When bureaucracies go wrong

[andrewducker]

This is a perfect example of how bureaucracies go wrong.  And it's because people don't understand systems and their limitations.

At some point, someone has set up the rule "If an escort is travelling to school with a child then they must have passed police checks."  Which is, I think you'll agree, a good rule.

However, they've failed to provide the exception "Unless they are the person's parent."  Which is clearly a vital exception.  But it seems the council _doesn't have an exception making system_.  Once a rule is set up, nobody is able to make changes to the system once it's in place, in order to finesse it.  This is deadly.

I work in a large company.  We have huge, complex systems.  And whenever we build a new one, we make damn sure that we have ways of creating exceptions.  In fact there tend to be two types of exceptions - ones where a senior person can say "That rule doesn't apply in this exceptional circumstance, override it." and ones where a senior person can say "This doesn't fit any of the normal exceptions, we need to go in and do things completely differently."  These equate to flexible rules in the system (overridable warnings) and direct database modification.  The latter clearly requires all sorts of sign-off - but the _underlying system_ allows it to be done, because we know that any system has exceptions we've thought of, and exceptions we haven't.

Clearly, what the council needs is a way of dealing with these two exceptions - someone reaosnably senior should have a "temporary escort waiver for a parent/guardian" form, which can be used while someone is being checked by the police, and someone more senior than that should be able to step in and say "This rule doesn't apply in this situation - person X is exempt." (either temporarily or permanently).

This applies to _any_ system, whether it's financial, bureaucratic, legal, political, etc.  If you don't have a way of dealing with exceptional circumstances, both expected and unexpected, you're fucked.

Comments

[drplokta]

Look at it from the point of view of the chief executive of the council. If he allows for exceptions to procedures, then everyone who has the authority to make such exceptions can destroy the chief executive's career at any time, by making an exception that turns out badly. If he doesn't allow for any exceptions at all, then the worst that can happen is a few news stories complaining about over-rigid procedures.

In the private sector, the chief executive has more to gain from flexibility in procedures (higher profitability means a bigger bonus/more valuable share options) and less to lose (less public scrutiny, so his career can probably survive a disaster or two).

[andrewducker]

A simple "Employee X gave permission without checking correctly or engaging his brain. He's been sent off the vats, and all other employees have been hit with the clue stick." should be enough to save a chief exec's job.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Well, perhaps the chief exec him/herself could be required to sign off on exceptions. This one only needs done once: CRB checked person or the child's parent. (Possibly also the parent's nominee.) Allowing exceptions in a system doesn't mean letting anyone do anything to it.

[ami-bender.livejournal.com]

A large percentage of abuse (most?) happens by relatives. It may very well be that we perceive as stupidity was actually, for better or worse, a thought out decision.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

The vast majority, I think. But protecting a child from abuse only during council-funded taxi journeys would be an odd priority.

[andrewducker]

You just made me giggle loudly enough to wake Julie up.

I hope you're proud of yourself :-p