 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
The Human Touch |
||||||
|
One of the advantages of automation is the reduced cost of labor. This is the result of using technology to replace the efforts of human beings. Since the Industrial Revolution, clever managers have sought new ways to take advantage of this possibility. To find ways to use a device, a machine, a software program, or other tool to do some task normally done by a human. In designing web sites and applications, this quest to eliminate humans can get out of hand. We've all been the victim of this one time or another, encountering sites that lead you through knowledge bases, search engines, and troubleshooting processes, but make it nearly impossible to figure out how to contact a real person who may be able to help you. Entire software markets have sprung up around the idea of lessening the need to have real human interaction. Don't get me wrong. In some cases, not talking to a person is great. Looking for a new printer driver on a carefully planned web site is pure joy compared to waiting on hold to have a two minute conversation, then waiting for someone to send you a floppy, hoping the whole time that they didn't forget. But there are a couple of reasons why certain types of sites or applications could benefit from more involvement by real humans. The first is that for certain types of processes, humans just do a better job. A knowledgeable person can understand my poor description of the part I need to fix a clothes dryer. A person might have a better chance of helping me understand the best approach for actually replacing that same part. The second reason for more human involvement is that people find other people interesting. Not just people, but also their ideas, their flaws, their odd quirks, their intuition. People find people fascinating and engaging. Remember when everyone wanted "sticky" web sites? Well, there is nothing more sticky than interacting with another person. Please understand that I am advocating more involvement of humans, not less use of technology. For a number of years, I managed the intranet at Remedy Corporation. We grew the intranet from a few pages on a spare desktop machine to a useful tool with a variety of applications. Intranets were still a pretty new idea, so we sometimes just tried things. Sometimes we succeeded and sometimes we failed. At one point, I was trying to increase usage of the intranet. We had finally gotten enough useful information and applications deployed that actually finding the answer to a question or getting something done on the intranet wasn't a long shot. We had reached what I call "critical mass." I was desperately trying to get employees to actually use the tools and information at their disposal. I worked on improving site navigation. I made the search engine give more accurate results. I sent announcements. All of these things helped, but not to the degree I'd wanted. After watching a couple of people use the site, one problem became clear: once employees had tried the things they thought would work, they gave up. There was no method of last resort on the intranet. No backstop. In most cases, they gave up even though the answer they sought might actually be available. Remedy had an employee named Phyllis who was the original office manager. She had gradually taken on a quite interesting role that involved helping new employees become productive, promoting communication, and generally promoting the well being of all employees. Everyone called Phyllis "Mom." If you ripped your shirt pocket, you just knew she'd have a sewing kit. If you had a question about an older version of a Remedy product, she could probably get you in touch with members of the original team that built it. She was a wealth of information, and really cared about people. So, rather than simply build additional structured site navigation, we put in place a special navigation page called "Ask Mom." I talked to Phyllis to find out what sort of things people were always asking. We put together a "Top Ten" frequently asked questions list, with links to the relevant answer pages. We added a section with links to applications for tasks that folks found confusing. "Mom" even built an index of links by keyword, based on what folks were asking. Eventually, Phyllis began asking departmental content authors to publish additional pages whenever employees had been asking about a particular topic. While the response was overwhelmingly positive, which I thought would at least encourage intranet usage, it wasn't until much later that I realized how useful and important employees had found "Ask Mom." Years later, Phyllis and I were both still receiving positive comments about the page. Most people said that the "Ask Mom" section uncannily contained the things they used most often. A few even admitted that they usually tried "Ask Mom" first before any other navigational option. Why did this work so well? I think it was a combination of two factors. The first was simply that "Mom" had a much more accurate picture of the types of tasks that employees found difficult or frustrating. My page hit and search logs were no match for her intuition and involvement. The second was that "Mom" had a reputation for knowing the answers and giving good advice on getting things done. We had found a way to use technology to leverage the broad expertise of a single person to benefit all employees. Rather than deal with another mindless navigation page, employees were treated to a collection of links put together by someone they trusted. While this was certainly a unique situation, it taught me an valuable lessen: that in finding technology solutions to business problems, sometimes the most important factor is the human touch. |
|
|||||
|
|
