Simplifier

Imagine you have a really messy, tangled garden hose that leaks. Instead of untangling it and fixing the leaks, you try to build a robot to water your plants *with that same tangled, leaky hose*. Why would you do that? Often, it's because people think it's quicker to just make a computer do the old steps, even if those steps are silly or complicated. They might think, "Let's just get rid of the manual work *now*," without realizing they're just making a computer do a bad job faster. It feels like a quick fix, even if it's not a smart one in the long run. Also, changing the *way* things are done can be a big, scary job. It means rethinking everything, and that takes time and effort. It's often easier to just copy the old, messy steps into a computer program than to sit down and figure out a completely new, simple, and better way from scratch. So, they end up with a super-fast computer doing something that's still fundamentally complicated and inefficient, rather than taking the time to make the process simple and smooth first.

Visionary

Organizations often fall into the trap of incrementalism, attempting to automate existing broken workflows rather than reimagining them. This stems from a focus on optimizing the past, seeking efficiency within current constraints, rather than embracing the bold vision required to design the future. It's a symptom of prioritizing perceived immediate gains over true systemic transformation. The core issue isn't a lack of technological capability, but a lack of courage to challenge foundational assumptions. Organizations often shy away from the deeper, more transformative work of radical simplification and process reinvention, finding it easier to patch and automate what exists.

Sentinel

Organizations often prioritize maintaining a semblance of stability. Automating an existing, even flawed, workflow can appear to be the path of least resistance, preserving known structures and avoiding the significant disruption inherent in a complete process overhaul. The perceived risks of an unknown, redesigned process often outweigh the known inefficiencies of the current, albeit broken, system. Legacy workflows are deeply embedded within existing systems, regulatory frameworks, and organizational memory. Unraveling these intricate dependencies to simplify a process fundamentally presents a daunting prospect. The perceived cost and risk of disrupting these established connections often outweigh the potential benefits of efficiency, especially when considering the potential for cascading failures across interconnected systems. From a risk-averse standpoint, incremental automation offers a more controlled approach. It allows for targeted improvements without jeopardizing the entire operational framework. A radical simplification, while potentially more effective in the long run, introduces a higher degree of uncertainty and a greater potential for unintended consequences or new vulnerabilities, which organizations are naturally vigilant to avoid.

Empath

It seems to me that organizations often lean towards automating existing workflows because it feels like a more immediate, less daunting step. There's a very human inclination to stick with what's familiar, even if it's imperfect, rather than embarking on the potentially overwhelming journey of a complete overhaul. The thought of fundamentally redesigning processes can evoke anxiety about disruption, job roles, and the sheer effort involved for everyone. Sometimes, there's a powerful drive for quick solutions, and automation can appear to be a faster path to perceived efficiency. However, this often overlooks the deeper human impact. When we automate a broken process, we're essentially making people navigate a faster, but still frustrating, system. It can amplify the very pain points

Pragmatist

Organizations often prioritize perceived expediency and immediate, measurable gains over long-term, complex overhauls. Automating a broken workflow, despite its flaws, appears to offer a faster, less disruptive path to *

Points of agreement

• Organizations perceive automating existing, even flawed, workflows as a quicker, more immediate, or less disruptive path to perceived efficiency.
• There is a strong inclination to avoid the significant