At work I finally — finally! — got to release our new website. A major part of the project was incorporating a knowledge bank of customer service resources. This knowledge bank came with a customer service taxonomy that had been established some three years ago.

The taxonomy is exhaustive: it consists of 52 terms grouped into seven broader categories. It is — I think — an impressive piece of work.

But I’m not sure it’s actually very useful.

Scientific versus subjective taxonomies

Taxonomy is an attractive latinate term that confers a certain objectivity. There are, I think, two broad types of taxonomy, namely scientific taxonomies — the sort that categorise objective, physical entities, such as butterflies — and subjective taxonomies, which attempt to categorise abstract concepts, such as customer service.

Some subjective taxonomies err towards objectivity more than others, normally as a result of attaining a certain respectability and through agreement on underlying concepts over time. Ontology, epistomology and philosophy of the mind are established areas of philosophy, for example. Within customer service we could maybe state that customer experience is an established sub–term of customer service, but terms such as coaching, IVR and performance management are either too faddish, too vague or not connected closely enough to customer service alone to be included within the taxonomy.

Without agreement over concepts users — even experts — will find it difficult to relate content to taxonomical terms. What exactly are performance management and diversity and language?

New subjective taxonomies should be general

This is not to argue that newer areas of study shouldn’t have taxonomies. By using broad, general terms and sub–terms that have gained traction within a subject area publishers will be able to guide users through their content. Over time more thorough taxonomies will develop. Who knows; perhaps one day there’ll be university departments dedicated to areas such as customer service, something my employer would no doubt love.