Chequing for edge cases in digital automation
This week, I did something I hadn’t done in six years: I wrote a cheque.
As I carefully filled out the date, payee, and amount, I couldn’t help but reflect on how outdated the process felt. In a world of instant bank transfers, contactless payments, and mobile wallets, writing a cheque felt almost ceremonial, a relic of a bygone era. And yet, for this particular transaction (yes, it was for a government service), it was the only viable option. I had to dust off my cheque book, which had been lying forgotten in a drawer.
This experience made me think about edge cases in technology: those situations where modern systems fail to accommodate real-life human interactions and processes. It’s an issue that’s particularly relevant in UK universities, where the drive toward digitalisation often leaves behind students, staff, and administrative processes that don’t fit neatly into automated systems.
The Perils of Over-Automation
Universities have increasingly adopted digital-first approaches, from online-only payments and automated attendance tracking to AI-powered chatbots for student support. Whilst these innovations can streamline operations and improve efficiency, they often fail to account for exceptions: the student who doesn’t have access to a debit card (even temporarily); the lecturer whose research grant requires specific invoicing; or the administrator who needs to process a unique request outside the bounds of standardised workflows.
Take, for example, the move toward online-only submission systems for coursework. For many students, this is a welcome change, removing the hassle of printing and physically handing in assignments. But for those with unreliable internet access, specific accessibility needs, or coursework that doesn’t lend itself to digital submission, the system creates new barriers rather than breaking them down. This is often seen in arts subjects, where assessments can be composed of either physical or digital artefacts that do not conform to standard criteria. Much like my experience with the cheque, they find themselves caught in a moment where the system assumes one way of doing things and doesn’t provide an alternative when that way doesn’t work.
Technology Must Serve People – Not the Other Way Around
The best technological implementations recognise that humans are not a uniform, predictable dataset. Universities, as institutions built on the principles of learning, diversity, and accessibility, should be at the forefront of designing systems that work with the complexities of human needs rather than against them.
This means keeping manual or alternative processes in place for those who need them. It means ensuring that automation enhances rather than replaces human interaction. It means designing systems that can flex, adapt, and accommodate the real-world messiness of academic life.
In my case, the simple act of writing a cheque was a reminder that sometimes, the old ways still serve a purpose. Not every process can, or should, be fully automated. Higher Education institutions need to identify which processes need real world analogues or human intervention as they continue to shape new digital services.
