-------------------------
Technology has its own hangups for users. And when the speed with which these answers arrive isn't up to our expectations, we look for someone -- or something -- to blame.
Technology, it seems, is an easy target.
In a recent survey, 67 percent of the 1,750 people interviewed by Siemens Communications Inc. took target practice at telephone and online communications, saying they spend too much time leaving voice mails and sending e-mails when quick answers are what they need. And when answers finally do arrive, these same people reported the calls often came back too late.
Society is plugged in as never before -- with PDAs, cell phones, e-mail, faxes, caller ID and voice mail -- and experts offer varying opinions about the cause and effect. Some say Americans are feeling increasingly unplugged, disconnected and out of control, trapped in a never-ending game of phone tag. Others say that the ability to screen phone calls through caller ID, sift through e-mail and, particularly for businesses, handle customer calls through automated voice systems is worth any inconvenience and potential waiting game.
"Isn't it interesting that we blame the technology?" said Richard Thompson, a professor and director of the graduate program in telecommunications at the University of Pittsburgh. Thompson worked for 20 years at AT&T Bell Labs before coming to Pitt in 1989.
"Isn't this like being annoyed about traffic congestion, so we blame the inventors of the automobile? It sounds to me like when people need information from someone else, that 67 percent of them put off getting it until the last possible minute.
"I think this complaint says a lot about how busy we are and how hectic our jobs are, on both sides of the phone call or e-mail, but especially on the calling party's side."
Barry Lawrence of Siemens, the survey folks, says productivity is declining because it's so hard to reach people. And our personal lives have grown more frustrating because it's hard to reach a live person at your health club or day-care center. The communications technology designed to make our lives easier is affecting our work, lifestyles and mental health, Lawrence said.
Playing phone tag also is making our skins thinner, said Wu Zhou, a senior analyst for Boston-based IDC, a top telecommunications research firm, because we never know when or if the person we're trying to reach listens to voice mail or reads e-mails.
But technology doesn't give people a license to be rude, said Martin Weiss, associate professor of telecommunications at Pitt. "It's like the argument about guns," he said -- do you blame the people who use the technology for not returning calls or e-mails, or the technology that allows them to screen your communication? And is caller ID something the complainer covets himself because he can screen, say, persistent telemarketers?
"You can't have it both ways," Weiss said.
Zhou argued that those who do listen to voice mails and read e-mails could be using that time more productively.
It's a balancing act, these questions of civility versus service, efficiency versus delay, and which side you fall on depends mostly on which side of the phone line you happen to be on.
Out of reach
"We are so bombarded by information that we are defending ourselves with tools such as caller ID," said Pier Forni, an expert on manners at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and author of "Choosing Civility: The 25 Rules of Considerate Conduct."
"If a talkative friend is calling and you are busy, you have the good, traditional option of answering. Just state that you are busy, and that you will call back later."
But not responding to voice or e-mails "is a form of non-acknowledgement; hence it's rude," Forni said.
Once again, Pitt's Thompson advised not to blame the messenger.
In an e-mail -- a prompt answer to a query about this article -- he set up a premise, explaining that he is "usually someone from whom people want information, instead of the one seeking the information. People have a question about my master's program, so they call me or send an e-mail."
He notes that most questions could be answered by viewing the University's Web site, "but they're too lazy or too busy to work independently." So a percentage of that group might call him and wind up leaving voice mail, setting up a potential phone-tag situation.
"If they had sent me an e-mail, with the question in the e-mail, I could respond directly, at least by the next day," Thompson said.
"I think many of us haven't learned how to use the appropriate technology for the given task."
Any human will do ...
The one universal villain in advanced telecommunications seems to be automated voice mail. All telephone users have visited that special ring of Hades where automated menus reside.
Last week, Gene Dwyer of Crafton called the Pennsylvania American Water Co. to report a problem with muddy, rusty water.
"I went through three or four button pushes until a lady came on wanting my account number, my Social Security number and telephone number, and then they were willing to listen to my story," says Dwyer.
The woman told him they hadn't received any other complaints but that one of their water experts would look into it.
Dwyer also called KQV radio, reporting the muddy water as a news tip. They, too, said they'd look into it.
"You go through a long series of automated phone menus, then you pick the number closest to your topic," Dwyer says. "Go through four menus, then in the fourth menu, you go through two additional sub menus."
When Dwyer has called Duquesne Light during a power outage, he has been given another number to call.
"You have to get a flashlight to make the call," he says.
"I won't even get into trying to contact a doctor, credit-card company, Blue Cross, airlines, banks, etc.," says writer Patricia Orendorff Smith, 62, of Indiana, Indiana County. "I am put on hold after punching number after number only to hear a computerized voice. It drives me nuts. I want to talk to a real live person, one in the flesh."
Joanna L. Krotz, in a report titled "'Voice-mail jail' and other blunders of automation" for
Although automated systems may come at a cost to customers' time and nerves, they also save the company money, a savings that should filter back to clients.
"There's no question that computerized services offer dramatic savings," Krotz wrote. "Typically, it costs an exorbitant $50 or more for a human agent to field a customer's call. By contrast, self-service interactions on the Web run mere pennies. In between, combinations of human agents and technologies ... cost a few bucks per call."
Weiss admitted that automated voice mail isn't winning any fans.
"I hate them, everybody hates them. But does it mean that, let's say, the bank having them can offer me cheaper services? If it does, then it's a trade-off. Life is full of trade-offs. This is just one of them."
Interpreting the survey
We began with a poll that says a majority of us are ticked off about the time ticking away as we wait for an answer.
The follow-up question we asked experts is: Are the trade-offs -- such as caller ID and cheaper services -- worth the waiting game?
"I think the technology has raised our expectation that we can get the information we need easier and sooner," Thompson said. "Like the automobile has raised our expectation that we can commute from Harmar Township to Smithfield Street in 25 minutes. Since we can't do it, because we spend 20 minutes trying to get through the traffic light at Route 28 and the 31st Street Bridge, we vent our frustration on the technology in some survey."
If the survey implies that things are worse than they used to be, then it's giving a false impression, Thompson said.
"I don't want to appear defensive about telecom technology, but what did we do before we had voice mail and e-mail? That was a different time, when we all weren't so frantic, so it's hard to make an A-B comparison."
The survey reminded Pitt's Weiss of a time when caller ID was a case for the Federal Communications Commissions and the courts.
"Back around the late '80s, early '90s, one of the big debates was whether caller ID should be allowed at all because of privacy issues," he said.
"Some 15 years later, it's become ubiquitous," he said. "And where before we were complaining about privacy invasion ... now we have it and people are taking advantage of it. You can't have it both ways."
Liz Raphael Helegesen, 41, who records messages for corporate America's voice mail systems, screens calls with caller ID and says she returns all voice mails.
"When I'm on the other line, in a conference, in a recording session, parenting or eating a meal, it would be inappropriate to interrupt an existing conversation, meeting or family time to take a phone call," she said.
To Helegesen, caller ID is an important tool.
"People rely on caller ID because they don't want to talk to you," said Jeff Kagan, a national telecommunications analyst in Atlanta. Added management consultant April Callis of Lansing, Mich.: People use voice mail "to collect calls they don't want to deal with and don't plan on returning."
Weiss quotes an article that he thinks sums it up when he said caller ID and other telecom tools are "a way of defending ourselves from the information onslaught, and I think that's true."
The future, he adds, is bound to include more intelligent screening devices as the onslaught of information continues unabated.
"I think we'll see a lot of different techniques for helping us cope," Weiss said.
But that doesn't mean we'll see an end to complaints.
(Bill Hendrick of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Post-Gazette staff writer L.A. Johnson contributed to this story.
Copyright 1997-2005 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved.