Nuance Is Not Subtle; It's Just Incredibly Careless. Here Is a Model to Avoid.

Gary North

June 24, 2008

I am writing this article using a product produced by Nuance, Dragon naturally speaking preferred. As you notice, the product does not recognize its own name and model. It did not capitalize NaturallySpeaking preferred. (This time it capitalized part of its name.) So, it forces me to do a lot of proofreading. But that's to be expected with any voice recognition program. It cannot deal with every possible mistake.

At least once a week, I get a pop up on my screen informing me of an update. It doesn't tell me that it's from NaturallySpeaking. So, unless I remember, I don't know what this is all about.

If I click the pop-up in time, I am told that there is an update for NaturallySpeaking. I am told that I am to click the install button. The problem is, the install button is always deactivated. I can click a cancel button. I can click a hide button. But I cannot click the install button.

This means that the notification is utterly useless. It is worse than useless; it uses my time by promising something that the message cannot deliver. It is like a neon sign that says: "We do not beta test our messaging system, so why should you believe that we beta test our software?" In other words, it sends the wrong message.

It does not send the wrong message once; it sends it several times a month. It announces to existing users of the program that the company is asleep at the wheel.

This sort of thing is normal. I think it characterizes most companies. Companies do not want to spend money on beta testing anything. At every level of management, managers make the assumption that things in their department have to work, merely because it's their department. They innately refuse to accept the possibility that that their system requires extensive beta testing.

Not only does the company need beta testing, it needs beta testing by inexperienced users. It should not beta test only by someone inside the company who was involved in the production of the product. Beta testing by a skilled user is close to useless. That's because an expert who developed a product will skip over details, because he knows the product too well. A new user is a literalist. He does not assume anything. He does exactly what the manual tells him to do. If the manual has not been run through a system of beta testing by new users, the manual will be wrong.

Many new users understand this. Companies do not. Above all, manual writers do not. They think that something is accurate simply because they wrote it.

Everyone makes mistakes. Some mistakes are minor. They do not affect the outcome of the process. They can be fixed later on. Users can tell producers of the mistake. This is normal procedure. Companies get positive and negative feedback from users. Wise companies solicit negative feedback because they want to improve the product. Stupid managers do whatever they can to limit negative feedback because they don't like problems. They assume that the problems can be taken care of by a different department.

As far as you can determine, is your employer careful about beta testing everything? I mean extensive beta testing by new users before releasing a product? If this is corporate policy, then your company is likely to survive the looming recession. But if it is corporate policy to kick the can down the road, on the assumption that users don't know anything, and that it is the user's responsibility to overcome weaknesses in the instruction manual, then your career is in jeopardy.

Another sign of a successful company is an internal corporate policy to encourage suggestions from everyone employed by the company. There should be financial bonuses associated with the suggestions that the company actually implements. In other words, there should be positive sanctions for anyone who can head off negative sanctions imposed by customers. Is this corporate policy in the company that employs you?