So we’ve determined that 58% of enterprises which have adopted RPA are satisfied with both cost and business impact (see recent post). But how does this differ by business processes?
Let’s consider this data:
IT processes and apps are clearly the biggest beneficiaries of RPA. There’s nothing like music to the ears of cash-strapped CIOs and CFOs, than prolonging the life of those once-expensive IT systems that just don’t integrate with each other. Plus, isn’t it great to make band-aid patches over those spaghetti codes to keep them functioning for a few more years yet? The thing about writing off legacy, means you really only write off the stuff that just doesn’t work anymore… RPA is highly effective at prolonging the life of legacy systems by recording actions and workflows to give these things a new lease of life, and allow for technology investments to be made elsewhere (read our recent example of NPower).
Marketing functions have a lot of unnecessary manual fat that can be trimmed. There is one function that perennially suffers from excessive manual work and real issues integrating systems and processes, and that is marketing. Simple tasks (or task that should be simple), such as linking together databases of customers, subscribers and prospects to align with campaigns, collateral, automated emails etc., are the perennial bane of every CMO’s existence. So rather than spending millions on consultants to recreate new processes, CRM capabilities and training people to use them, why not get what you have working better, while you figure out where to make those really valuable marketing investments in the future?
Procurement can really benefit from process automation. One function that has been cut to the bone – and still uses the fax machine as a mission critical tool – is procurement. RPA has such a positive impact on functions beset by poorly integrated processes, where the goal is to get things functioning better, than those functions where the goal of automation is really just to drive out cost. Being able to link together procurement systems, analytics tools and cognitive applications with that manual work that still creates major breakdowns in speed of execution and quality of data, is a major benefit for those customers which map out an RPA plan and execute against it. The more you can use procurement to support the business and speed up the cash cycle, the more effective the function becomes. HR is somewhat similar to procurement, in the sense that the fat has already been long-trimmed from most companies, and RPA adds value to processes in similar ways, such as supporting better analytics and linkages between legacy systems and processes. Payroll, in particular, is emerging as a major area where RPA can have a huge value impact, where all the critical employee data is housed.
Finance and Accounting disappoints from a cost take-out standpoint. With only 40% of enterprises satisfied with the direct cost impact of F&A, we can conclude that many of them have their expectations set too high that they will experience short-term headcount elimination with RPA. On a more positive note, half of them are happy with the business value impact of RPA on F&A. Considering F&A is the number one process being used for F&A today (it dominates 50% of installs) it’s clear that the suppliers are playing the cost take out game too aggressively and leaving many customers disappointed. As with outsourcing, it’s one thing separating tasks and removing workload elements from staff, it’s another being able to remove headcount simply my improving or digitizing processes. Customers must take a more transformative view that if they can free up 50% of a employee’s time, they need to focus on refocusing her/him on alternative activities. That is where the value is to be found.
RPA satisfaction in Customer Service functions is mixed. For a function that can truly benefit from intelligent data and digitized processes, it’s surprising that barely 50% of customers are experiencing either cost or business value benefits from RPA. The reason for this is two-fold: firstly, customer service functions are too mired in the legacy practice of managing shifts of low cost agents, whether they are inhouse or outsourced – and have little time or funds to investigate the value of RPA, which may require upfront investment and longer term planning. Consequently, with this short-term mindset to cater for, most the call center BPO suppliers have little pressure to change how their sell their services, if their clients are not clamoring for RPA solutions. We do see significant interest in chatbots and virtual agent solutions, and established automation vendors in the call center space, such as Nice, have established relationships with many customers, however, the whole call center space seems to be lagging behind other functions when it comes to embracing how to leverage the benefits of RPA effectively – which could be significant when you take into account the dysfunctions across customer interaction channels.
The Bottom-line: RPA satisfaction is a lot higher when the motivation and mentality is one of process improvement, not cost-elimination
The main issue with RPA, in today’s market, is this misconception that customers will make significant headcount reductions in the short-term. With outsourcing, the cost savings are staged carefully over a 5 year engagement as work is moved to cheaper locations, better technology and processes are introduced, in addition to automation, and the processes are re-mapped over time to allow for work to get done, ultimately with less people. Simply plumbing in RPA and not having a broader plan to transform the work, pulling several other value levers, in addition to the patching of processes and digitization of manual work, will likely result in a mismatch between expectations and reality. RPA needs to form part of a broader strategy to automate and streamline work, where people, processes, analytics tools, SaaS platforms, outsourcing models and carefully developed governance procedures, are taken into account as part of the broader transformation plan.
(Cross-posted @ Horses for Sources)