E
Emir Mirzamuhamed
Guest
Several times, I have received messages from him that made me worry.
He takes his child to a hospital, only to discover that his bank card doesn't work. He tries to access a service and suddenly learns that a new system, a new registration, or another administrative requirement has changed the rules.
Imagine trying to care for your child while discovering that the systems you depend on no longer recognize your access.
I have witnessed another version of this story in Iran, involving Iranian citizens who travel abroad. I saw an attempt to reassess whether people were living inside or outside the country, despite existing records and reports. This raised the possibility of suspending services for large groups of people while their status was being reconsidered.
Banking access. Social services. Essential support.
Different people, different circumstances, but a familiar pattern: people lose access to services while institutions try to figure out who should have access in the first place.
Recently, I experienced something similar myself in Türkiye.
My experience with Vodafone brought this question much closer to home. After completing an administrative verification process, I unexpectedly faced the possibility of losing access to a service I had relied on for years.
I won't go into the specific details while the situation remains unresolved. But the experience reminded me how quickly an administrative process can turn into a real problem in someone's everyday life.
And it made me think about the people behind these processes: the designers, product managers, and decision-makers who turn administrative requests into real services.
We talk about digital transformation, connected systems, data, and AI. Yet sometimes, we still approach administrative challenges with a pre-digital mindset: suspend access first, investigate later.
But what if we designed the process differently?
What if we verified information without immediately disconnecting people? What if we coordinated data responsibly, communicated clearly, provided temporary access, and created effective ways to resolve mistakes?
Technology should help us make services more reliable, not make people more vulnerable to administrative uncertainty.
This is where I believe the social responsibility of a Service Design Lead becomes essential.
Imagine receiving a request to implement a process that could disconnect thousands, or even millions, of people from essential services.
Is our job simply to translate that request into an efficient workflow, an intuitive interface, and a successful delivery?
Or should we question the assumptions, make the potential consequences visible, and propose a better alternative?
Not every policy is wrong, and not every verification process causes harm. But the way we implement a policy matters enormously.
We may not have the authority to change every policy. But we do have the professional responsibility to challenge avoidable harm, advise decision-makers, and redesign processes that put people at unnecessary risk.
Sometimes, responsible design means improving the requested solution. Sometimes, it means challenging the brief. And sometimes, it means having the courage to ask:
“Before we build this, have we considered what it will do to the people on the other side?”
He takes his child to a hospital, only to discover that his bank card doesn't work. He tries to access a service and suddenly learns that a new system, a new registration, or another administrative requirement has changed the rules.
Imagine trying to care for your child while discovering that the systems you depend on no longer recognize your access.
I have witnessed another version of this story in Iran, involving Iranian citizens who travel abroad. I saw an attempt to reassess whether people were living inside or outside the country, despite existing records and reports. This raised the possibility of suspending services for large groups of people while their status was being reconsidered.
Banking access. Social services. Essential support.
Different people, different circumstances, but a familiar pattern: people lose access to services while institutions try to figure out who should have access in the first place.
Recently, I experienced something similar myself in Türkiye.
My experience with Vodafone brought this question much closer to home. After completing an administrative verification process, I unexpectedly faced the possibility of losing access to a service I had relied on for years.
I won't go into the specific details while the situation remains unresolved. But the experience reminded me how quickly an administrative process can turn into a real problem in someone's everyday life.
And it made me think about the people behind these processes: the designers, product managers, and decision-makers who turn administrative requests into real services.
Is this how we design services in the digital age?
We talk about digital transformation, connected systems, data, and AI. Yet sometimes, we still approach administrative challenges with a pre-digital mindset: suspend access first, investigate later.
But what if we designed the process differently?
What if we verified information without immediately disconnecting people? What if we coordinated data responsibly, communicated clearly, provided temporary access, and created effective ways to resolve mistakes?
Technology should help us make services more reliable, not make people more vulnerable to administrative uncertainty.
This is where I believe the social responsibility of a Service Design Lead becomes essential.
Imagine receiving a request to implement a process that could disconnect thousands, or even millions, of people from essential services.
Is our job simply to translate that request into an efficient workflow, an intuitive interface, and a successful delivery?
Or should we question the assumptions, make the potential consequences visible, and propose a better alternative?
Not every policy is wrong, and not every verification process causes harm. But the way we implement a policy matters enormously.
Code:
Service design is not just about making a process work. It is about understanding what happens to people when it does.We may not have the authority to change every policy. But we do have the professional responsibility to challenge avoidable harm, advise decision-makers, and redesign processes that put people at unnecessary risk.
Sometimes, responsible design means improving the requested solution. Sometimes, it means challenging the brief. And sometimes, it means having the courage to ask:
“Before we build this, have we considered what it will do to the people on the other side?”