{"id":64037,"date":"2022-07-21T01:48:17","date_gmt":"2022-07-21T05:48:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/world.edu\/?p=64037"},"modified":"2022-07-21T01:48:17","modified_gmt":"2022-07-21T05:48:17","slug":"the-downside-of-digital-transformation-why-organisations-must-allow-for-those-who-cant-or-wont-move-online","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/the-downside-of-digital-transformation-why-organisations-must-allow-for-those-who-cant-or-wont-move-online\/","title":{"rendered":"The downside of digital transformation: why organisations must allow for those who can\u2019t or won\u2019t move online"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\nWe hear the phrase \u201cdigital transformation\u201d a lot these days. It\u2019s often used to describe the process of replacing functions and services that were once done face-to-face by human beings with online interactions that are faster, more convenient and\u00a0\u201cempower\u201d the user<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But does digital transformation really deliver on those promises? Or does the seemingly relentless digitalisation of life actually reinforce existing social divides and inequities?<\/p>\n

Take banking, for example. Where customers once made transactions with tellers at local branches, now they\u2019re encouraged to do it all online. As branches close it leaves many,\u00a0especially older people<\/a>, struggling with what was once an easy, everyday task.<\/p>\n

Or consider the now common call centre experience involving an electronic voice, menu options,\u00a0chatbots<\/a>\u00a0and a \u201cuser journey\u201d aimed at pushing customers online.<\/p>\n

As organisations and government agencies in Aotearoa New Zealand and elsewhere grapple with the call to become more \u201cdigital\u201d, we have been examining the consequences for those who find the process difficult or marginalising.<\/p>\n

Since 2021 we\u2019ve been working with the\u00a0Citizens Advice Bureau<\/a>\u00a0(CAB) and talking with public and private sector organisations that use digital channels to deliver services. Our findings suggest there is much still to be done to find the right balance between the digital and non-digital.<\/p>\n

The \u2018problematic\u2019 non-user<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The dominant view now suggests the pursuit of a digitally enabled society will allow everyone to lead a \u201cfrictionless\u201d life. As the government\u2019s own policy document,\u00a0Towards a Digital Strategy for Aotearoa<\/a>, states:
\nDigital tools and services can enable us to learn new skills, transact with ease, and to receive health and well-being support at a time that suits us and without the need to travel from our homes.<\/em>
\nOf course, we\u2019re already experiencing this new world. Many public and private services increasingly are available digitally\u00a0by default<\/a>. Non-digital alternatives are becoming restricted or even disappearing.<\/p>\n

There are two underlying assumptions to the view that everyone can or should interact digitally.<\/p>\n

First, it implies that those who can\u2019t access digital services (or prefer non-digital options) are problematic or deficient in some way \u2013 and that this can be overcome simply through greater provision of technology, training or \u201cnudging\u201d non-users to get on board.<\/p>\n

Second, it assumes digital inclusion \u2013 through increasing the provision of digital services \u2013 will automatically increase social inclusion.<\/p>\n

Neither assumption is necessarily true.
\n

<\/p>\n
\n

The Guardian view on digital exclusion: online must not be the only option | Editorial https:\/\/t.co\/lE0JZrmS0Q<\/a><\/p>\n

— Guardian Tech (@guardiantech) June 23, 2022<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n