Sorry, the computer says No!
How to deal with engrained bureaucracy that seems to serve no sensible purpose.
First, a happy new year to all.
Let’s hope 2024 brings us more joy than many have experienced in the past year…
Car rental insurance policy renewal - a short story of this time
We only have a very small (and old) car at home that we use when needed only on the area where we live: going to shops, picking people up from the train station, etc. So, if we need a larger vehicle, for longer journeys for instance, we rent a car. Similarly, if we need a car when abroad we will rent a car. So, we have a special annual insurance policy for car rental cost. This means that, instead of paying over-the top at car rental companies to have complete Excess cover, I pay a low annual fee for a policy with a specialist insurance company that refunds any cost within the Excess limit that I accept.
I paid (past tense) that low annual fee, that is, I no longer pay. I received an email from the insurance company recently that they could not extend the cover for the next year. And, indeed, going on their website trying to book a new cover with my details, the answer was:
With the data provided we are unable to make a quote.
Since the only data I provided were the dates for the policy (1 year), my email address and my personal ID number, I wondered what this meant, so, I emailed them to ask why that was the case. A few days later, I received a reply with the answer ‘indeed, with the data provide we cannot provide a quote’.
Thanks.
So, I rang them up and talking to the agent, they said that, ‘indeed, with the data provided we cannot provide a quote’.
Me: ‘But why?’
Agent: ‘I do not know why; the computer does not allow it’
Me: ‘ So, there is no information in the system why, after years of having this policy with you, suddenly it cannot be renewed?’
Agent: ‘Indeed, there is no way for me to find out why. The computer say no, and there is nothing you, or I, can do about it. Our insurance company cannot provide you with a policy anymore.’
Me: ‘….’
Computer Says No - A Reflection on Bureaucracy and Its Implications
In today's interconnected world, where information flows freely and technology propels us forward at an unprecedented rate, one might expect systems and processes to be streamlined for efficiency and ease of use. However, the reality often presents a stark contrast. Many individuals encounter barriers that seem insurmountable, often encapsulated in the simple phrase, the computer says no. This article delves into the implications of such a system, examining the roots of bureaucracy, its unintended consequences, and the human cost of rigid structures.
Bureaucracy: Origins and Intentions
The term 'bureaucracy' originates from the French word 'bureau,' denoting an office, and the Greek word 'kratos,' meaning power or rule.
At its core, bureaucracy represents a structured system of administration designed to ensure uniformity, fairness, and efficiency. The principles of hierarchy, specialisation, and impersonal rules are foundational to bureaucratic systems, aiming to eliminate ambiguity and arbitrariness.
Max Weber, arguably the foremost social theorist of the twentieth century, is known as a principal architect of modern social science along with Karl Marx and Emil Durkheim. He provided a comprehensive analysis of bureaucracy, highlighting its rational-legal authority and the prevalence of rules over personal discretion. According to Weber, the ideal bureaucracy operates on the principles of predictability and consistency, valuing qualifications and expertise over personal relationships or favouritism.
Unintended Consequences: The Rigidity of Systems
While the intentions behind establishing bureaucratic systems are often noble, the reality is frequently marred by unintended consequences. The emphasis on rules and procedures often leads to a rigidity that stifles innovation and adaptability.
As systems grow in complexity, the distance between decision-makers and those affected by their decisions widens, creating a disconnect that often results in inefficiencies and injustices.
Moreover, the relentless pursuit of efficiency more often than not overlooks the nuances of individual circumstances, reducing people to mere numbers or statistics. This dehumanisation inherent in bureaucratic processes strips individuals of their agency, leaving them trapped in a maze of regulations with no apparent exit. Because, the computer says no.
It causes immense levels of frustration (and the uttering of language that should not be reproduced in an online article).
The Human Cost: Stories behind The Computer Says No
Behind every bureaucratic barrier lies a human story, indeed often marked by frustration, despair, and a sense of helplessness. Consider the plight of an individual trying to navigate a labyrinthine healthcare system, only to be met with denials and delays at every turn. Or the aspiring entrepreneur, brimming with innovative ideas, but bogged down by regulatory hurdles and bureaucratic red tape. Believe me, I went through this when establishing my company in Spain… These stories illustrate the profound impact of a system that prioritises procedure over people, often at great personal and societal cost.
Furthermore, the systemic barriers erected by bureaucracy disproportionately affect marginalised and vulnerable populations. Those lacking resources, knowledge, or social capital find themselves at a distinct disadvantage, perpetuating cycles of inequality and exclusion. Thus, the computer not only says 'no' but also perpetuates systemic injustices, reinforcing existing power dynamics and disparities.
Towards a more humane system: Reimagining Bureaucracy
Acknowledging the limitations and shortcomings of bureaucratic systems is the first step towards envisioning alternatives that prioritise humanity and empathy. Reimagining bureaucracy involves striking a balance between structure and flexibility, rules and discretion, efficiency and compassion.
Embracing a user-centred approach that places individuals at the heart of the system can foster greater responsiveness and accountability. Incorporating feedback mechanisms, ensuring transparency, and promoting accessibility are essential components of a more humane bureaucracy. Moreover, investing in training and development can empower frontline staff with the tools and discretion (not a slave to some machine saying ‘no’) needed to navigate complex situations effectively.
Furthermore, leveraging technology and innovation can streamline processes, reduce administrative burdens, and enhance service delivery.
However, technology alone is not the panacea; it must be accompanied by a human touch, ensuring that the unique needs and circumstances of individuals are not overlooked or overshadowed.
Conclusion
The computer says no encapsulates the frustrations and challenges inherent in bureaucratic structures that prioritise procedure over people. While bureaucracy serves important functions in organising and administering complex societies, its rigidity and impersonal nature can create barriers that hinder progress and perpetuate injustices. Reimagining bureaucracy for the 21st century requires a concerted effort to strike a balance between efficiency and empathy, rules and discretion, structure and flexibility.
I propose to start thinking in terms of the wicked question:
How can we improve the order and consistent administration of our business processes, whilst at the same time improve the customer experience?
Because, only by placing humanity at the forefront can we hope to build systems that empower individuals, foster inclusivity, and truly serve the common good.
What is your experience with ‘the computer says no’? Are you just as frustrated as I have become with the insurance company (that now lost a customer without even knowing why)?
How does your organisation deal with the balance between ordered consistency in your service offering and the required personal service that is required? Are you resourced well to deal with that effectively?
It's a clear example of process and tech overriding people. This is the kind of result you get from neglecting Change Management and UX. See also call-centre scripts which do not allow for any deviation from the mode average!