One of our design engineers would take prototype products home for his kids to mess with. He said "they'll figure out a way to screw it up long before the adults will."
That has always been the struggle between technology and end users. Especially when it comes to software. Getting the programmer to think like an end user is always a struggle. Same goes for hardware design. The trick is for designers to not dictate that "this is how you should do this task" and tell the end user to change, too much that is. A very fine line sometimes between satisfaction and frustration.
In the end, would it really cost more to just have someone answer the dadburn phone vs. the cost of automated systems?
In the end, would it really cost more to just have someone answer the dadburn phone vs. the cost of automated systems?
Yes it does cost more.
One thing to note is that there is a trend to do customer service on the internet. There are people who have the job of monitoring a companies Twitter feed, Facebook account etc, and responding to complaints made there. Corporate websites have bot and live chats. Several companies will let you request a callback from the voice automation system or their website. The next available CSR will call you and you get to bypass the automation. So by calling them you are making the choice to deal with them or using the only communications channel they have provided.
As a thought exercise, if you were charged $5 to be connected to a real person and then refunded $5 when the person resolved your problem or escalated, would you pay? The idea would be to deter frivolous calls (thus reducing costs) but then the issue would defining and defending the definition of frivolous with those folks who didn't get their money back. (Thought exercise only because this could be a type of discrimination).
I also have to note that there are companies that want my business and want me to be happy and they have provided me with a phone number that is only answered by a live person or my contact's personal voice mail. The personal banker at my local branch of a large nationwide bank is one example.
When I call a # for assistance and get that "computer voice" that asks me my problem I say something so long and convoluted they can't make any sense of it whatsoever. They'll ask me to repeat 3 times or so and then they give up and transfer me to a real person. Doesn't always work but does a fair amount of the time. Works with Fed Ex and Bose for sure.
...A very fine line sometimes between satisfaction and frustration.
It costs a lot more! Automated systems, robots, etc. do not require a salary, health care, sick time, vacation time, etc. They rarely miss work, and never take holidays off. From a strictly financial point of view it's no-brainer. Unfortunately, the strategy doesn't match with most customer's desires. But if I have a choice of saving possibly millions of dollars a year, vs alienating some customers, I have to do it to stay competitive. As has been said, blaming the software is wrong on many levels, but keep the big picture in mind. It's always about money.
And even knowing this, it still bugs me!
walrus
As I stated before, it's all in how you define "cost." Opportunity cost always should be in the equation.
My observation is that, in many cases, the most frustrating customer service experiences are with firms that don't really need me, but I need to deal with them in order to conduct my business.
My observation is that, in many cases, the most frustrating customer service experiences are with firms that don't really need me, but I need to deal with them in order to conduct my business.