Why UI and User Guides Aren't the Truth

Published on: Fri Mar 22 2024 by Ivar Strand

“But the Manual Said…”: Why UIX and User Guides Aren’t the Truth

When an organization procures new financial or management software, the due diligence process is standard. Teams review vendor documentation, sit through demonstrations, and study the user guides. The assumption is that these materials accurately represent how the system functions. This is a point of significant, and often costly, error.

A system’s user interface (UI) and its manuals describe intent. The system’s actual behavior, however, is dictated by its source code. The gap between the two is a primary source of programmatic and fiduciary risk.

The Discrepancy Between Presentation and Reality

It’s essential to understand what user guides and interfaces are designed to do. A UI is an abstraction layer built for usability; it simplifies complex back-end processes to make the tool accessible. A user manual is a document typically created to explain the intended, optimal use-cases of the software.

Neither is a technical specification of the system’s core logic. The truth of how a system operates resides in its code—in the precise way it handles exceptions, processes data, executes calculations, and applies hardcoded rules. Our work has consistently shown that material discrepancies exist between what is documented and what is coded. Relying on the user guide is akin to navigating a city with a tourist map; it’s useful for the main attractions but omits the critical details of the underlying infrastructure.

Where Documentation Fails and Risk Emerges

The disconnect between documentation and reality creates tangible risks, particularly in the context of development and aid programs where accountability is paramount.

• Flawed Fiduciary Controls: A manual may detail a robust, multi-stage approval workflow for expenditures. However, the underlying code might contain a legacy exception rule or a logical flaw that allows this workflow to be bypassed under specific, undocumented conditions. The control exists on paper, but not in practice.
• Inaccurate Reporting: A dashboard UI can present clean, aggregated data that appears correct at a glance. Yet, minor rounding discrepancies or incorrect join logic in the back-end database queries can introduce material errors that are only discovered through a forensic analysis of the raw data and the code used to process it.
• Unreliable System Integration: Programs often rely on multiple software systems to work in concert. If a vendor’s published API (Application Programming Interface) documentation does not precisely match its real-world behavior, promised integrations fail. This leads to data silos, manual workarounds, and a fragmented view of operations.

Verification Must Go Beyond the Manual

Accepting vendor documentation at face value is not sufficient due diligence. A professional approach to implementation and monitoring requires that we look beyond the interface and independently verify the system’s core logic.

This is not a matter of distrust, but of technical assurance. It involves structured testing and, where necessary, code review to confirm that the system functions as required, not merely as advertised. This technical verification ensures that programmatic rules and financial controls are correctly embedded in the system’s architecture. It is a fundamental step in turning a vendor’s product into a trusted tool for management and oversight.

Ultimately, a manual is a promise. Independent technical verification is the mechanism that turns that promise into reliable, actionable truth.