It's worth noting that any group that has an outsized voice in the old process generally has an outsized voice in all local political processes. They will not treat any model that makes them "relatively worse in the new one" with an "oh well, that's life" attitude, they'll consider it as harmful to their interests (which is objectively true) and use their influence in the political processes to keep any such model from being implemented.
Similar aspects appear in many automation scenarios in many industries. In general, if you want a system to be adopted, it needs to provide at least some benefit also to those who are in power; if the current status quo is better for them, then the planned changes can be (and usually are) sabotaged. There are many cases when you can get a win-win where the changes benefit everyone; but if they put the privileged groups at a disadvantage (e.g. hospital systems that significantly reduce work for nurses but add some inconvenience to administrators or top doctors) then it's an understatement to say that you'll have an uphill battle. It's unrealistic to consider the possibility of some proposed changes purely on technical or ethical merit - you can ignore politics but politics won't ignore you.
A key step in implementing any changes is to identify all stakeholders (especially if they may have conflicting interests) and identify which of these stakeholders have critical influence and (possibly) a de facto veto vote. If you can't sell the proposal to these stakeholders, then it doesn't matter how good your proposal is and what the others think (unless they can influence the opposition), it's not worth the effort to proceed further because you won't succeed without having them on board.
Perhaps it's worth looking at it as a Chesterton's fence situation. If you come from outside, unaware of the local situation, and find that the system is biased to provide a nontrivial advantage to group X, then before action you should ask, how come? Why is the system set up this way? It may be that this is accidental, but more likely than not it's an indicator that actually (no matter what the official, documented, publicly disseminated policies might say) group X has the ability to decide, or at least influence, what the policies are going to be. And that's valuable information, especially if you want to change that. Let's not put the cart ahead of the horse - you won't reduce the influence of group X by changing that policy, rather you'll need to reduce the influence of group X before you'll be able to change that policy.