We often describe portals, forms, and workflows as self-service. The assumption is that technology makes things faster, easier, and more efficient.
In reality, many of these systems simply move the friction from the institution to the person trying to get help.
I recently watched a simple request turn into a multi-week loop. An individual needed an official academic record. In the past, this could have been resolved in a single visit with a conversation and a payment. Instead, the process required navigating a third-party portal, submitting information into a rigid form, waiting, receiving a denial due to a data mismatch, requesting a refund, and starting over.
Ironically, the issue that caused the delay could have been solved in minutes if a human had been involved early. A name change. A clerical discrepancy. Context that does not fit neatly into a drop-down box.
This is not a failure of technology. It is a failure of design and leadership.
Too often, self-service becomes a form of technology deflection. It removes discretion, common sense, and collaboration from the process in the name of efficiency. The burden shifts to the user to navigate systems that were designed to protect workflows, not resolve outcomes.
In education especially, we serve students, alumni, parents, and staff who span generations, life circumstances, and technical comfort levels. When we design systems that require multiple retries, refunds, resubmissions, or silent rejections, we are not improving service. We are testing persistence.
Technology should reduce the number of steps required to solve a problem, not increase them. It should enable a single-event resolution whenever possible. And when automation fails, there should be a clear and human path forward.
As IT leaders and educators, we should regularly ask a simple question.
Is this system helping people succeed, or is it helping the institution avoid interaction?
If common sense cannot override a workflow, then the workflow is in charge. That should concern us.