Keeping the human touch in tech: what over-automation gets wrong

Automation has become an unquestioned priority for IT and service-led organizations. AI sits in the center of service desks, sales workflows, security operations, and modern cloud environments. Leaders are under pressure to move faster, cut costs, and boost output through every tool available.

Yet the rapid shift has created an unexpected consequence: many teams are realizing that efficiency alone doesn’t build trust.

Across the UK and Europe, I’m seeing organizations push automation to the point where the service model becomes brittle. Chatbots handle entire support journeys. AI sales agents run outbound activity. Security alerts are triaged end-to-end by automated playbooks.

These systems can be useful, but when they replace human judgement entirely, gaps appear. Customers notice when no one understands the content of their operations.

They notice when interactions feel generic, and their pain points are not acknowledged. And they notice quickly when a service provider has removed the people who can actually hear them and help them.

Where service models are starting to break

Most automation failures stem from the same issue: removing the “human layer” that holds a service experience together. This layer isn’t about constant hand-holding or slow manual work. It’s the part that interprets nuance and understands why a problem matters to the customer, not just what the problem is.

In support environments, some organizations are discovering this the hard way. Tickets get resolved faster on paper, but satisfaction scores fall because no one is building a relationship with the user. In sales, AI sequences deliver volume, but prospects lose interest because the outreach lacks relevance.

And in cybersecurity, automated responses can misjudge severity without human oversight.

These situations play out more often when teams automate to stretch limited headcount. It’s understandable, especially during periods of change or when IT teams are still modernizing legacy estates.

But full dependency on automation leaves systems rigid. When an exception appears, or when a customer simply needs to speak to a real expert, the experience collapses.

A similar scenario emerged when a client enabled a new AI tool to assist with Microsoft Copilot workflows. Without proper human oversight, the team inadvertently incurred a $35,000 cost due to selecting the wrong SKU, highlighting the financial and operational risks of fully automated systems without human checks.

The skills customers still rely on

Despite the volume of new AI tools entering the market, core human skills have grown in value, not diminished. Customers look for empathy when something breaks, context when they need guidance, and continuity when they rely on a long-term partner.

They want to know the person supporting them understands their environment, their constraints, and their goals. No amount of automated efficiency can replace that peace of mind.

Even the best-trained AI models struggle here. They can analyze patterns, flag risks, and summarize information, but they do not build rapport. They do not learn a customer’s preferences through years of interaction.

And they cannot recognize the moments when a problem might have a wider business impact that isn’t stated in the ticket.

In conversations with CIOs and IT directors, these human skills come up repeatedly as the factor that separates a strong service provider from a forgettable one. The organizations that combine automation with real expertise create resilience. Those that rely on automation alone create fragility.

How leaders can strike the right balance

Leaders don’t need to choose between automation and human-first service. The stronger approach is to place AI in the right parts of the workflow, then anchor it with experienced people who understand the organization. In practice, this starts with shaping journeys so humans remain present at the points that matter most.

AI can manage triage, data gathering, and pattern recognition, yet customers feel more supported when a real specialist guides the outcome and closes the loop.

Automation also works best when it elevates teams rather than replacing them. Handing routine cloud administration, patch reminders, or Copilot onboarding queries to AI frees technical staff to focus on higher-value conversations and proactive guidance. It creates the space for human expertise to be visible, not sidelined.

Clear ownership is another factor. Automated systems drift when no one oversees how they evolve, particularly during periods of rapid change. Keeping a named human owner for each account or operational area ensures accountability and prevents misjudged responses.

This sits alongside a final principle: investing in people who understand the complete technology stack. Cloud migration, Microsoft CSP environments, hybrid infrastructure, and security workflow automation all involve nuance.

Teams grounded in these areas recognize when automation genuinely helps the customer and when it risks creating blind spots in their experience.

The next wave of successful tech businesses will be the most human

AI will continue to advance and will handle more of the repetitive work that once consumed IT teams. This is positive progress. But as automation accelerates, the differentiator in the market will shift. Trust will matter more. Personal relationships will matter more.

And organizations that combine smart automation with genuine human expertise will outperform those that pursue automation at all costs.

The future of IT service isn’t fully automated. It’s human-led, technology-enhanced, and built around relationships. Businesses that get this balance right will deliver the speed, security and modernization their customers expect while keeping the qualities that matter most: empathy, continuity and real connection.

We’ve featured the best RPA software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro’s Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro