In an age where nations race as winds race across the fields of space, and where the threads of technology intertwine with the details of daily life until they have become part of its fabric, digital transformation in state institutions has come to resemble a shining key that appears to open the doors of a wider tomorrow and lead toward the promised expanse of the future. Yet the reflective observer, if he sharpens his sight and refines his insight, will realize that the matter is far more complex than replacing piles of paper with illuminated screens, or substituting a refined electronic signature for an eternal stamp.

We, as individuals and institutions alike, have felt what smart applications and government websites have done to ease a hardship that had weighed upon people’s shoulders for a long time. A transaction that once consumed hours of their lives can now be completed in a few minutes. Queues that had long clung to office walls and remained in memory as a bitter recollection have gradually dispersed. Heavy papers once carried like burdens have been lifted from the shoulders of employees and users alike.

And yet, however bright the illuminated side of the picture may appear, it is not without dense areas of shadow. There are still services that remain incomplete, procedures so tangled that they resist full digitization, and repeated steps reproduced with the same old mentality, even if dressed in the new clothing of electronic buttons and digital interfaces. It is as though we have replaced only a worn outer shell, while the core remains captive to habit and the chains of bureaucracy.

Has Digitization Helped Rationalize Spending?

If fairness requires us to say that the state has given this field considerable attention and poured substantial investment into it, then the same fairness requires that we ask the question knocking at the doors of reason: have these funds poured into the veins of digitization truly led to rationalized spending and better use of financial and human resources alike? Or have we, without realizing it, helped build a software sector that lives on flowing government contracts and grows inflated at the expense of public money, without always producing a real return or added value worthy of the funds spent — funds that might have been better invested where need and purpose meet?

What we witness today, in many respects, resembles the theory of evolution: steps following one another gradually, not from a fully formed strategic vision, but as scattered responses to immediate needs that force government institutions to contract at times with local companies and at others with global ones. These companies operate by the logic of the market. They are concerned only with securing the greatest financial return in the shortest time and with the fewest possible technical obligations. Thus they often settle for completing what is required according to the text of contracts, without paying attention to the depth of the objectives or the core purposes for which those contracts were originally concluded. The responsibility of thinking about meaning and feasibility remains tied to the will of the government apparatus alone.

From here emerges the rhetorical image that nearly summarizes the whole scene: a software company is no more than a skilled typesetter. It knows how to arrange letters, coordinate lines with elegant fonts and shining colors, and perhaps add tables and images that please the eye. But in the end, it does not write the idea, formulate the wisdom, or create the conclusion. That is the task of the author of the text — the government institution itself. If the text is weak in substance, empty of mature thought or perceptive vision, the typesetter’s ornaments and decorations will achieve nothing. They will not turn fragility into strength, however much the presentation is polished and the surface beautified.

Automation in Redesigning the Workflow

Accordingly, it becomes clear to every observer that digital transformation, in the familiar form we have known over the past two decades, has been drained of its substance until it has become a conventional term lacking novelty. It has therefore become necessary — indeed inevitable — to rise to a higher and wider horizon: the horizon of automation. This automation is not merely the replacement of tools or the substitution of digital interfaces for paper ones. It is a comprehensive redesign of the entire administrative workflow. It is the art of re-engineering processes, where the map of data cycles is rewritten so that deep knowledge integrates with modern technology, and human resources harmonize with financial capacities, producing a system that is more agile, more efficient, and more capable of serving the greater national vision not only on its surface, but in its deeper core as well.

To make the difference between digitization and automation clear, let us recall a scene from the beginning of the millennium, when some companies verified the identity of users registering on their websites through phone calls made by an assigned employee, who received a fixed salary merely to call the number entered in the registration form. At the time, this was considered a form of digitization, as it did little more than replace paper with another tool of limited effect. Other, more aware companies redesigned the same form and connected it to SMS service. The system would send a verification code to the user’s phone, the user would enter it in the designated field, and identity would be authenticated fully and automatically, without human intervention. Thus, through a modest technical investment, those companies were able to save a routine job or redirect the employee’s effort toward more useful tasks. That is how automation appeared in its beginnings; today, however, this example has become a familiar reality with nothing new about it.

Another example more closely connected to our contemporary reality is the Insurance Regulatory Unit since its establishment and the issuance of its Resolution No. 1 of 2022 concerning mechanisms for receiving complaints from insurance sector customers through the “IROSOFT” system. This model was built on automation, not digitization alone. It placed customers and the companies complained against before a digital dialogue table extending for fourteen days, governed by conditions of commitment for each party, under the supervision of the Unit. During that period, they exchange responses and observations before the complaint is referred to the competent committee. The result was striking: nearly thirty percent of complaints were closed through settlement during that period without direct intervention from the Unit’s employees. Here, the meaning of true automation becomes clear. Technology undertakes what had once been managed manually according to discretion; it does not merely change the form, but redesigns the workflow at its depth, reduces burdens on human staff, and avoids the risks of their errors.

Automation: A Mindset That Requires Empowering Specialized Competencies

If these two examples testify to what automation can achieve when built on conscious vision and an integrated method, according to time and the knowledge environment, they also place before us a clear truth: this goal will not be reached merely by importing foreign software or becoming dependent on major cloud services. That is like possessing precious tools without owning the skilled craftsman capable of adapting them.

Automation, in truth, is not merely a technical act; it is strategic thought that breathes life into technology and transforms it from a tool into an engine of deep change. True construction begins from within, by establishing a solid base of competencies that possess both strategic insight and digital capability. They are the ones who lay the first bricks of the new model and decide precisely where steps should be shortened, where repeated paths should be removed, and how an integrated system should be built to reflect the state’s ambition and vision. The challenge does not lie only in attracting qualified talent, but in creating an institutional environment inside government bodies that gives them space and grants them technical decision-making authority without suffocating bureaucratic constraints. If minds are brought in and then restrained, or if their role is limited to preparing formal reports placed on shelves, we will harvest from automation only its outer shell, and from transformation only its distant echo.

Automation Under the Approach of Self-Reliance

The requirements of real success further demand that government institutions adopt an approach of self-reliance in building and developing their automation systems over the long term, and that they not remain captive to renewable contracts with external companies selling them the same solutions in different clothing and at multiplied prices. Development, by its nature, is a continuous journey that does not stop at a first version or a particular phase. It is like a flowing river that requires constant maintenance of its course and continuous addition of tributaries. Carefully planned internal investment in specialized national teams within the government apparatus will inevitably produce more beneficial and efficient fruits, and results with greater returns than chronic dependence on contractors whose concern is little more than the contract invoice and the profit of the deal.

True change is not imported from beyond borders. It springs from within, from an alert will that understands that automation is not a final destination, but a high instrument for achieving broader and deeper purposes. It is a means of building an administration wiser in spending public money, higher in the quality of service delivery, and more capable of maximizing national return for the benefit of both state and society. If our institutions grasp this meaning and reconsider the philosophy of transformation from its roots rather than from its surface, then we will be approaching a new phase in which bricks are laid on firm foundations: not merely painting an old wall with a new color, but building a modern, integrated structure that preserves continuity.

In conclusion, we may rightly reflect: digitization is only a decorated door, attractive in appearance yet limited in horizon. Automation, however, is the entire house, with its firm pillars and a roof that shelters everyone. Shall we be content to stand at the threshold admiring the ornaments, or shall we move with resolve and firmness toward building the house that preserves our resources, protects our capacities, and embraces our comprehensive national vision? That is the question that must knock at the doors of the minds of politicians and decision-makers before they are distracted by the glitter of contracts or the decoration of electronic colors.

O Allah, ordain for this nation a matter of right guidance.

Why can government automation not be separated from the factor of incentives?

Automation success is measured by saved time, reliable decisions, less manual intervention, and a better citizen experience. From the angle of incentives, the issue is not measured by its label alone, but by the measurable effect it leaves behind.

How does automation versus surface digitization affect the economy?

Its effect appears in how costs, incentives, and resources are managed, and in the economy's ability to turn decisions into sustainable value. The direct context is to move from surface digitization to true automation that redesigns government workflows, empowers talent, and rationalizes spending.

Why can data governance not be separated from the factor of incentives?

Digital government needs data governance because service quality depends on clear ownership, exchange, protection, and integration across entities. From the angle of incentives, the issue is not measured by its label alone, but by the measurable effect it leaves behind.

Why can digital transformation not be separated from the factor of incentives?

Real digital transformation rebuilds processes, data, and responsibilities; surface digitization changes the interface while leaving complexity intact. From the angle of incentives, the issue is not measured by its label alone, but by the measurable effect it leaves behind.