You can also read this story another way: Non-scaled manual processes have accumulated decades or generations of accidental complexities. I've seen this in the example of a central software my university was ordering to manage the records of all grades, achieved credits, registered exams and so forth. Most of this was already managed by a centralized agency (Zentrales Prüfungsamt) but every faculty had slightly different examination regulations and processes. It's not that most of these differences really provide any benefit to the students or the institution – electrical and mechanical engineering are so close to each other that there is no rational way to explain why they can't have the same length of time the registration window for practical courses is open – except that everybody is used to the way it is now and each faculty makes a stand for their right for the status quo.
And in my opinion the reason for most of the conflicts that arose is a failure of expectation management what the digitization effort can accomplish (in a reasonable budget): Software systems are cost efficient only with mostly homogeneous processes. Their development is such an expensive undertaking that it can only compete with individually trained humans when you can amortize the costs over large amount of use cases (c.f. https://xkcd.com/1319/ ).
Thus the first step should always be to get everybody on-board to give up some of their non-essential individuality. There is no need for car taxation to change from municipality to municipality. (Be aware of the reverse phenomenon as well, though: Individual needs getting thrown under the rug by systems that are too rigid or simplistic in the wrong places. See all the falsehoods programmers believe about {names, time, gender, ...} articles. TFA in my opinion is not an example of that phenomenon btw.: Facebook, like Google, is justifying cost cutting at places which obviously need trained human support, with a fetish for technological solutions.)
Of course this homogenization is not something that my parent poster would be in any position to accomplish, so this is not meant as a critique. Also I agree with EnKopVand that automated processes (or even overly rigid bureaucracies) should not take decisive actions on their own.
You should absolutely read it that way, and, you should go even further and point fingers at the legislation itself. In my decade of public service we had five different ministers of “digitalisation” (they had other titles because IT doesn’t win votes) that all put effort into making our laws better suited for digitalisation. I think we even had a prime minister get into it, and every prime minister throughout my entire life has had an ambition of making laws less complicated.
Well, let’s just say that while you’re completely correct, I don’t think we should wait for our countries to become less Kafkan, which is why I’m a fan of simply banning the automated decision making. Maybe if you hurt the bureaucracy where it matters (cost) we might actually get some officials who deal with the root cause of the issues.
And in my opinion the reason for most of the conflicts that arose is a failure of expectation management what the digitization effort can accomplish (in a reasonable budget): Software systems are cost efficient only with mostly homogeneous processes. Their development is such an expensive undertaking that it can only compete with individually trained humans when you can amortize the costs over large amount of use cases (c.f. https://xkcd.com/1319/ ).
Thus the first step should always be to get everybody on-board to give up some of their non-essential individuality. There is no need for car taxation to change from municipality to municipality. (Be aware of the reverse phenomenon as well, though: Individual needs getting thrown under the rug by systems that are too rigid or simplistic in the wrong places. See all the falsehoods programmers believe about {names, time, gender, ...} articles. TFA in my opinion is not an example of that phenomenon btw.: Facebook, like Google, is justifying cost cutting at places which obviously need trained human support, with a fetish for technological solutions.)
Of course this homogenization is not something that my parent poster would be in any position to accomplish, so this is not meant as a critique. Also I agree with EnKopVand that automated processes (or even overly rigid bureaucracies) should not take decisive actions on their own.