Automation Is Not the Answer to Eliminating Process Debt

Enhancing member services, increasing productivity and lowering operating costs always rank high on the list of credit union objectives. But as more institutions analyze their business processes in order to better position themselves to make these objectives a reality, many are finding that their workflows are characterized by inefficiencies, waste and redundancies, all of which are undercutting their modernization efforts.

This accumulation of so-called “process debt” is likely the result of patchwork fixes that occurred whenever an issue arose within a business process. While such workarounds might have been convenient and even necessary at the time they were initially applied, they contribute to inefficiencies, inflated costs and a gradual decrease in quality. Just as important, they provide ample evidence that the organization simply lacks a commitment to continuous process improvement.

More often than not, the solution experts recommend to eliminate this buildup of process debt is automation. At first glance, that seems logical. Automation, after all, promises lofty returns on the investment, including increased efficiencies and reduced costs.

Unfortunately, automation could actually make the existing problem worse. This is due, in part, to the inclination of so many organizations to regard automation as a “one and done” technology that can be installed and then forgotten. Just plug it in and let it run, right? Obviously, the answer is no. Periodic checks and regular updates are an absolute necessity to make certain that any technology is functioning as originally intended and costs are kept in check.

Beyond that, some credit unions rushed to automate their processes so that promised returns on their investment could be realized as quickly as possible. For many, this lack of adequate planning led to a failure to optimize processes before automating them or, even worse, automating processes that – due to their high complexity or low utilization – should have never been automated in the first place.

Employee turnover, which has become a burgeoning problem for many credit unions, has also contributed to a marked increase in process debt. When process owners or the employees who built the automations in the first place leave a credit union to take another job, the process knowledge they own often leaves with them. This can lead to their replacements building the same automations (or at least portions of those automations) that are already in place since no one has a full understanding of the institution’s complete automation estate.

The consequences of all of these actions can be staggering for credit unions. Beyond the impact of automating processes that don’t need to be automated or failing to optimize processes before automating them, credit unions can find themselves severely handicapped by their failure to factor maintenance costs into successful criteria, properly evaluate the cost of the automation upfront and align processes to the credit union’s strategic goals.

All of this can leave credit unions with redundancy in as much as 30% of their automated processes, on average. To counteract this accumulation of process debt, organizations first need to get a handle on exactly what processes are currently being used. Only when all processes have been identified and documented will credit unions be in a position to understand exactly what is happening in each process, where redundancies and inefficiencies are, and whether automation or some other fix will be most effective in removing process debt.

Throughout this initiative, it is important for credit unions to remember that automation is typically warranted in only about a quarter of all process improvement. Given that, quantifying the value of a process before determining the best process improvement strategy to pursue is an absolute necessity. So if, for example, automation will decrease execution time on a specific process by a high percentage but there are only a handful of inputs to that process per day, automation is unlikely to produce a sufficient return on the investment since the output will be unchanged regardless of whether it is executed manually or by a bot.

Credit unions increasingly are turning to value mapping assessment tools in order to analyze process value. When properly executed, value mapping can enable an organization to determine exactly what automated processes are in its portfolio, where hidden and structural deficiencies exist in the current automation design, and what options are available with respect to those processes. Options typically include optimizing existing automated processes, reusing process components, re-platforming automations to another RPA tool (which could help in lowering operational costs and/or enabling scale), or retiring redundant processes that are difficult to maintain or deliver marginal value at best.

Value mapping can also be employed to identify redundancies in individual processes resulting from indiscriminately copying automation components. This has become an especially common practice for organizations using the Automation Anywhere platform for design, deployment and orchestration of robotic process automation.

Similarly, a value mapping assessment can be applied to analyze MetaBot usage and efficiency across a credit union’s entire automation estate. Doing so can potentially reveal opportunities for reuse. Orphaned processes or process components across the automation estate can also be identified via value mapping.

The bottom line is, numerous credit unions are experiencing pain points with their automation initiatives. In many of these cases, they don’t even know what automated processes they are using. And if they don’t know what they have, they can’t know where there is redundancy and waste in their automation portfolios – all of which inflates automation’s cost of ownership. Only when credit unions take the necessary steps to determine where their process debt exists will they be able to increase returns, make better decisions and be more effective, all of which will ultimately benefit their members.

Irina Lunin is the Vice President of Research & Development at Blueprint Software Systems, a provider of digital process design and management solutions based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.