Posts Tagged ‘Academic Governance’

ChatBot: Cost Cutting at the cost of User Experience

In Design Methodologies, Education, Embedded Systems, Science & Technology Promotion and Public Policy on August 31, 2016 at 4:09 PM

Many of you may be familiar with chatbots. For those who aren’t, a chatbot is a computer program designed to have conversation with a human being (wikipedia). So, instead of talking to a real person, you talk to a computer program. The chatbot responds using artificial intelligence methods which can also include using databases. For instance, you can ask a chatbot on a merchant website to show you “shoes of size 5, blue in color, for sports and within 50 dollars”. You don’t have to search using a filter and set various thresholds. The chatbot will process your “textual/verbal (assuming there is speech recognition) input” and get you the results.

This technology is being promoted as the next major innovation to improve efficiency. The problem is that “efficiency” is itself a much abused term: I will go into the details some other time. Companies are being told that by using chatbots they can increase customer satisfaction, reduce manpower, automate customer interaction etc. This to me appears far-fetched conclusions. Human beings like to chat with human beings. That is one reason why Honda’s humanoid robot ASIMO and other similar attempts have failed to make a cut as care takers. They simply can’t replace nurses as of today. Artificial intelligence and care taker robots are too hyped as of now.

I agree that in certain circumstances where a conversation revolves around very structured data and can be very specific, chatbots may be useful. However, if we examine how humans search for something, we will find plenty of randomness in that. Most of the music videos that I have liked, I have bumped into them accidentally. This may not be the case with music aficionados but it is with me and others like me who explore certain things randomly and out of curiosity.

The reason I am writing this post is because I had a recent experience with a chatbot which was contrary to the selling point of chatbot providers or those who buy chatbot technology to improve customer engagement. Read the hilarious conversation below. Let me call the chatbot CB though it actually had a name on the service provider’s website.

Me: I wanted to know something.

CB: I am here to help (This is actually a standard beginning response by CB to every conversation that is started)

Me: I wanted to know how I can register for user authentication.

CB: I have found the following links that may be helpful: link-1, link-2     ( a sequence of hyperlinks)

Me (the hyperlinks were not helpful as I had already seen them under the FAQ): The website says that I will be auto-registered for authentication by March 2016. But this is August 2016. How will I be auto-registered now? What should I do?

CB: I have found the following links that may be helpful: link-1, link-2     ( a sequence of hyperlinks; the exact same answer as earlier)

Clearly, CB had no idea what I was talking about. The service provider had initiated some ad-hoc measures for some time to register users for authentication but had not updated whatever provided data to CB. The service provider had also failed to address the discrepancy in time. I understand that business requirements can lead to such temporary measures but it also means that the client support system must be accordingly updated. Otherwise, it makes little sense.  Apparently, CB also had no mechanism to learn about new business measures on its own either. Needless to say that I was not satisfied with the service. This example demonstrated to me not only some of the limits of chatbot technology but also the carelessness with which businesses go about buying and integrating chatbot technology thinking that it is a good alternative to manpower based customer interaction in order to cut cost and increase customer engagement. On the contrary, approaches like this result in customer dissatisfaction and duplication of work and efforts somewhere else. And this experience was with a well known service provider of citizen services!

Presentation as a Sales Pitch?

In Education, Engineering Principles, Research and Development on March 25, 2015 at 5:19 PM

It is not uncommon to hear these days: “make your presentation to sell your ideas”, “a presentation is a sales pitch” etc. What was earlier confined mostly to marketing and sales departments is now making its way to other places as well, including academia. Imagine going to attend a talk titled “Truth and Lies About XX” and after spending some time there one realizes that the presentation has no relation to the title at all! The catchy title was just meant to attract people but it lacked substance. Over the past few years, I have come across quite a number of such presentations where the title and the content are very unrelated. The sad part is that most of these presenters walk away with impunity without any member of the audience ever making a remark with respect to the gap between the title and the content. I find this practice not only misleading but also unethical. Most of the time, people come to attend a presentation with a certain notion of it based on its synopsis, speaker’s bio-data  and the title. The title plays a very crucial role in creating excitement. However, I don’t think that it should go so far as to end up unrelated to the content.

I agree with the view that one needs to polish and shape one’s presentation to help the audience follow it; that one needs to choose words and phrases carefully to highlight the main points, one’s contributions etc. However, I don’t agree with a blatant disregard for the audience’s intellect that becomes visible when such titles are chosen. The presenters may say that it was unintentional and that they were only concerned with making it more fancy. However, the fact  that it was unintentional itself says that the presenters did not think deep enough about their target audience.

When people , who are not sales professionals, like engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers etc. try to become like them, they often forget that there are both good and bad salesmen. That is why they teach sales and marketing in business schools. If it were just a matter of catchy title and pompous claims, business schools would not need to teach the subject. In their effort to sell their ideas, the presenters also forget that the audience has its own mind. In most cases, it won’t simply buy whatever is presented to it no matter how charismatic or fancy the salesman is. Of course, if a presenter knows that a certain audience has a bias, he can use all the tricks to impress the people. In general, I don’t think it is a good idea to keep emphasizing the “sales pitch” version of non-sales related presentations. Instead, what should be emphasized more is to connect truthfully with the audience.

When Economic Forces Influence Universities

In Education, Research and Development, Science & Technology Promotion and Public Policy on January 31, 2015 at 9:28 PM

That universities are being increasingly subjected to economic forces is no longer a surprising news. Many articles have been written about the utility of research done at universities, transforming them into products, restricting funding to research in areas of less economic importance etc. I won’t discuss these in this post as this subject is vast. However, I will highlight one important development that I learned about only recently. I was talking to a professor and we discussed faculty appointments, research areas at his university etc. It came to me as a surprise that most students in his department were opting for courses that led to jobs in companies in a few prominent industries in the region. As a result, the university and the department were increasingly more interested in hiring faculty who had experience in those subjects. This was not always the case with those students. Five to ten years ago, the student population was not skewed this way. As a result, the department had faculty in almost all areas of study/research. Now that the student population had become so skewed, a number of faculty members have very reduced teaching load. In effect, these faculty members are now becoming “surplus faculty”. Needless to say that their areas of research and scholarship are only remotely related or unrelated to areas in which students are getting placed. Consequently, there is little hiring of faculty members in these areas and it may also have an impact on the number of faculty members who get tenure. Is this good for education and research? What should a university do in such a case? I would say that such an effect of economic forces is not good for education and research. However, in a world that increasingly wants to relate every human activity to some sort of economic force, it can be difficult to make a convincing case for hiring/retaining scholars in those disciplines. As far as what a university should do is concerned, it is not an easy question to answer. It requires administration with vision, foresight and strength to deal with such a scenario. Whatever be the case, it seems that the concept of a university is undergoing evolution and there is a need to choose a path that is least damaging to all/most stakeholders.

Weizmann Institute of Science: People-Driven not Number-Driven

In Education, Interdisciplinary Science, Science & Technology Promotion and Public Policy on September 27, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Prof. Daniel Zajfman , President of Israel’s Weizmann Institute of Science delivered a lecture on How Can a Small Institute for Scientific Research in a Small Country have a Global Impact?” in NTU today. It was a pleasure listening to his ideas of scientific pursuit, academic governance, state of education, research etc. He emphasized a lot on his policy of being “people-driven” in a research or an academic institution. This is in contrast to many other places which are “number driven” as he himself stated. Numbers which are derived from world rankings, amount of grant money, number of citations etc. The model that Weizmann follows puts its people and their ideas first. He was particular about these people being given the freedom to pursue their ideas. According to him, it is important to let his brilliant scientists choose what they think is the next most important thing in research instead of they being dictated by other agencies and other people. And he showed that his model or the model at Weizmann also works and it works extremely well. He showed that research commercialization can be a by product of independent research pursuit instead of research commercialization dictating research. The world has a place for different kinds of models of academic governance and models that are borne out of the culture and the human capital of a place or a country are the ones that can benefit that country/region the most in the long run and will probably contribute to the global advancement of knowledge on a larger scale. This is what he probably meant when he said that he was not in favor of exporting research institutions to other places (for instance a Weizmann campus in Singapore) though he was all for international collaboration. It is good to see that there still exist such places which operate in a different way and have protected their autonomy and freedom from the “market-driven” culture that is slowly permeating different fields in higher education.  It is difficult to argue which one is better because it is extremely complicated but it is good to see that there is space for all and that not everybody has begun to think alike.