When Technology Becomes the Real Bureaucracy

When Technology Becomes the Real Bureaucracy

Mar 14 , 2026. By Birhanu Beshah (PhD) ( Birhanu Beshah (PhD), ( birhanu.beshah@aait.edu.et) is an associate professor in the School of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering of Addis Abeba University (AAU). )

In this era, the central issue is hardly whether institutions digitise, but whether the people meant to use these systems can keep pace with them. Those with digital skills dominate the wider business process, while domain experts can use digital tools without losing control of their professional roles. That choice cannot be made well without a clear inventory of employee competencies. Without this audit, the digital engine may continue to run while everyday operations weaken under the strain of a workforce left behind, writes Birhanu Beshah (PhD) - birhanu.beshah@aait.edu.et - an associate professor in the School of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering of the Addis Abeba University (AAU).

Once a digital system is deployed, it often becomes the lifeblood of daily operations. A university registrar system, a hospital’s patient management database or a Revenue Bureau’s tax platform can shape the work of frontline employees every day.

In today’s business environment, organisational change has become almost inseparable from digital transformation. Across customer service, supply chains and core business processes, institutions are under pressure to digitise. The shift can be modest, such as moving a manual task onto a digital platform, or far more ambitious, such as adopting full artificial intelligence (AI) automation.

Historically, successful organisational change has depended on commitment from the top. Often hailed as the father of the modern quality movement, W. Edwards Deming argued that change is a systemic responsibility of leadership. Without genuine commitment from top management, change is only tinkering, a superficial exercise that can leave an organisation worse off than before.

In digital transformation, however, management commitment is often not the main problem. Leaders are usually eager to embrace change. The harder issue is technical capability, an area that does not always favour people in senior leadership roles. Starting a digital shift is one thing. Understanding rapidly changing technologies is another.

For government offices, national frameworks have raised the stakes further. The recently completed "Digital-2025" agenda and the coming "Digital-2030" strategy have turned digital transformation from an option into a requirement. Public institutions are now being encouraged, and in some cases compelled, to digitise to align themselves with national goals. Once the decision is made, uncertainty begins.

Hence, institutions should define requirements, set terms for developers, track progress and eventually commission systems. At each step, their digital maturity is tested. That challenge extends from procurement and design to implementation, supervision and final handover inside today's resource-starved public offices. There is little empirical data on these projects. The number that have been launched, failed or succeeded has not been properly studied. Even projects considered successful often come with major weaknesses. One of the most common is that digital systems are pushed into a condition of permanent vendor management.

Neither is vendor management a problem in itself. But when an institution lacks the internal digital capacity to assess and regulate a vendor, the relationship can slide into dependency and exploitation. In sensitive institutions, weak oversight can threaten institutional integrity and, in extreme cases, put national sovereignty at risk.

Policymakers appear to be responding in two ways. The first is built around trust. Government offices, in particular, are seeking trusted digital providers. To support this, the government has assigned four institutions - Ethio telecom, the Ministry of Innovation & Technology (MInT), the Information Network Security Administration (INSA) and the Ethiopian Artificial Intelligence Institute (EAII) - to oversee digital system development for public offices. The arrangement reduces the burden of trust for leaders and is meant to help internalise digital transformation in public institutions.

Another response is to strengthen internal digital units. Institutions are investing in infrastructure, hiring more staff and raising the status of IT units so they report directly to top leadership. This has opened opportunities for ICT professionals, but it has also created a new problem.

The digital unit is supposed to support these workers. But if it is not managed carefully, the IT department can become the unnamed boss of the core business. IT leaders can turn into the “uncrowned kings” of their institutions, able to slow or accelerate operations at will. The shift in power may appear subtle at first, but it can have broad consequences for institutional health and the quality of public service.

There are two ways to respond to this risk of technological overshadowing. One is to follow the informal trend of giving those with digital capabilities the power to overtake the whole business process. The other, and more sustainable, option is to retool the wider workforce, upskilling domain experts so they can use digital tools without losing control of their professional responsibilities.

Choosing between transforming the whole workforce and upskilling only a few people requires a clear inventory of employee competencies. Without such an audit, the digital engine may keep running, but the institution’s daily operations can eventually crumble under the weight of a workforce left behind.

PUBLISHED ON Mar 14,2026 [ VOL 26 , NO 1350]