> Automation is the removal of human judgement. It requires simplification of the rules and processes.
My impression, is that government projects often go like this: 1) We want to digitize and make some process X more efficient, 2) Oh, now that we're automating we can avoid "errors" by removing case-by-case handling (X is of course now set up for individual evaluation by a professional bureaucrat). The result is that not only do you get feature/scope creep (handle all the things for all the cases, or declare failure), if you succeed, the system ends up being much worse (it now follows outdated written documentation to the letter, doesn't allow for any leeway).
The obvious way around this, is make a system that automates the easy 80% of the cases. Allow the system to give good information to, the now much fewer, bureaucrats, and allow them to handle the 20% on a case-by-case basis.
After a year, evaluate, and reduce the 20% to another 80/20.
Give up the idea that you should automate policy. It's completely insane, even if it might look good on paper.
It's like with accounting systems: you should always have a way for a clerk to enter in and account for unforeseen things in a way that a) accommodates the system ("-500 towels missing/destroyed") along with a comment-field to elaborate, and to facilitate revision ("Bus crashed through the window, gave away 500 towels for use as bandages").