Human Stories in Systemic Contradictions
Interconnected systems, utilities, healthcare, commerce, and beyond, we expect stability and fairness. These systems promise to uphold trust and provide reliable services, but too often, when they fail, they place the burden on the individual or small business. Despite fulfilling their obligations, these parties are left to handle systemic contradictions alone, often acting as mediators in disputes they didn’t cause.
Systemic flaws disrupt the lives of individuals and small businesses in ways that go beyond inconvenience. They create barriers to trust, destabilize livelihoods, and make people question the reliability of the systems they depend on for support.
These failures don’t happen in isolation, they’re the result of structures that fail to prioritize clear communication, fairness, and accountability. When trust is broken, it can take years to rebuild. Systems must be designed to anticipate the needs of the people and organizations they serve, offering transparency and proactive solutions. Fairness and accountability are not optional, they are essential ensuring that no one is left struggling against a system that should be working for them.
When Systems Fail, the Human Cost is High
A resent personal experience brought this issue back into my sharp focus. One day, my electricity contract was terminated without my knowledge. The root cause turned out to be a simple but avoidable mistake: miswiring during maintenance. Despite fulfilling my duties on time, I was thrust into a frustrating situation. The utility company, the network provider, my landlord, and my landlord’s operator all communicated with me, but did not communicate with each other effectively.
Instead of coordinating among themselves to resolve the issue, these parties left the burden on the customer to act as the conductor of an orchestra relaying messages, piecing together information, and pushing for resolution.
This isn’t the customer’s job. Managing such failures is supposed to be the responsibility of professionals within these organizations, but here I was again, forced to juggle the roles of messenger, advocate, and mediator. This dynamic extends beyond utilities. In healthcare, individuals face similarly exhausting situations when trying to file claims, access care, or resolve billing issues.
Forms are often so complicated that even professionals are unsure how to fill them out correctly. In my past, I’ve had healthcare providers admit they weren’t sure how to document a situation in a way that would ensure compensation or approval for care. If trained professionals struggle to understand these processes, how can patients, especially those already unwell or overwhelmed, be expected to succeed?
The human cost of such systemic flaws is profound. For those facing multiple failures, such as utility disputes, insurance issues, and delayed medical care, the compounded burden becomes unbearable. These are problems that could and should be resolved through better communication and accountability among service providers.
Unfortunately, the responsibility is handed to the individual, who is left to clean up the mess.
The Contradictions That Undermine Trust
At the heart of these issues lies a fundamental contradiction. Systems designed to provide stability often create disorder when they fail. Philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti observed that when systems prioritize procedures over humanity, they lose coherence and trust. This insight reveals why so many modern systems feel disconnected from the people they are meant to serve: they are built around internal processes, not human needs.
For small businesses, these contradictions are especially damaging. Like individuals, small business owners often face delayed payments, unresolved disputes, or poor communication from clients or suppliers.
However, unlike larger corporations, small businesses lack the resources to absorb these disruptions. A single delayed payment can prevent them from paying their own suppliers, fulfilling customer orders, or meeting payroll. The same systems that fail individuals also fail small businesses, pushing responsibility onto them while providing little recourse.
Regulatory bodies or consumer protection agencies may step in, but their interventions are often limited to recommendations that lack enforcement power. When companies ignore these recommendations, the burden of resolving the issue remains with the customer deepening the cycle of systemic inefficiency and eroding trust.
As Krishnamurti reminds us, trust is the foundation of any functional system. When systems prioritize their internal processes over the needs of their stakeholders, they not only fail to resolve problems, they reinforce them, creating instability where there should be order.
The Cost of Toothless and Time Consuming Consumer Protections
In Europe, consumer protection agencies are intended to provide recourse for individuals and small businesses when systems fail. These organizations offer support in resolving disputes and ensuring fairness. However, despite their best intentions, they often lack the authority to enforce meaningful change.
Have we accidentally taught companies not to comply with these regulatory bodies due to the lack of enforcement?
While GDPR can be enforced with good results, but when it comes to customer rights, we are unfortunately far behind. For example, these agencies frequently issue recommendations rather than impose consequences. Even when they identify clear failures or unethical practices, they can only encourage offending companies to comply, they cannot compel them to act. This leaves room for companies to ignore these recommendations, continuing their behavior without facing accountability.
Small businesses and individuals, already burdened by the original failure, find themselves wondering through a barren garden in a prolonged and fruitless process.
This lack of enforcement creates a culture, where companies can act as they please. The result is not just frustration but disengagement. People lose faith in the systems designed to protect them, further widening the gap between institutions and those they are meant to serve.
Rebuilding Systems That Prioritize Fairness
To address these contradictions, we must design systems that prioritize accountability at every level. This starts with creating enforceable mechanisms to ensure that when one party neglects its responsibilities, the burden doesn’t fall disproportionately on the other.
For example, in the case of a utility dispute, systems should automatically identify the failure, notify all relevant parties, and propose a resolution. If a healthcare claim is rejected due to incomplete documentation, the system should guide the patient or provider through the corrections needed, ensuring that human oversight is available for more complex cases.
Here, artificial intelligence can play a transformative role. By automating processes, monitoring compliance, and resolving disputes proactively, AI can reduce the burden on individuals and small businesses. We should create a shared digital network where contracts, payments, and services are tracked in real time, including healthcare and necessary utilities.
If a party fails to meet its obligations, the system identifies the breach, initiates corrective actions, and enforces consequences where necessary. However, technology alone is not enough. Structural reforms are needed to ensure that regulatory bodies and consumer protection agencies have the authority to enforce their decisions.
Companies must face real consequences for negligence, such as financial penalties or mandatory corrective actions, to deter repeated failures.
How AI Can Transform Accountability and Coordination
Many systemic failures stem from a lack of integrated communication between service providers, contractors, consumers, and other stakeholders. Problems often arise from miscommunication, incomplete records, or siloed systems that don’t “talk” to one another. This creates a situation where the burden of connecting the dots falls unfairly on the individual.
AI has the potential to address these challenges by acting as an intermediary and real-time coordinator, ensuring that problems are flagged and resolved without human intervention.
Now, let’s take a look how such system could work in practice:
1. A Shared Digital Network for Coordination
An AI-powered digital network could act as a centralized platform where all stakeholders, utility companies, network providers, landlords, and contractors, all connected. When a service is provided, such as installing or maintaining an electrical system, all relevant information about the job would be logged into this system.
For example:
The contractor who installed or repaired the wiring would record the work, including verification steps (e.g., testing the system).
The utility company responsible for monitoring the meter would log the data from the meter into the same system.
If the house is rented, the landlord’s details would also be connected to this network.
2. Automated Problem Detection and Notification
The AI would continuously monitor data from connected systems, such as meter readings, service logs, and user complaints. If an issue arises, such as a meter malfunction or irregular data, the AI would automatically:
Identify the source of the problem (e.g., miswiring during maintenance).
Notify all relevant stakeholders (e.g., the utility provider, contractor, and landlord) without requiring the consumer to take action.
Suggest a resolution path based on the problem (e.g., sending a repair team or reassigning the original contractor for follow-up).
This eliminates the need for consumers to act as mediators or messengers, as the system itself ensures that the issue is routed to the appropriate parties for resolution.
3. Accountability Through Transparent Records
A major advantage of this system is the creation of transparent records. Each action, from initial installation to problem resolution, would be logged and timestamped. This ensures that:
Contractors and providers are held accountable for the quality of their work.
Consumers have access to a clear history of actions taken, eliminating ambiguity in disputes.
Regulatory bodies can review these records to enforce standards and identify repeat offenders among providers or contractors.
For instance, if the contractor failed to follow safety protocols during installation, this would be flagged by the system, and corrective actions would be enforced automatically.
4. Proactive Problem Prevention
AI isn’t only reactive, it can also predict issues before they escalate. By analyzing historical data, maintenance logs, and usage patterns, AI could identify potential failures, such as equipment nearing the end of its lifespan or anomalies in meter readings.
For the consumer: This means fewer unexpected disruptions.
For the provider: Proactive maintenance reduces costly emergency repairs and improves customer satisfaction.
Legitimacy and Feasibility
This solution is far from utopian, it builds on existing technologies and practices:
Digital Twins and IoT (Internet of Things):
Many utility companies already use IoT devices to monitor infrastructure like meters and equipment. A shared digital network would extend this concept, integrating data from multiple stakeholders into a centralized AI system.AI in Workflow Automation:
AI-powered platforms like those used in supply chain management or healthcare already coordinate complex workflows across multiple stakeholders. Adapting this for utilities or other systems is entirely feasible.Regulatory Integration:
Governments and regulatory bodies in Europe, like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), could play a role in ensuring transparency and data security in such a system, making it legally and ethically sound.Implementation by Utility Companies:
Many large network providers already invest in AI for predictive maintenance and customer service. Expanding these investments to include stakeholder coordination is a logical next step.
Benefits of AI-Powered Coordination
Reduced Burden on Consumers:
Consumers are no longer forced to act as intermediaries, saving time and reducing stress.Improved Accountability:
Transparent records ensure that every party involved, providers, contractors, and landlords, is held responsible for their actions.Cost Savings for Providers:
Proactive issue detection reduces emergency repairs and improves efficiency.Stronger Trust in Systems:
When individuals and small businesses see that issues are resolved automatically and fairly, trust in these systems is restored.
A Path Forward
Implementing AI-powered coordination is not only about improving efficiency, it’s also restoring fairness and trust. By prioritizing proactive communication, transparent accountability, and shared responsibility, we can address systemic contradictions at their root. This vision isn’t just feasible; it’s necessary for a future where no individual or small business is left to clean up the mess caused by organizational failures.
The challenge of fixing systemic contradictions is both practical and moral. Systems that fail to prioritize fairness and accountability erode the trust that holds our society together. This lack of accountability, is a major issue for us individuals and small businesses that are going through utility disputes and managing client relationships. Rebuilding this trust requires commitment to fairness at every level, ensuring that no party is disproportionately burdened by systemic flaws.
Integrating technology and human oversight is a crucial step forward. AI-powered systems can streamline processes, automate accountability, and provide proactive solutions. However, technology alone isn’t enough. Meaningful consequences must exist for negligence, ensuring that organizations and individuals alike are held accountable. At the same time, system design must center human needs, making it easier for people to engage with and trust the systems they rely on.
Jiddu Krishnamurti explains that, trust and coherence are not abstract ideals, they are the glue that holds our systems together. Without them, disorder becomes inevitable. When systems fail to uphold accountability, transparency, and fairness, they breed chaos and disengagement, forcing individuals and small businesses to shoulder the already challenging burden of project management.
It’s time to demand better, not just for ourselves but for the generations who will inherit the systems we leave behind. By committing to accountability, transparency, and fairness, we can build a future where trust is restored, and no one is left to handle these contradictions alone.
Warmly,
Riikka
