When incidents occur, the explanation often defaults to a familiar phrase: user error. A button was clicked incorrectly. A form was submitted with incomplete information. A setting was overlooked. The assumption is simple — someone made a mistake.
But in many cases, what we call “user error” is actually a system design failure.
Technology is supposed to guide behavior, not rely on perfection. When systems are confusing, overly complex, poorly integrated, or inconsistent across platforms, mistakes become predictable. If multiple users make the same error, the issue is rarely individual carelessness — it’s friction embedded in the process.
Poor interface design, unclear prompts, hidden critical fields, inconsistent workflows, and excessive steps increase cognitive load. When employees are operating under time pressure or managing multiple platforms simultaneously, the likelihood of error increases significantly. The problem isn’t the user. It’s the environment the user is navigating.
Another common issue is system sprawl. When employees must toggle between multiple applications to complete a single task, information gaps and input errors become more likely. The more steps required, the more opportunities for failure.
High-performing organizations shift the question from “Who made the mistake?” to “Why did the system allow the mistake?” They analyze recurring errors, simplify workflows, clarify instructions, and remove unnecessary friction. They design systems that anticipate human limitations rather than ignore them.
Accountability still matters. But accountability should extend beyond individuals to the systems they operate within.
If an error is easy to make, it is likely a design flaw. Technology should reduce risk — not quietly transfer it to the end user.
