conflicting offer and the manager's decision were written. If the migration moves contacts and leaves threads behind, the remedy survives without its reason.

## An illustrative inventory sheet

Illustrative only; the hotel group, tools and dates are fictional. A 520-person resort group is switching guest messaging platforms at the end of its current contract, keeping its property system. The guest operations director completes the sheet from the project plan, without opening any records.

| Record class | System | Years held | Owner | Moves to new platform? | Reachable until |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guest contacts | Old messaging tool | 2019 to now | Guest operations director | Yes | Not applicable |
| Message threads with timestamps | Old messaging tool | 2019 to now | Guest operations director | No, new platform starts empty | Old messaging contract end |
| Staff assignment and tags | Old messaging tool | 2020 to now | Messaging administrator | No | Old messaging contract end |
| Photo attachments | Old messaging tool | 2019 to now | Messaging administrator | No | Old messaging contract end |
| Service requests | Property system | 2021 to now | Front office manager | Not affected | Property system retention |
| Folio adjustments with reason codes | Property system | 2018 to now | Finance | Not affected | Property system retention |

Reading the sheet: the at-risk classes are the threads, staff assignments and attachments, all tied to one contract date, while the remedy side stays in the property system. The question to settle before go-live is what the old vendor can export, with which fields. The [data scope worksheet](/resources/data-scope-worksheet) gives the company a format for its own counts, and the same migration questions in a support-desk setting are covered in [a helpdesk migration](/guides/a-helpdesk-migration).

## Which dates set the real access deadline?

The end of the messaging contract, any read-only period after it, the new platform go-live, and any scheduled purge of older threads under the current settings. If none is written down, there is no deadline yet; the next step is for the company to fix one, not for a partner to create urgency.

One firm limit: do not recommend that the company keep guest communications longer than its policy and the law allow, or copy them anywhere to "preserve" them. That decision belongs to the company's privacy lead, counsel and leadership.

## Ask the guest operations director about coverage and rights

The guest operations director knows coverage: roughly how many complaints a year reach a manager, how many end in a folio credit, and how far back threads go. Rights sit higher. Threads are guest personal data, and properties run under management or franchise agreements may share systems with an owner or brand (see [who owns data in a shared group system](/questions/who-owns-data-in-a-shared-group-system)). Counsel decides what could ever be licensed and what would need de-identifying first. The person who can authorize a licensing discussion is the CEO of the operating company.

The introduced company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a documented operating history, rights to license the records, and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 90% of the data is in English. Unknown until SourceX reviews it: buyer interest, the rights review result and any terms. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting introductions; attribution goes to the first valid introduction within the 90-day window, credited when the company submits a verified application. Related records are on [complaint handling records](/data-types/complaint-handling-records), consultants can start from the [CX consultant referral program](/for/cx-consultant-referral-program), and hotel workflows such as [rate parity exception review](/guides/workflow-rate-parity-exception-review) are on the [hospitality page](/industries/hospitality) and the [industries hub](/industries).

## Go deeper on service recovery approvals

- [Service recovery approvals exception examples](/guides/service-recovery-approvals-exception-examples): a worked case of two teams promising one guest two different remedies, with the record each decision left.
- [Service recovery approvals records across systems](/guides/service-recovery-approvals-records-across-systems): a map of the IDs that join guest threads, service requests and folio adjustments.
- [Who can license service recovery approvals records](/questions/who-can-license-service-recovery-approvals-records): a short answer on which executive to introduce and why.
- [Service recovery approvals referral brief template](/resources/service-recovery-approvals-referral-brief-template): a fill-in brief for writing the company introduction.

## Next step

> **Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000.** Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.

If a hotel client is about to switch guest messaging platforms and its promise history lives only in the old one, [register as a partner](/register), check the company against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies), and read the [program terms](/terms) before you introduce the decision-maker.

## Sources

- https://docs.oracle.com/en/industries/hospitality/opera-cloud/23.4/ocsuh/t_postings_adjustments_posting_service_recovery_allowance_adjustments.htm
- https://docs.oracle.com/en/industries/hospitality/opera-cloud/25.4/ocsuh/t_admin_financial_cashiering_creating_adjustment_reason_codes.htm
- https://docs.oracle.com/en/industries/hospitality/opera-cloud/24.1/ocsuh/t_managing_profiles_service_requests.htm
- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms