About this Beta release
LivePerson is pleased to announce the Beta release of the Meaningful Automation Conversation Score or MACS, which is a new measure of bot performance.
Your feedback is important to us! To send feedback on this Beta feature, please use this Google form.
What is MACS?
A Meaningful Automation Conversation Score or MACS is a measure of the quality of a bot conversation.
LivePerson has found through research that consumer effort and emotion are key determiners in how the consumer perceives the quality of a conversational experience. Given this, a MACS is calculated by identifying and quantifying this within the conversation. Failure points within the conversation’s structure are detected and used to derive a score, for example:
- Did the bot understand the consumer’s question?
- Was the consumer stuck in an endless loop?
- Did a bad transfer to an agent occur?
As an example, here below is part of a conversation with two types of failure points:
A MACS is calculated for each bot conversation based on failure points like these above. The conversation is classified with a MACS 1, 2 or 3 where:
- MACS 1 = Bad
- MACS 2 = Fair
- MACS 3 = Good
An average score (a floating number) is also calculated for each bot to indicate overall bot performance.
Scoring like this makes it fast and easy to understand how efficient and fluid a bot conversation was, and a bot’s performance overall. With this knowledge, you can take action and tune your low-performing bots for improved performance.
Constraints and caveats
MACS scoring is only available for bots built in Conversation Builder. For a third-party bot, “N/A” for “Not Applicable” is displayed as the MACS.
Why use MACS?
Other measures can inform you about the quality of conversations, but they do have some shortcomings when it comes to conversations with bots:
- Post-conversation surveys (PCS), CSAT and NPS: These measures:
- Are offered when the conversation is closed, but many bot conversations never reach that point.
- Have a low response rate, and when people do respond, they are not a representative sample. Typically, they are more extreme in their feelings about the bot.
- Don’t account for abandoned conversations, which is an important type of bot conversation to consider.
- Assess the entire conversation and don’t distinguish whether the agent or the bot caused the consumer’s satisfaction. They also don’t provide any indication of what caused the high or low score.
- Meaningful Connection Score (MCS): Research has revealed that humans don’t converse with bots like they do with humans: The number of words in each message decreases, and the use of emotional language is minimal. This means that LivePerson’s MCS, which uses natural language to measure the consumer’s sentiment as they message with an agent, isn’t a good indicator of the quality of a conversation with a bot.
MACS addresses all these shortcomings because it identifies and quantifies the failure points that are found in the conversation’s structure to evaluate the conversation’s efficiency and fluidity.
What’s more, MACS is available for all bot conversations while post-conversation surveys are not.
Benefits of MACS
MACS scoring makes it fast and easy to tune your bots for improved performance at scale.
Using MACS, you can:
- Identify failed conversations: Easily find the ones that required high consumer effort or produced consumer frustration.
- Review less, not more: Perform a targeted review of conversation transcripts-not a random review-to locate the bot areas that need improvement.
- Diagnose and tune quickly: Move directly from a failure point in a transcript to the interaction in the bot flow, where you can make changes.
How is MACS calculated?
There are two models responsible for MACS:
- A model that predicts what failure points are present in a conversation
- A model that estimates a conversation quality score
Both of these models were “trained” by having human experts manually annotate thousands of conversations. Using these models, each bot conversation that is closed is classified with a MACS 1, 2 or 3 where:
- MACS 1 = Bad
- MACS 2 = Fair
- MACS 3 = Good
The score is calculated based on the presence of failure points in the conversation, along with a host of other metadata associated with the conversation. The table below describes each failure point that is used to derive the score and provides solutions for fixing them.
|Failure point||Description||Possible fixes|
|Around in circles||The consumer is stuck in an unintentional loop.||Improve the dialog/conversation flow
Escalate to agent
|Ignored consumer question||The bot doesn’t acknowledge the consumer's query and instead forces the consumer through a dialog flow.||Add intent detection (NLU)
Add menu options
|Frustration||The consumer expresses intense frustration as a reaction to the experience with the bot.||Detect frustration and escalate
Identify flows that lead to disproportionate frustration; improve the dialog and intent detection
|Doesn't understand||The bot fails to understand the consumer's intent and is not offering to repair the conversation.||Improve poor performing intents
Move to a menu-based approach
|Bad transfer||The bot transfers the consumer to an agent, but this either leaves the consumer hanging or abruptly ends the chat.
The bot might also fail to tell the consumer early enough in the conversation that there are no agents available at that hour.
|Give a warning early in conversation that the agent capacity is near capacity
Check if agents are available before declaring the conversation will be escalated
A MACS is only calculated for closed conversations.
A MACS doesn't detect where an error occurs in a conversation; it detects whether or not it occurred somewhere in the conversation. However, you can aggregate MACS over interactions. This gives you an indication of where your bot is underperforming and, by looking at the errors, of what to do to fix it.
Accuracy of MACS
MACS has a correlation of ~.7 with human judgment. While this is quite good, expect the algorithm to make some classification mistakes from time to time. The strength of MACS comes from looking at the scores in aggregate, where one aspect is in common (e.g., the same error is detected, or the conversations included a specific interaction or intent).
Enable or disable MACS
MACS is a self-service feature that you can enable or disable at any time.
Before enabling MACS, please consult with your LivePerson account representative.
If you disable MACS, be aware that this only hides the display of the feature in the user interface. MACS scoring of bot conversations still takes place behind the scenes.
To enable or disable MACS
- From the Conversational AI dashboard of applications, select Bot Accounts.
- On the Bot Accounts tab, select your organization name.
On the Account Details tab, do either of the following:
- To display MACS data, enable (turn on) the Display Meaningful Automation Conversation Score (MACS) setting.
- To hide MACS data, disable (turn off) the Display Meaningful Automation Conversation Score (MACS) setting.
Using MACS in Bot Analytics
Watch the video
MACS on the main dashboard - Identify low-scoring bots
The main dashboard in Bot Analytics displays each bot’s average MACS (a floating number), for the specified date range. This helps you to understand at a glance which of your bots are high-performing, and which are low-performing and therefore need tuning.
When assessing the MACS of your bots, keep in mind that the score primarily is meaningful for bots that accomplish specific business purposes through the use of conversation flows. The score isn’t as meaningful for other types of bots, e.g., routing bots and FAQ bots.
On the main dashboard, click a bot’s MACS to go to the MACS page for the bot. Here’s where you can analyze the data.
The MACS page - Analyze the data & tune the bot
Display the data
On the MACS page, use the filters to refine the data that’s displayed based on your criteria:
- Score filters: Toggle these on and off to show and hide the data for a score.
- Detail filters: Filter the data based on specific criteria, for example, the reason for the MACS score.
- Date filter: Specify the date range for the data.
Note the following about the filters:
- Your selections affect the whole page, i.e., both of the MACS charts and the table of conversations underneath.
- Within a filter, an “OR” search is performed. Across the filters, an “AND” search is performed. For example, you can show the data where ((score equals MACS 1 OR MACS 2) AND (MACS reason equals “Around in circles” OR “Bad transfer”)).
- When you filter the data by MACS Reason, only sample conversations that exceed a certain “confidence threshold” that the reason exists are displayed. This threshold is internal to the system and ensures that the quality of the displayed data is good.
In our example image above, we’ve used the score filters to display just the data for conversations with a MACS of 1 (Bad). We’ve also used the MACS Reason detail filter to further refine the data to display just conversations where the bot didn’t understand. Beneath the charts, this gives us a sample list of bot conversations that meet that criteria.
The list of conversations is a sample of up to 100 bot conversations that meet the defined criteria. The conversations are distributed across the selected scores, so, for example, if you select to show conversations with a MACS 1 and 2, you’ll see some number of conversations with a MACS 1 and some number of conversations with a MACS 2. The distribution might not be even since this depends on the data that’s available.
If you want to search for a specific conversation—any conversation that falls within the specified date range regardless of whether it appears in the sample—enter its conversation ID in the search box. It will be displayed in the Sample Conversations list regardless of how the filters are set.
When searching for a conversation by its ID, be aware that conversation IDs are truncated on the MACS page. To get the full conversation ID, click the truncated ID to open the transcript window. The full ID is displayed at the top.
Analyze the data
Once you’ve displayed the conversations that you want to review, select one by its ID to display the transcript.
Then review the transcript to identify the failure point in the conversation.
Tune the bot
After you’ve identified the failure point in the conversation, click Show Dialogs & Interactions in the upper-right corner of the transcript window.
Then click the associated interaction link that appears for the interaction that is causing the failure.
This opens the bot in Conversation Builder and displays that interaction in the dialog editor. You can then tune the bot right at the failure point, for improved performance.