You're talking about intentionally-created bureaucracies. I don't think very many of these exist!
The majority of the time, bureaucracies aren't prescriptive, a structure imposed; but rather, they're descriptive — that is, they're just the abstraction we use to talk about what is actually a bunch of pre-existing special-interest groups, groups that would continue to exist whether or not there were an organizational label to collect them all into.
For example, what is a municipal government, but a bureaucracy that evolves out of conflicting special-interest groups, with each top-level city-council seat beholden mostly to some particular special-interest group?
The NIMBY gridlock in most cities can be blamed, in some sense, on "bureaucracy" — but only in the sense that there is an explicit NIMBY interest group that holds many council seats through representatives, and which cannot be organizationally engineered out of existence. The NIMBY home-owners make up a large proportion of voters — and so hold power as a voting bloc — and this holds whether they are directly represented by a party that agrees with them, or whether they are just bribing some other party to implicitly do things their way in order to get their votes. And in the case of NIMBYs, "doing things their way" is exactly "doing all that sabotage-manual stuff, to create bureaucratic gridlock, to block any attempt to fix or improve the city that would come at the expense of the asset-value of homes."
There's no technology that can "fix" the problem of the majority of an organization being composed of groups with fundamentally opposed ideologies, with groups seeing the other groups in the organization as likely to fundamentally destroy the things they hold dear if allowed, and where the fundamental tool these group see as available to resist what they see as "regressive change", is degradation of the process of change itself, though such organizational-process sabotage. Make the organizational process more efficient, and you just enable the sabotage to happen faster. (It's a bit like accelerating an AI, just translating into it deciding to refuse you faster.)
And to be clear, I am not just saying that polities and their democratic proxies are like this; I am saying that most organizations are like this. Most orgs are inherently, definitionally made up of such fundamentally ideologically-opposed factions. Yes, even if you hire them to work in explicit alignment with one-another.