Byzantine Institutional Bureaucracy

I am sending an email to find out the status of a budget item for a final report I owe. I have asked for this ten business days ago. I have been told for six of those days “tomorrow.” It was four numbers, I gave them the four numbers they just needed to enter the four numbers I gave them into a form I had also provided. Oh I hear you. Because they have to do it. Because it’s the rule.

I work at a large research university; let’s call it MIT. Having come form a world where to get something done meant doing it I was astonished early on to discover what true institutional bureaucracy was-a Chinese puzzle box of competing, contradicting and redundant fiefdoms. In the first year I was developing my project I kept it as far away from the Institute’s administrative process as I could. I used to tell people my affiliation with the institute was me running along the side of the building grazing it gently with my fingertips. I certainly needed the clout the MIT brand provided I just didn’t want my nimble young project consumed by the Byzantine bureaucratic quagmire that lay inside waiting to crush it.

Although now I am worn down and bitter which seems to be the thing bureaucracies do most efficiently I was not always that way. In the early days on the occasion I was required to use the institute’s protocols to get something done I was merely fascinated by the process. Like watching ants carry stuff. If say my heating unit were not functioning properly I would have to call the administrative office speaking first with an underling before clawing my way to the department’s head administrator. The request, “Please help me, I am freezing and will perish soon as the heating unit is not working,” had to be verified as legitimate. This required someone from the administrative office to accompany me back to my office, jiggle something, return and say, “The heating unit is not working.” This had a bizarre effect as first I am stunned that I need to be chaperoned by an 18 year old temp who stands as the gatekeeper to my comfort and second that I am grateful when they confirm my complaint as legitimate. “Oh thank you kind sir and may I compliment your regal Iron Maiden concert tee, for it is your generous overture which allows my pathetic quips be seen as legitimate.” Confused I shake of my Stockholm syndrome. Upon regaining my faculties I had to assume the verification process was to quell the drumbeat of false claims issued by people whose real agenda is to have men wearing dusty clothes in their office who discuss snowmobiles.

I see this often and it is always a wonderful and entertaining contrast to watch especially at a place like MIT. You have a down to earth, union guy and a nuclear physicist discussing plumbing. In fairness they are each experts in the problem. There is a stilted conversation about traffic or weather, the professor trying to seem natural and like he is enjoying the exchange but he is talking to the guy that beat the crap out of him in grades 2-9. All he really wants to think about is his research on fluid dynamics that will solve rising sea levels by creating floating levees around vulnerable arcapelogos and that his chainmail is repaired for this weekends Battle of Grunswald where his shire is heavily favored. On the other side you have this good guy who knows he is not dealing with exactly his ilk because this guy sort of reminds him of that retard he used to beat the crap out of for wearing a cape. Discussions of football and ATVs are out of question except as examples kinetic transfer. But mostly he wishes his buddy were there so he could excuse himself to poop because the buffalo wings and rice krispy treats he had for lunch weren’t getting along.

So I receive an email from my office asking me to describe the problem so they can describe the problem to someone in another office who will complete the form that describes the problem so the person who decides who needs to fix the problem can describe the problem to the person assigned to fix it. Since I had just been chaperoned by someone I thought perhaps that person could verify the no heat thing to the other person in the room who just sent me the email and who heard me say I had no heat before the whole confirmation process began. Alas, no.

I describe the problem in my email reply.

The heater does not seem to be functioning, I turn it on and instead of warm air the air is cool consequently I do not have heat.

I have learned it is important to be specific but not be too detailed in the description. Too simple a report like “no heat” gets a flurry of useful suggestions such as, “ did you turn it on” Not being the eighty year old sitting in front of their first Dell, I respond “yes the power button has been activated.” On the other hand provide too much information or get too specific you arouse suspicion “I believe the problem is related to a release value malfunctioning causing a vapor lock in the supply line.” Now the gatekeeper becomes a bit caddy thinking to him or herself, “so you think you know something about HVAC-guess you’re a real smart guy well maybe you can just fix it yourself” leaving you at the bottom of the list and when help finally does arrive they’ve sent the new guy who learned the trade while in prison. He will tell you all about his time inside in a way that is both sweet and oddly subservient but that leaves you thoroughly on edge as you are keenly aware this man would gouge your eyes out with his thumbs if you moved too quickly.

Now of course you only know about the vapor lock issue not because of your fluid dynamics prowess like nuclear physicist next door but because it happens about eight times a year. To implement a lasting fix requires the expenditure of some amount of money that exceeds that line item in some standards guide produced by the US Navy by $108. To green light that requires some massive amount of paper work because the $108 must come from a different account under the watchful eye of some other gatekeepers who hold a grudge against your department for some perceived slight in recognizing their authority in addressing matters just such as this. That may have been me.

Corporate structures and their uglier cousin institutional bureaucracies were developed to establish protocols for repeatable tasks and too create systems that removed inefficiencies by reducing mistakes.

To remove inefficiency.

I estimate based on my lost time, the mechanics time and time required to push it through the system that each of these band-aid fixes costs about $500. It happens eight times a year and has gone on for 3 years. $12,000.

Oh good, I am told I will have my budget report tomorrow. Perfect.