Is Your Automation Solving Your Customer's Problems, or Creating New Ones?

As a consumer, I feel a definite shift in service levels as more companies move customers into AI, automated workflows, and scripted support channels.

When faced with a problem, there are now many companies where the customer has no choice but to start with a chatbot, even when they already know the question is too nuanced for the chatbot to answer. The customer has to get to work and explain the issue in the chat. After two to four exchanges, the bot either confirms it cannot resolve the issue, or it keeps asking questions and repeating instructions that do not solve the problem.

The customer then has to figure out the right phrase to be connected to a person:

Speak with a person.

Speak with a live person.

Speak with a representative.

Speak with an agent.

Eventually, the right language unlocks the next step.

Then the human agent enters the conversation, and the customer starts over.

I have also noticed longer lags in the exchange of questions and answers with the “live person” . At first I thought the chat had ended. Then I realized the agent was likely handling several customers at the same time. What could have been solved in a five-minute phone call has now taken twenty minutes to reach an unsatisfactory conclusion.

From the customer's side, it looks like more work, more time, and less service.

Within the company, different parts of the organization may see that same interaction very differently. Depending on their vantage point, some departments may see it, and report it, as a win.

• Operations may see improved efficiency. More customers are being handled with fewer people. Call volume has been reduced. Chat volume is contained. The queue looks manageable.

• Finance may see lower labor cost. Cost per interaction goes down. Automation appears to be doing what it was designed to do.

• Technology may see a functioning workflow. The bot routes the customer. The chat platform records the exchange. The ticket is closed. The system performed as designed.

• Legal or risk may see consistency. The policy was applied. Exceptions were limited. The agent stayed within approved language and did not make commitments outside the rules.

Other departments may have the opposite interpretation.

• Marketing may see brand erosion. The company says it values customers, while the customer experience tells a different story.

• Sales may see increased acquisition pressure. New customers become harder and more expensive to attract when existing customers leave or warn others away.

• Customer Experience may see a damaged relationship. A customer came looking for help, spent more time than the issue should have required, repeated information the company already had, and still left without a satisfactory resolution.

At some point, the customer reaches a conclusion: “This company values its time more than mine.”

AI and automation have specific, useful roles inside a company. They can route simple requests, retrieve information, reduce wait times, and help customers complete basic transactions. The risk comes when automation is asked to handle problems that require context, judgment, or a human review point.

The customer does not care about internal efficiencies when they cannot reach a person who can help resolve the problem.

A service process may use less time and less labor inside the company. If it makes the customer work harder, wait longer, repeat information, and still leave without resolution, the design has missed something essential. Efficiency and effectiveness are related, but they are not the same.

Automation and AI do not change the essential question: How do we operate efficiently and effectively for the benefit of the customer? That means designing service models that respect the customer’s time, preserve trust, and resolve the issue with as little unnecessary effort as possible.

Alignment is when strategy, culture, and execution improve the actual experience of the customer.