This is not a story about atelophobia, but its diametric opposite. This is a story about how seeking a “good enough” state in business process changes is not the right answer. We recently posted a webinar on how to get started on Robotic Process Automation (RPA). What I loved was the feedback from one of our former clients. Here is what he shared with me:
“Salient point for me was the idea to never automate what isn’t fully understood and locked down. Couple of times my team has been asked to automate process X only to find not only is there little documentation, but also ‘diversity of opinion’ on current state. ‘I’m sure whatever you build will be better than what we are currently doing’ is the kiss of death”
I quickly equated what he said to trying to build a house ad-hoc – without a plan, or an understanding of how things need to come together. In the world of construction, it would be like building a house without knowing where or how large of a hole to dig for a foundation. The misconception stems from the notion that most business challenges are rooted in technology. Or that the “right” technology will be the elixir to our ailments. But the reality is that technology is the enabler for a well architected business process. If people in the organization don’t know exactly how the process works, they don’t have full appreciation for all of its shortcomings, and so they cannot ensure that it is designed out appropriately. In the end the pressure and reliance is on the technology team to solve a challenge that truly belongs to a process architect. Reaching for a “good enough state” should not be the goal of the business – would anyone invest thousands of dollars on a project that would yield a “good enough” state?