[productive]

Thanks Virvar, may I follow up (and I am really just trying to understand here, not to criticise or advocate one way or another): From what you said, I understand that, essentially, 'the kind of steps or tasks that employees would want automated' are too small for someone central to bother to look at. So it's an issue of economics - it's not worth the attention and not worth the cost. I fully understand.

On the flipside, you yourself mentioned a) the skill level (loops) and b) maintenance and - dare I add - say governance / standards.

I guess it comes down to the tradeoff of [not having tasks automated because it's not worth it for 'the experts'] vs [having a prolific ungoverned set of automations deployed by users with insufficient skill level perform them (kind of like excel macros)].

So given the skill issue, and given that users struggle with things like loops etc. - does that mean that they'll basically just be able to implement 'trivial automations that don't involve complex paradigms'? Or how can non-technical people, fundamentally, crack it and develop more elaborate (and therefore more powerful) automations?

This is what I'm grappling with - I see so many no code tools out there, but at the end of the day, you can only do very limited, not so valuable, automations with them. Curious to learn your thoughts there.

[virvar]

This is the issue. The “no-code” + “no real oversight” tools don’t really work for us, but we wish they did. ;)

[productive]

Alright -thanks for the clarification!