Design a useful way to reach a person

What we found in the news

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s June 2023 report on chatbots (opens in a new tab) examined difficulties people encountered when seeking help from financial institutions. Its conclusion emphasized:

“access to live, human support”

— Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

This established report concerns consumer finance, with specific obligations and consequences. It is not a study of care services. We are returning to its service-design question: what happens when the automated conversation cannot resolve the person’s actual need?

Why this matters to us

A conversational tool can make a straightforward answer easier to find. The difficulty begins when an ordinary question has an exception hidden inside it.

Imagine someone asking a community activity assistant about an outing. They can find the departure time, but they need to know whether a different pickup location can be considered. Repeating the published timetable does not answer that question.

The person may be perfectly able to use the tool. What they need now is someone with the knowledge and authority to discuss the request.

At genus, we want digital guidance to help people reach a useful next step. A clear route to a person belongs in that design from the beginning.

Put the contact option where the question arises

A help route tucked away on a separate page may be difficult to find after several unsuccessful attempts. Offer an understandable way to continue when the tool reaches its limit.

For our imagined outing, the assistant could point to the program’s agreed contact information. That information needs to match the service people can actually reach: telephone hours, a staffed desk, or a message route with a stated response expectation.

Use ordinary language about the next step. Someone should know whether they are starting a live conversation, leaving a message, or opening a general contact page.

Try the route from the person’s side. Does it require another account? Can the person use the communication format they prefer? A visible contact button is only the beginning of a workable handoff.

Give the receiving colleague something they can act on

The staff member needs enough context to understand the request, within the organization’s permissions and the person’s choices.

In our example, the useful detail might be the outing and the alternative pickup question. A complete copy of every earlier conversation may be unnecessary or inappropriate.

Explain what will be shared and ask the person to confirm important details where needed. They can clarify the question before an inaccurate summary begins another round of misunderstanding.

Agree who takes responsibility for the incoming request. An inbox that several people can open may still leave each person assuming that someone else is responding.

Be honest about the waiting period

A message confirmation should describe what has happened. It can confirm that a request was received without implying that a pickup change has been approved.

If the service responds during particular hours, say so clearly. For requests that need a different route, provide the appropriate information rather than letting a friendly chatbot create an impression of continuous staffing.

Consider how the person will receive the reply. A response sent through a channel they rarely use can leave the original question unresolved even when a colleague has answered it.

Review a few completed journeys with the people involved. Where did they repeat themselves? Which explanation helped? Those details can improve the handoff more usefully than counting how many conversations the tool started.

What this means for the people you serve

People should be able to ask a question that does not fit the menu and understand who can help. They can choose how to explain the issue and contribute to checking the summary passed along. Reaching a limit in a tool should lead to a clear next option.

The genus connection

Today, genus care-app and care-wall experiences can bring configured resources, communication, and supported guidance into an organization’s service. Enabled functions and access arrangements depend on the setup.

The organization still needs to decide where human help comes from, when it is available, and how the contact information stays current. We would connect the digital guidance to those actual arrangements, with staff and participants trying the route before it becomes part of the welcome.

One question to take away

When the tool cannot answer someone’s real question, can they reach a person who can move it forward?