I recently published a
post at the Desktop Support blog of Tech Republic.
It concerned a "pet peeve" of mine, i.e. the practice of many bank automated teller machines (ATMs) to dispense cash, and only afterwards to prompt the customer for removal of the card. This practice has caused me several times to forget my ATM card, causing inconvenience for me and expense for the bank. In my Tech Republic post, I suggested a solution that made sense, at least to me, namely to reprogram the ATM to reverse these actions. That is, required the customer to remove his ATM card before being able to receive cash. True, this change would inconvenience those people who have more than one transaction. However, I respond that possibly the majority of ATM visits consist of a single transaction, and that single transaction consists of a cash withdrawal.
My point in publishing that post was to underscore the importance of looking at things from the other person's point of view.
I was, frankly, surprised by the vehement reactions I received. Some did agree with me. However, others chided me for my views. For example,
dchow@ said "Thinking in life is critical period. We don't need to hear about how you used to suck at it, then you went and decided learning the hard way was getting old." Ouch!!!
Big Ole Jack said "Why must things be dumbed down for the masses because of a few dimwitted dolts out there? Nevermind that...the release of Windows Vista answers that question quite well because the masses are a bunch of dumbasses."
However, qhartman@ summed up the negative reaction the best: "So, you propose that ATM designers make life harder for a small, but likely quite significant, group of people to protect an even smaller group of people from their own thoughtlessness? What an American way to think. "Won't someone think of the children?!?!" Give me a break. If you can't be present enough in your own life to remember your card, you _deserve_ the pain of having to replace it."
Let's examine each reaction.
Dchow is right: thinking IS important. However, I have found that simply telling people this fact doesn't get it across. Illustrating the point via example helps make it clearer and more vivid. For example, Jesus used parables to make important points.
Big Ole Jack and qhartman object to "dumbing things down." Believe it or not, I agree with them in general. However, this particular situation is different, because possibly the benefits of making my change outweigh the costs.
What are costs involved in keeping things the way they are? From the customer's view, there's a loss of time in calling the bank, and a loss of convenience in not having the ATM card while waiting for the replacement card. From the bank's view, there's the time the call center staff spends in processing the replacement card request, the expense of generating the new card and the expense of mailing it. These expenses are not one time, but rather recur every time a customer leaves a card in the ATM.
On the other hand, what are the costs of making the program change? Probably one or two lines of code, plus testing, plus release. Chances are this change is a one time change. I've never programmed an ATM, but I suspect the costs of the program change are less than the costs of the forgotten ATM.
Assuming I'm right: is there really a compelling reason to have the ATM operate the way it does now (i.e. cash first, card second)? It doesn't appear so. In fact, I was reminded, after the Tech Republic post, that my bank DOES do it the "right way," (card then cash) but only if I select the "quick cash" option. That fact makes the "cash then card" approach even less persuasive.
Next, is anyone made worse off by doing card-then-cash? As we saw above, those who do multiple transactions would have to reinsert the card. But they would have to do anyway if they selected "quick cash." I suspect most would be better off.
Given these facts, I still fail to see why banks still do cash-then-card.
Remember, a key to succeeding at work is to look at things from the other person's point of view, something the bank is failing to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ah but your missing one glaringly obvious thing - the person who punches in for cash, gets the card spat back, and while they are putting the card back into their wallet, they absently forget to take the cash, and walk off with the cash still in the machine. 5 minutes later, of course, the cash is gone because the next person in line has grabbed it and left.
The banks analyzed both of these situations, and they know that people would be far, far more pissed off to lose the cash than to lose the card. That is why they give the card back last.
Banks do not necessarily always do things this way. My bank's ATM does is very much like the gas pumps - put the card in, then pull it out. Then enter your PIN, dollar amount, etc. I like this way. Of course, I live in a small town where security is not a big risk. In our town, if you left your cash in, (1) there is likely not to be anyone behind you, and (2) even if there were, there's a decent chance they would be an acquaintance and return the money. =)
The anonymous user stated that "the banks analyzed these situations...." Not necessarily. I have enough corporate experience to know there's a decent chance they didn't. It is probably just what seemed the best consensus at their planning meeting. There are too many variables to assume they had a better reason for doing it that way. Too much business is done based on a few opinions rather than thorough research.
Post a Comment