The Life of RPA

Some throw away comments in a very stimulating discussion with automation vendor OpenSpan reminded me of a scene from Monty Python’s irreverent movie “Life of Brian.” The scene is when the Pythons are being crucified, and one of the guards asks which one of them is Brian. Everyone then proceeds to say that “I am Brian” mocking the movie “Spartacus” when everyone claims to be Spartacus to save his life. Not that RPA vendors are pretending to save lives or being comic geniuses, but a recurring theme in our discussions with automation vendors is that many point to the fact that they are the true innovators and are pushing the boundaries of process automation and are the leaders of Robotic Process Automation (RPA) in particular. By implication that suggests that other vendors (even though they might get more headlines) are not being invited to the RFPs that they are. Yet more and more these vendors are positioning themselves under the moniker “RPA,” and OpenSpan is the latest example. What this all boils down to is a lack of a clear segmentation or demarcation of the various approaches to automation in the market today.

OpenSpan is joined by Ayehu and NICE in expanding from desktop automation to a broader automation approach that is referenced by using the moniker RPA.

While the extension from adjacent segments such as desktop automation to RPA is hardly surprising, it is all the more surprising that the juggernauts of traditional IT automation such as CA or BMC have not entered the discussions on RPA or Autonomics yet. In all likelihood, the reason for that is similar to why large service providers remain so coy on the topic: RPA runs the risk of margin dilution and therefore, the impact on revenue models has to be analyzed carefully before plunging in.

A clearer segmentation of the various approaches to process automation would go a long way in providing more clarity to use cases as well as the differences or commonalities of what gets discussed in the wider context of RPA. Even though we at HfS put a lot of effort in helping to provide more clarity on these approaches and we continue to work on enhancing our maturity model for RPA until the large service providers and mega ISVs start to educate the market on the topic, a level of market confusion will remain.

OpenSpan is good example of one of the different approaches being taken in process automation.. The company is expanding its strong position in front office use cases for desktop automation. By building out analytics capabilities OpenSpan is also finding increasing traction in back-office use cases where it can perform workflow, business process as well as productivity analysis. Within the context of desktop automation for large customers such as banks, OpenSpan is being deployed on a multitude of desktops across the entire IT estate. Conversely, vendors like Blue Prism or Deskover have taken a different approach by automating very specific use cases around capturing, scheduling and executing processes in the back office. Their product roadmaps look to build out analytics and cognitive computing capabilities to broaden their traction in the enterprise. As we have stated repeatedly capabilities in Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Computing will be the key battle lines for scaling out RPA and Autonomics. Thus the market is clearly maturing, but until the IT heavyweights start to educate the market, we will continue to hear the shout “I am RPA” but we will still be confused about who really is Brian.