5 ms·

I'm old enough to remember bureaucracy before computers were a big part of the process. The rules were simple, to the point of cruelty at times, but simple. Af

I'm old enough to remember bureaucracy before computers were a big part of the process. The rules were simple, to the point of cruelty at times, but simple. After computers, the rules became far more complex and it seemed no clerk I dealt with actually understood them. Their solution was to lie - to select and misinterpret a few of the actual rules to create a fantasy rule system that made their interactions simple; but also utterly false. Very frustrating, and so far as I can tell, that's how things still are. The police are maybe the worst 'cause they are hard pressed and forced to cut corners (while managing a lot of rules); but it's everywhere.

fuzzfactor 4y ago
When the only computers were mainframes, only the biggest bureaucracies had computers. As computers became more widespread, unfortunately some tried to emulate this approach at smaller offices, regardless "progress" was made until computers are everywhere. Somewhere along the line from the depths of bureaucracy came the saying "To err is human, to really screw things up takes a computer". And this maxim has been emblazoned on coffee cups for decades now.
Joeri 4y ago
I work in government IT, and before that I worked on enterprise workplace management software. I have noticed that when processes get moved into software the people involved in describing the requirements make the same mistakes over and over: - making the digital process more complicated than the paper process, because the software will simplify the complexity (it does until it doesn’t and then everyone involved needs to figure out the real process anyway) - assuming correctness of the software (all software has bugs, all digital processes eventually get into a broken state, there should be a way to force the system back into an intuitive “right” state better than some dev running random sql statements on a production database) - assuming correctness of the software’s users (all people make mistakes, and mistakes happen often, there should be a clean and reliable way to force a process into a state matching reality when someone misclicks, but often the only way is to “lie” to the system and take an odd path through it) - trying to capture the process end to end in software rules causing it to become set in stone (only the labor intensive parts should be automated, leaving room for flexible adaptation of the process without requiring a new software release)
dantondwa 4y ago
This is really spot on. I find myself helping a lot of friends and acquaintances with digital bureaucracy, and it is so counterintuitive. I, as a person who is used to buggy software and weird, complex rules, manage somehow to move through that, but I am always under the impression that the rules are applied in a way that actively (and sometimes, I suspect, intentionally) disincentivizes participation/use of a service. It is not nostalgia for paper: technology was applied badly to bureaucracy, widening the divide between the physical, in-person bureaucrat and the person using their service. When things were not digital, at least, it was easy to deal with things in person, talk, get explanations.
jiggawatts 4y ago
Many people had this fantasy in the 80s and 90s that automation would reduce work. In practice, automation just means that we do more work. This applies to bureaucracies also.

fuzzfactor 4y ago

When the only computers were mainframes, only the biggest bureaucracies had computers. As computers became more widespread, unfortunately some tried to emulate this approach at smaller offices, regardless "progress" was made until computers are everywhere. Somewhere along the line from the depths of bureaucracy came the saying "To err is human, to really screw things up takes a computer". And this maxim has been emblazoned on coffee cups for decades now.

Joeri 4y ago

I work in government IT, and before that I worked on enterprise workplace management software. I have noticed that when processes get moved into software the people involved in describing the requirements make the same mistakes over and over: - making the digital process more complicated than the paper process, because the software will simplify the complexity (it does until it doesn’t and then everyone involved needs to figure out the real process anyway) - assuming correctness of the software (all software has bugs, all digital processes eventually get into a broken state, there should be a way to force the system back into an intuitive “right” state better than some dev running random sql statements on a production database) - assuming correctness of the software’s users (all people make mistakes, and mistakes happen often, there should be a clean and reliable way to force a process into a state matching reality when someone misclicks, but often the only way is to “lie” to the system and take an odd path through it) - trying to capture the process end to end in software rules causing it to become set in stone (only the labor intensive parts should be automated, leaving room for flexible adaptation of the process without requiring a new software release)

dantondwa 4y ago

This is really spot on. I find myself helping a lot of friends and acquaintances with digital bureaucracy, and it is so counterintuitive. I, as a person who is used to buggy software and weird, complex rules, manage somehow to move through that, but I am always under the impression that the rules are applied in a way that actively (and sometimes, I suspect, intentionally) disincentivizes participation/use of a service. It is not nostalgia for paper: technology was applied badly to bureaucracy, widening the divide between the physical, in-person bureaucrat and the person using their service. When things were not digital, at least, it was easy to deal with things in person, talk, get explanations.

jiggawatts 4y ago

Many people had this fantasy in the 80s and 90s that automation would reduce work. In practice, automation just means that we do more work. This applies to bureaucracies also.