Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Seattle Times Article
Seattle Times recently published an article ("Talk to a human? Most firms flunk test") about the gethuman grading. They also included some interesting comments from companies on the list. We thought you might want to check it out.
See the latest gethuman 500 to see how each company was graded based on the gethuman standard. You can also provide your assessment of how companies do against the standard on our discussion board. posted by Lorna Rankin at 9:58 PM
See the latest gethuman 500 to see how each company was graded based on the gethuman standard. You can also provide your assessment of how companies do against the standard on our discussion board. posted by Lorna Rankin at 9:58 PM
Sunday, December 03, 2006
gethuman and the IVR industry
"Declare the past, diagnose the present, foretell the future; practice these acts. As to diseases, make a habit of two things -- to help, or at least to do no harm".
-Hippocrates
SpeechTek 2006
Much of the tone of SpeechTek 2006 (the biggest speech industry conference of the year) was set by its opening keynote address. In the presentation, Paul English, founder of gethuman.com, outlined some of the desirable characteristics of a "gethuman standard" for self-service systems. Some of the proposed features closely reflect already acknowledged, if not always adhered to, industry best practices. Many suggested standards would be easy and inexpensive to implement. Still other standards will require changes in call center infrastructure and, for that matter, the way some corporations perceive their fundamental customer service obligations.
Mixed Reactions
From my own informal sampling of attendees, reaction to the presentation took two basic forms. One was basically an affirmative (if tentatively supportive) reaction. The other was defensive and dismissively critical.
The affirmative reaction could be described as supportive of the overall goals but cautious about the final details of the standard. There was also a sense of hesitance on the part of representatives of this group to say anything that would appear negative about the standard and the overall consumer movement that gethuman represents.
The defensive reaction was less cautionary. Those in this group openly criticized the standard, scoffed at the movement and aggressively defended the status quo.
Reaction to Reactions
I completely understand the affirmative reaction. After all, many VUI (Voice User Interface) designers will (in private, at least) admit that user needs often play a secondary role in the design and deployment of call center IVRs (Interactive Voice Response). Corporate goals and IT (Information Technology) realities usually carry more weight when it comes to making IVR design decisions. I can also appreciate any hesitance to criticize the movement. Who, after all, would like to run the risk of being publicly perceived as anti-user or anti-consumer?
I cannot understand the defensive reaction at all. Furthermore, I think that those reacting in this way are profoundly out of touch with the realities of the situation. Some fail to realize that the gethuman movement is not just about self-service, speech systems or IVR. The movement is primarily a consumer revolt against the terrible state of customer service in the US today. Consumers have had it with the indignities of interminable hold times, incompetent or rude customer service representatives (CSRs), and CSRs who are not capable of clearly communicating in English. Poorly designed, confusing and annoying self-service systems are only one part of the overall problem and speech industry people are wrong to assume that their technologies and practices are the primary target of the movement.
Yet the gethuman movement does have much to say about what is wrong with today's IVRs. Ironically, we in the speech industry have already heard most of what it is being said. For example, most in the industry would never deny callers the ability to reach a human nor would they disconnect users when users make "too many" mistakes. In fact, some of the specific suggestions described by English during the keynote have been recognized best practices for many, many years.
Why the gethuman standard matters
Unfortunately, for one reason or another, too many of our industry's best practices as well as some of our more benign IVR design conventions are still unacceptably evident out in the field. Far too many companies are still more interested in the cost savings afforded by an IVR than in how easy an IVR is to use or even how well the IVR meets the needs of its users. It is time for such owners of IVRs to rethink their priorities.
Paul English's work and the gethuman movement actually represent a tremendous opportunity for the speech industry. It is an unprecedented opportunity to listen to consumers, address their concerns and get VUIs right. I encourage all in the industry to rise to the occasion and find a way to help. If they choose not to help, they are likely to cause more harm.
Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. --Walter Rolandi, Ph.D. posted by Walter Rolandi, Ph.D. at 12:05 PM
-Hippocrates
SpeechTek 2006
Much of the tone of SpeechTek 2006 (the biggest speech industry conference of the year) was set by its opening keynote address. In the presentation, Paul English, founder of gethuman.com, outlined some of the desirable characteristics of a "gethuman standard" for self-service systems. Some of the proposed features closely reflect already acknowledged, if not always adhered to, industry best practices. Many suggested standards would be easy and inexpensive to implement. Still other standards will require changes in call center infrastructure and, for that matter, the way some corporations perceive their fundamental customer service obligations.
Mixed Reactions
From my own informal sampling of attendees, reaction to the presentation took two basic forms. One was basically an affirmative (if tentatively supportive) reaction. The other was defensive and dismissively critical.
The affirmative reaction could be described as supportive of the overall goals but cautious about the final details of the standard. There was also a sense of hesitance on the part of representatives of this group to say anything that would appear negative about the standard and the overall consumer movement that gethuman represents.
The defensive reaction was less cautionary. Those in this group openly criticized the standard, scoffed at the movement and aggressively defended the status quo.
Reaction to Reactions
I completely understand the affirmative reaction. After all, many VUI (Voice User Interface) designers will (in private, at least) admit that user needs often play a secondary role in the design and deployment of call center IVRs (Interactive Voice Response). Corporate goals and IT (Information Technology) realities usually carry more weight when it comes to making IVR design decisions. I can also appreciate any hesitance to criticize the movement. Who, after all, would like to run the risk of being publicly perceived as anti-user or anti-consumer?
I cannot understand the defensive reaction at all. Furthermore, I think that those reacting in this way are profoundly out of touch with the realities of the situation. Some fail to realize that the gethuman movement is not just about self-service, speech systems or IVR. The movement is primarily a consumer revolt against the terrible state of customer service in the US today. Consumers have had it with the indignities of interminable hold times, incompetent or rude customer service representatives (CSRs), and CSRs who are not capable of clearly communicating in English. Poorly designed, confusing and annoying self-service systems are only one part of the overall problem and speech industry people are wrong to assume that their technologies and practices are the primary target of the movement.
Yet the gethuman movement does have much to say about what is wrong with today's IVRs. Ironically, we in the speech industry have already heard most of what it is being said. For example, most in the industry would never deny callers the ability to reach a human nor would they disconnect users when users make "too many" mistakes. In fact, some of the specific suggestions described by English during the keynote have been recognized best practices for many, many years.
Why the gethuman standard matters
Unfortunately, for one reason or another, too many of our industry's best practices as well as some of our more benign IVR design conventions are still unacceptably evident out in the field. Far too many companies are still more interested in the cost savings afforded by an IVR than in how easy an IVR is to use or even how well the IVR meets the needs of its users. It is time for such owners of IVRs to rethink their priorities.
Paul English's work and the gethuman movement actually represent a tremendous opportunity for the speech industry. It is an unprecedented opportunity to listen to consumers, address their concerns and get VUIs right. I encourage all in the industry to rise to the occasion and find a way to help. If they choose not to help, they are likely to cause more harm.
Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. --Walter Rolandi, Ph.D. posted by Walter Rolandi, Ph.D. at 12:05 PM
