It's kinda sad they don't mix but ultimately it is to be expected.
As I already said bureaucracy originally was about doing social bookkeeping without giving the bookkeeper too much power. Most people here probably agree that this ultimately failed.
I have some background (although much less of it than I would like) in programming and mathematics. I long ago came to the conclusions that communication has two largely disconnected functions, the first being personal expression and the other the sharing of information (this also covers organization of projects in which multiple people are involved). The first one probably isn't a matter for technology but how to do the second efficiently and (even more important) with as few opportunities for misinterpretations as possible is thoroughly explored in informatics. I think that the use for this science is by far not limited to computers.
When multiple people converse with each other with the objective of reaching some goal they might want the others to clearly understand which goal they actually want to achieve and what they think is acceptable behaviour to achieve that goal. You can shift the emphasis on those parts of the problem around as you want - living together is probably more about acceptable behaviour than about clear goals. Of course there might be other things you might want to communicate clearly instead of being particularly personal.
Science can be used to define languages which might help in this regard. I think languages like this might be most useful if multiple groups interact with each other, in a sense to replace diplomacy with something that depends more on mutual interest then on the personal skill of a diplomat to represent his cause clearly or to deceive another party. Also such a language opens those processes up to actual bugtracking so you can check whether an agreement actually achieves what it was designed for.
To give an example: object oriented design might help with keeping the interna of how one commune functions out of a debate with another commune about how land can be used while providing just the necessary information to resolve the issue quickly without drifting off to unrelated topics.
I don't think of these languages as being spoken but rather as being written like some mathematical proof.
I do not think that those kind of languages should be the only tool (because that obviously would exclude most non-technical people) but rather a supplementary one.
Technology can be used to streamline the kind of communication that offers no joy for those having the conversation. It helps no one to loose precious time over necessary social bookkeeping (I think that such a thing exists, like voting or checking what was achieved of planned goals) and then shifting it off to specialists because everyone else just looses the motivation, which would kinda be very detrimental to the anarchist idea.
As said before you can also do sanity checks on decisions. SAT-solvers might be useful to check for inconsistencies (which *will* cost much time if they're discovered later) and just keeping an organized map of decisions and positions in a Wiki can help to understand how your social surroundings work.
Again, technology should be just a supplementary tool.
Another aspect is work. To increase human wellbeing it is desirable to be able to do work you are passionate about. I think that undesired work is mostly undesired because it is highly repetitive and thus boring. Those kinds of work can be automated. Again, automatization is mostly a question of joy - efficiency is a secondary concern and judging by what passionate people achieve it should follow from joy, so taking work away when it can be done by a person that wants to do it is not desirable.
I tried to keep it short (I guess I failed) and I hope I showed how science and technology can help in an anarchic society.
