|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
1555 days ago
|
|
|
> RPA sales pitch to executives is "This is not changing your application; this is simply doing what your people are already doing in your application, faster and more repeatable with less errors". > This is a powerful risk-reduction pitch Is it? It seems to me a powerful risk creation pitch, where instead of dealing with the process problems that make properly controlled change expensive, you just exploit a loophole in your control requirement that are designed to mitigate risk and implement change with no control. OTOH, since the pitch is generally to the people responsible for the state of the policies, I guess it is “risk reduction” in that it reduces the short-term risk of admitting the larger error since it enables kicking it down the road a bit, and that is something lots of executives like. |
|
|
The more you customize a COTS application, the harder your support gets and the more pain you get when you patch or upgrade.
Building on top of it is practically as well as procedurally safer. It is, legitimately, reduced risk and impact. You keep the solid stable core that is fully vendor supported, and you have the piece that you built and own neatly separated.
In that way you can almost think of rpa as a shell script: You don't customize the kernel every time you need something done. You leave kernel well alone (and reduce both risk, and pain of future os upgrades) and build on an easier language something you own on top of it that interacts with it.
Note I don't do rpa and my team doesn't do rpa, but I've seen it around and seen it's value. It does feel I'm talking To folks who want to reduce this to "management sucks" as opposed to any effort to try to actually understand a technology's Place in ecosystem though...