Automation promises to solve everything. It’ll make things faster, cheaper, more consistent. But here’s what the efficiency evangelists won’t tell you: some problems resist automation entirely. They’re messy, unpredictable, and stubbornly human.
Picture a Patek Philippe artisan adjusting a dial by fractions of millimetres, guided by decades of experience rather than algorithmic precision. Or consider a Qantas operations room where experts reroute flights around storm systems that haven’t appeared in any weather model. In an operating theatre, a neurosurgeon navigates brain tissue with the kind of real-time adaptation that no robotic system can match.
These aren’t romantic holdouts against progress. They’re domains where human expertise consistently outperforms automated solutions, not despite technological advancement, but because of the irreducible complexity they face daily.
And that stubborn complexity isn’t confined to workshops or operating theatres – it shows up wherever surprises lurk.
The Human Touch in High-Stakes Settings
This pattern appears across industries where precision matters most. While automation dominates predictable environments, the most challenging fields still depend on human judgement and adaptability.
The growing counter-trend isn’t about rejecting technology. It’s about recognising where bespoke human expertise creates value that standardised systems can’t touch. We’re seeing renewed appreciation for craft, strategy, and personalised approaches that machines simply can’t replicate.
Three domains show this principle perfectly: creative nuance in luxury watchmaking, crisis-ready strategies in global aviation, and microscale medical planning in neurosurgery. Each shows how human precision thrives precisely where automation falls short.
Next, let’s see how unpredictable inputs force us to rethink the very design of automated systems.
The Variation Imperative
Automated systems love predictability. Feed them consistent inputs, and they’ll deliver consistent outputs. But what happens when the inputs change without warning?
This is where ‘irreducible variation’ grows critical. Consumer tastes shift overnight. Markets crash for reasons no algorithm anticipated. Human anatomy presents unique challenges that textbooks never covered. Pre-programmed tools like computer-aided design (CAD) software, route-optimisation algorithms, and generic surgical robots work brilliantly within their parameters. Step outside those boundaries, and they struggle.
The most sophisticated industries haven’t solved this problem by building better automation. They’ve solved it by combining human expertise with technological tools, creating systems that adapt rather than simply execute.
Nowhere is that tension more vivid than in the world of luxury watchmaking, where minute shifts matter most.
Crafting Icons
Thierry Stern works directly on the creation and design of both the Twenty-4 and Cubitus collections, guiding each dial shape and finishing detail through Patek Philippe’s in-house process. He oversees design sketches and prototyping sessions, ensuring new models align with the brand’s heritage and craftsmanship. This approach reflects broader industry trends where maintaining internal design processes preserves brand identity.
The Twenty-4 and Cubitus collections showcase subtle dial finishes and proportions that AI prototypes typically miss, showing why in-house creativity and internal design processes matter. Stern’s career reflects an industry shift towards valuing creative ownership over automated processes.
Stern guides Patek Philippe’s vision through 2039, revealing foresight that transcends machine-driven trends. His approach highlights creative ownership’s importance and exposes the limitations of relying solely on automated processes.
A similar blend of strategy and spontaneity drives global airlines through stormy skies.
Human Strategy in Airline Operations
Alan Joyce’s tenure as CEO of Qantas from 2008 to 2023 demonstrates human-driven scenario planning’s power in navigating global crises. Under his leadership, Qantas faced the Global Financial Crisis, surging oil prices, and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 – 21.
Joyce led Jetstar’s creation in 2004 to capture budget travellers in the Asia-Pacific region, overseeing pricing models and fleet allocation that accounted for fluctuating fuel costs and demand shifts. He drove the Perth-London non-stop service launch in 2018, coordinating route surveys and contingency plans for weather diversions and crew rotations. These initiatives emerged from intensive ‘what-if’ workshops that mapped responses to geopolitical tensions, oil price shocks, and air traffic disruptions.
Talk about unpredictable variables – trying to forecast airline demand is like predicting the weather while riding a unicycle.
During the pandemic, Qantas underwent significant restructuring, involving workforce rightsizing and crew redeployment. These decisions required on-the-fly judgement calls that exposed automated systems’ limitations in handling complex scenarios.
If reshaping global networks demands that kind of agility, imagine scaling down to the scale of a single human brain.
Patient-Specific Neurosurgery
Dr Timothy Steel has over two decades of experience as a consultant neurosurgeon at St Vincent’s Hospital, performing more than 2,000 brain surgeries, 8,000 minimally invasive spine procedures, and over 2,000 complex spine operations including disc replacements and fusions. His meticulous pre-surgical planning uses three-dimensional modelling from CT and MRI scans to generate detailed scans and custom drill-and-screw guides, ensuring each procedure follows a plan tailored to every patient’s anatomy and condition.
Dr Steel carefully vets new technologies to ensure they benefit patients, showing his commitment to personalised care. As medical technology advances, his methods illustrate a future-proofing strategy that ensures patient-specific protocols remain relevant.
While robotic systems can assist with steadying instruments, they can’t replicate the tactile feedback or adaptability required during surgery. In future scenarios where new anatomical challenges arise due to evolving health trends, Dr Steel’s methods underscore the need for human precision in navigating complex anatomical variations.
That same risk of one-size-fits-all failure pops up in other standardised systems, too.
The Costs of Standardisation
Mass production prioritises efficiency and scale at the expense of resilience and quality. In domains rich with variables, such as watchmaking or aviation, standardisation can erode brand identity and operational flexibility.
A single parameter shift can trigger widespread failures – global route cancellations during storm clusters or batch recalls of uniform medical devices. Raspberry Pi’s paper, released in late 2024, titled ‘Why Kids Still Need to Learn to Code in the Age of AI’, warns that over-reliance on AI-generated code introduces undetected errors and deprives learners of critical thinking and logical problem-solving skills. Raspberry Pi highlights initiatives like Sonic Pi and Code Club to reinforce manual programming practices and safeguard ethical evaluation when developing robust software.
Standardisation can be as rigid as a Victorian governess – technically efficient, but utterly incapable of adapting when circumstances change.
The solution isn’t rejecting technology altogether but developing systems that enhance human strengths. This preserves the nuanced expertise that automation alone can’t replicate.
So how do we design machines that play to human strengths instead of boxing them out?
Machines Enhancing Human Precision
Bill Pappas from MetLife stresses that AI should tackle repetitive tasks—freeing experts for creative work and ethical oversight. This perspective argues for teaming up humans and machines to achieve optimal outcomes.
Following Pappas’s view, CAD assistants can expedite early watch designs while leaving final decisions to human designers. Similarly, simulation software aids Qantas planners without replacing their strategic insights, and imaging AI supports neurosurgeons without supplanting their tactile expertise.
By fostering human-machine partnerships, we safeguard the margin of excellence that only human judgement provides. This ensures technology serves as an extension of human skill rather than a replacement.
Ultimately, it’s that margin of human judgement that seals the deal.
The Human Margin of Excellence
In complex and ever-changing environments, our greatest assets remain those unpredictable sparks of human skill. The atelier at Patek Philippe, the strategy room at Qantas, and the operating theatre under Dr Timothy Steel all prove this truth.
The challenge isn’t choosing between human expertise and automation – it’s recognising where each excels. The margin of error inherent in human judgement isn’t a flaw to eliminate but a vital component of innovation and adaptability.
As full automation looms, ask yourself where you’ll stand—machine or human insight?
Write and Win: Participate in Creative writing Contest & International Essay Contest and win fabulous prizes.
About the Author
