“Cognitive Overhead”
I came across one of the most informative and clear explanations I’ve ever encountered about why customers may not always react the way we hope they will. It’s called “Cognitive Overhead”.
Simply put, it’s how much they have to think and/or do something to take action to get something. The easiest way to understand this is to think about two simple examples:
The words “click below to subscribe”.
The word “subscribe” used as a direct link (known as a “Uniform Resource Locator” or URL) to a page to fill in details.
In the first case, a customer reads the instruction and then must find a link somewhere below (maybe lower than the part of the screen they can see). In the second, they simply click on the word “Subscribe”. This may seem simple but the fact is that the first example requires two steps whilst the second only requires one.
If we imagine our processes in a similar way, how many steps do customers have to go through to obtain a product or service through our website? There will be a minimum number, but the question is how low will that be?
Sometimes customers have commented that they didn’t follow a process through because it was either:
- “Too long”
- “Too complicated”
- “Unintuitive” or
- All of the above.
If the third (let alone the last) answer comes back too often, our business has a serious problem. All it’ll take is one competitor with processes that are shorter, less complicated more “intuitive” or all three to take our customers from us.
As an example, my wife and I have both found that installing eSIMs from a certain provider comes under the “all three” category. We’ve given up using their eSIM.
As businesses, we need to minimise the “cognitive overhead” for our customers. As technology and complexity grow in our world, this is going to become harder. Developers need to understand how the customer works and how to blend this with how their business works.
The first question we should always be asking ourselves is, “Will this process benefit the customer?”. If the answer is “not much” then we shouldn’t institute it. People will try to justify complex processes for reasons like “legal requirements”, “regulations”, or similar. All businesses are subject to rules, but building processes around these rules or around what the business needs isn’t the way to go.
In short, “the simpler the better” is the way to go. Our problem is, how do we get there?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Customer Care, Productivity, Selling, Strategy
24/7 Service?
I recently used a UK bank’s “24/7” online messaging service to help resolve a problem.
To be fair, when I initiated the conversation, my location was eight hours ahead of the UK. The AI or automatic agent did respond immediately but, once it became clear that my needs required “human intervention” it needed to pass me to one of its “human” colleagues.
The system very kindly advised that it might take up to 30 minutes for a “human” to contact me. This may have been for several reasons including high numbers of enquiries. Unfortunately, I didn’t have 30 minutes to wait online whilst the “system” dealt with me.
I’ve no complaints about the “virtual agent” (read AI bot) being used. After all, this bank has probably discovered that many queries can be answered through AI. The problem comes when one does need human intervention.
My question: if you advertise a service as 24/7, is the customer entitled to assume that:
It does indeed function 24/7?
They will receive “human intervention” in a timely manner?
In my opinion, a 30-minute delay isn’t “timely”. I might just as well have called their hotline and resolved the issue within five minutes if it had been “time sensitive”. As luck would have it, it wasn’t.
AI is being touted as the answer to everything. However, it still has a long way to go as we can see from the above example. Ironically, the reason I was forced to contact the so-called 24/7 service was because I had received a message from that bank which told me I would be able to use its internet banking service or mobile app to apply. Unfortunately, the message didn’t include precise instructions on the steps required.
I fully understand that one must assume a basic level of “intelligence” in people from time to time. The problem is that every bank’s internet banking service (and other non-banking services) are laid out differently by people who follow their own logic in terms of website or app design as well as local regulations. What may be “intuitive” to one person may not be to the next.
In short, if we as businesses offer a “24/7 service”, we need to make sure it’s a full service that responds to all customer needs. This means that, as leaders, we need to test our systems to ensure they’re fit for purpose and do “what it says on the tin”.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Customer Care, Productivity, Strategy
Harmful Devices?
I’m sitting in a clinic’s reception area waiting for an appointment. Behind me is a young child (obviously waiting with other) for an appointment whilst watching some kind of children’s programme on mother’s smartphone to keep them amused (and quiet?).
My question is, what’s this doing to the child’s development? Before smartphones and their ability to deliver on-the-spot gratification, what did we do? Answer: if we knew we were in for a long wait, we brought a book, books of puzzle games, drawing books, caught up with our journals or any other activity that engaged our minds.
These days, one sees very few instances of this. Instead, it’s mind-dulling activity potentially robbing us of future generations of artists, musicians, creators, authors and the like.
The trouble is, it’s too easy to hand them a smartphone to keep them quiet.
What if we engaged them in conversation, played games (that didn’t require running around) instead? If we’re “dumbing down” their minds at this stage, small wonder people complain of educational standards also being “dumbed down.
Now we’ve got “Artificial Intelligence” - what about dealing with “Natural Dumbness” first? Is Ai the natural response to instant gratification?
We’re continually told we need the “skills” to react to a “fast-changing world”, but developing these skills starts when we’re young with conditioning the mind.
More interaction, less “camer-action”?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Social
