Following a recent media feature that included insights from our CEO & Founder, Ravi Sawhney, this perspective expands on the implications of automation in fast food and retail environments. As brands introduce self-service systems to increase efficiency, the underlying value exchange is shifting, with customers taking on more responsibility while expectations continue to rise.

This article explores why efficiency alone does not define a successful experience, how subtle changes in effort and interaction impact perception, and where trust begins to erode. It highlights the importance of designing not just for operational performance, but for human response, where adoption, satisfaction, and long-term value are ultimately determined.

When Automation Breaks the Experience: The Hidden Risk of Self-Service Design

Type

Date

Publication

Read the Full Article

The Shift Customers Feel Immediately

Automation isn’t the issue.

The issue is how it changes the experience.

A recent article featuring Ravi Sawhney highlighted a growing shift in fast food: customers are being asked to do more, while paying more.

At first glance, automation promises efficiency. Faster ordering. Shorter lines. Lower operational costs.

But that’s not how people evaluate experiences.

They evaluate value.

As Ravi noted, “What’s changing here is the value exchange. Customers are doing more of the work while paying more. People feel that immediately.”

The Shift Most Companies Miss

Most automation strategies are built around optimization, focusing on speed, throughput, and cost reduction. These are measurable and easy to justify from a business perspective, but they are not how customers actually experience a system.

Customers are not thinking about operational efficiency or evaluating labor models. Instead, they are asking a much simpler question:

Does this feel worth it?

That judgment is not analytical; it is instinctive. It is formed quickly based on how much effort is required, how clear the process feels, and how the interaction makes them feel overall.

When customers are asked to navigate more steps, make more decisions, or take on tasks that were previously handled for them, their perception of value begins to shift. This can happen even if the system is technically faster or more efficient.

Effort is not neutral. People feel it, and they factor it into how they evaluate an experience.

When effort increases without a corresponding increase in perceived value, something begins to break. Not at an operational level, but at an emotional one. That is where friction builds and trust starts to erode.

When Convenience Stops Feeling Convenient

There is a point where convenience crosses a line.

What once felt simple and intuitive begins to require more attention and effort. Ordering becomes navigating through screens and options. Speed becomes dependent on self-service. Ease shifts into responsibility.

Individually, these changes may seem minor. Together, they reshape how the experience is perceived.

At that point, the interaction no longer feels like a benefit. It starts to feel like work.

As Ravi explained, “At a certain point, convenience stops feeling convenient and starts feeling like responsibility.”

That shift is subtle, but it is critical. It marks the moment when customers begin to reassess the value of the experience, not based on efficiency, but on how it feels to engage with it.

This is where trust begins to erode, often without companies realizing it is happening.

Automation Without Meaning

Automation can make experiences faster, but speed alone does not determine whether an experience is better.

In some cases, automation removes the very elements that made the experience work in the first place. While those elements may seem small or inefficient from an operational perspective, they often carry meaning for the customer.

Human interaction is not just functional. It signals attention, care, and a sense of being understood. Even brief moments of interaction can reinforce trust and create a feeling of value that extends beyond the transaction itself.

When that layer is removed, something needs to replace it. The experience must still communicate clarity, ease, and a sense of consideration for the user.

If nothing replaces it, the interaction can begin to feel impersonal or incomplete. Even if it is technically faster, the experience lacks meaning, and efficiency alone is not enough to compensate for that loss.

The Real Design Challenge

The question is not whether to automate. Automation will continue to expand across industries, driven by efficiency, scale, and technological capability.

The real question is what is being replaced, and what is being added back.

Every element that is removed from an experience, whether it is human interaction, guidance, or a sense of ease, carries meaning for the customer. If that meaning is not intentionally replaced, the overall experience begins to degrade, even if the system itself is more advanced.

Companies that succeed will not be the ones that automate the most. They will be the ones that understand how the experience feels from the customer’s perspective and design accordingly.

Because adoption is not driven by capability alone. It is driven by perception, trust, and whether the experience feels valuable in the moment it is used.

Explore More From RKS

Ravi Sawhney Announces PA-AI: Humanizing LLMs

Predictable Magic: The $10 Billion Design Secret

Experts Warn AI Toys Raise Concerns for Children

Ready to Partner with Us?

“It’s not what technology is doing for us, it’s what technology is doing to us”

While they achieved mass adoption with the iPhone, touchscreens have been around since the 1970s, when I worked on the very first ones. Since then, they have confirmed the needs identified then – the human desire to connect with computers and the computer’s ability to respond to human needs have far outpaced the simple button. Looking ahead we can use those same insights to predict where touchscreens and technology, in general, might go.

Looking back

Let me give a little background first – it’s really true that you can’t predict your life, or the opportunities you will be given. This was the case for me. I was hired right out of college after studying design. I was hired and recruited by the industrial design and human-faculties design program for Xerox Advanced Development. At that time XEROX Advanced Development was working on technologies that would later drive the internet revolution – but we didn’t know it yet.

While I was at Xerox, they were working on the defining technologies of the next decades. Technologies like scanners, laser printers, ethernet, email, and graphic user interfaces (GUI) were all developed, at least in part, by the Xerox Advanced Research Group during my time there. For instance, Xerox developed a technology that enabled you to scan a picture or type in a document, compose the two, and either print it or email or fax it digitally all over the world. Xerox was looking beyond the copier, to where digital publication was going. That’s the reason they cared about touchscreens.

Touchscreens were needed because physical buttons couldn’t match the capabilities of the newest computer and software. For example, control panels and buttons could only go so far in helping someone create a magazine or newspaper on a computer. In fact, this capability was so intense, we simply couldn’t put enough buttons in front of a user to reasonably do what they needed to do. To overcome this problem, we had to create a technology where the buttons could change. At first, touchscreens were made on computer monitors and were 5-7 inches. They were tiny, but they allowed a user to scan in a photograph, take the corner of it, and drag it with their finger to make it larger. Sound like an iPhone?

XEROX had worked with Carol Technologies to develop a process whereby you could shoot LEDs in front of a computer screen, which would create a grid that would be broken by a finger, allowing the software to determine where the finger “touched”. The specific technology used has long since been relegated to history, but it was advanced at the time. In fact, if you replace LEDs with electrical current, this strategy is the same strategy behind the conductive touchscreens used today in the iPhone.

There’s a difference between a technology that works and a technology that is used. I was brought in to make sure the technology would be used. Despite the fact I was the youngest designer in the company by 15 years, my boss (and now close friend) Frank Zinny asked me to go over and work with the touchscreen team. The team had 15 Industrial Psychology PHDs, Five human-factor specialists, and 200 programmers. Over the course of that time, I focused on interaction hierarchy, user experience, critical information, and button design. I also focused on getting people to touch the screen – at that time everyone had been told touching screens were “bad”. Leading the user through interactions myself, I worked to reprogram this interaction, so users understand that touching “touchscreens” was okay.

A few years after leaving this team, I developed the underpinnings of Psycho-Aesthetics: “It’s not how the design makes you feel, it’s how the design makes you feel about yourself”. Design is just a tool that can motivate and reward people to do something new. In the case of touchscreens, users would never investigate a touch screen because they’d never seen one before. To get them to do it, I had to empower them to self-actualize.

Looking Around

Touchscreens are now beginning to include haptics that engage the sense of touch and motion. This haptics gives people physical affirmation – the device is speaking to you. We like things that respond to us, we like other people to respond to us. If someone doesn’t respond to you, you don’t like them. Whether it’s the latch on the door that opens, or the magnetic feel when you close your laptop, we’re all looking for something more than a visual lifeless experience. We’re looking for something more human-like. When we find something human-like it makes us feel more human-like. It’s self-affirmation. We’ve spent hundreds of hours designing the feel of a toothbrush in a hand, and the click of a washer as you turn a button. When you hit this need for affirmation it just works.

Because of COVID and lack of human interaction, the need for affirmation has grown and changed. Lifeless touchscreens have created new industries, but we’re going to need to dig further. Design and innovation don’t stop. Now, more than ever we’re going to need better design, more haptics, better interaction. My friend and cultural anthropologist Bob Deutch always tells us that we look at any new stimuli the same way – it’s our humanity. We ask: is it like me? Does it like me? Can it make me more?

Looking ahead

I’d like to offer a few more thoughts on where the design will take us. At Xerox, we were looking for what technology could do for us. Over the next decades, we should be looking at what technology will do to us.

The touchscreen, in particular on phones, has become so natural and intuitive that we can navigate large numbers of features intuitively. Because the connection between your fingertips and your brain is so immediate – there’s an immediate connection between phones and their users. New studies have shown that people feel a loving emotional connection with their devices, and they will give up almost anything to be able to use their phones. Why? It’s this emotional connection facilitated by the touchscreen.

It has always taken a lot of positive motivation to take people to do new things. Now it’s not just about what technology can “do for me”, it’s also about “what it does to me”. To motivate users of the next generation of technologies, we’ll need to begin thinking about what technology does to people, not just for them. And in doing so we should keep in mind our humanity. As humans, we’re always looking to be more today than we were tomorrow. The revolutionary technologies of tomorrow will answer this very basic need.

Ravi Sawhney

September 2022