How RPA is Different from Scripting and Macros - Chazey Partners

How RPA is Different from Scripting and Macros

Please introduce youself briefly


to download the article

By submitting this form you are agreeing to be
bound by our legal terms and conditions, and our
privacy policy.

How RPA is Different from Scripting and Macros

23rd April 2019

When asked if RPA can be likened to macros and scripts, replying “yes” is actually too simplistic an answer, and understates the significant additional value and potential from RPA vs “traditional” technology solutions, such as macros, scripts and similar technologies.

Before RPA, similar automations were implemented via scripts and macros. However, one was extremely limited to what was possible to achieve.  These scripts were working relatively well when interacting with a single app (think Selenium for web automation), but when it comes to interacting within multiple applications, things tend to get a lot more complicated.

Another major difference is that RPA is autonomous of the application. Where you might need multiple scripting tools to create scripts to perform in your various applications, RPA can interact with multiple applications at once at the object layer. It can be applied to virtually any application, and multiple applications at a time.  Indeed, RPA’s root value driver is that the technology allows the user to interact with any type of application whether it is web, windows classic, wpf, Java, PDF, Citrix.  One could try to replicate scripts and while that might work for one or two types, things get very complicated as you try to add more functionality to the mix. If you were to write an automation from zero, one might be able to write a Proof of Concept but scaling it to production code could take 10’s if not 100’s of times more work in treating all the exceptions and edge cases. Then, when you think you are done, an application update will hit, and you have to re-start.

Then there are the orchestration capabilities. UiPath has invested in this for the last several years and reached the point where they now have a mature product in this space. Scheduling robots, making sure that they handle assets (like windows credentials) securely, having reliable queuing mechanisms are just a few of the capabilities offered.

The current and near-term future capabilities of RPA vastly exceed those of scripting, macros, etc. “Bots” can be created by trained SMEs in the business, using smart process recorders and drag and drop functionality. Most code is produced in the background, removing the need to involve IT in configuring most automations. Whereas IT needs to partner with the business when implementing RPA and be aware of steps to utilize RPA to automate business processes, RPA tools are designed to be built and maintained by the same operators that perform these processes today.

Macros and scripts are programming, with short sequences of code written to perform a single task, or a series of tasks. While a macro or script is linear and fixed, RPA robots are dynamic. They can “learn” and respond to stimuli, accumulating knowledge of procedures over time – thereby getting “smarter.”

Further, leading RPA tools include functionality that goes beyond the capability of scripts and macros, such as optical character recognition (OCR) and the ability to include artificial intelligence. These tools have built in access to functionality through Google Cloud such as Cloud Vision, Cloud Translation and Cloud Natural Language. We believe that RPA is a foundation with the capability for organizations to master and then build upon, adding cognitive and AI capabilities.  This is not possible with macros and scripts.

Finally, some RPA tools also come with a “Studio”, which is effectively a process development environment. When using scripts and macros you need developers to create and maintain these automations. This RPA ‘Studio’ takes this to a whole new level, where you can have business users (that have a good understanding of the processes they are automating and limited programming knowledge) now automate those processes.

Attended versus Unattended Automation

In addition to this, there is the potential for unattended automation. Having robots that can start jobs on computers where no-one is logged-in within a secure environment is not an easy job. And doing this in a reliable form when you have thousands of jobs that need to start at precise times of the day makes these things quite complicated.

Attended automation is useful when the entire end-to-end process is not capable of being automated. Attended bots can work alongside humans, triggered by system-level events that can give and take data to and from human workers. Attended robots optimize tasks by offloading portions of them, helping work get done faster. For example, a call center agent can get help from an attended robot in near real time during a live customer call. The attended robot can find customer data from one application and automatically type it into a second application. This way, the call center agent spends less time switching between applications and can focus on high-value tasks such as solving the customer’s problem. Attended robots tend to be dedicated to one individual or one machine, and typically “work” while the employee is working.

Unattended automation executes tasks and interact with applications independent of human involvement. Unattended robots can be triggered by events and they can be scheduled. Unattended robots typically perform batch operations that do not require user intervention. For example, a batch of new client information is received in a spreadsheet and needs to be entered on multiple applications. Unattended robots can be shared across many employees and can “work” 24 x 7 x 365.

 

Phil Searle

CEO & Founder

About the Author

Related Content

Our Experience. Your Success

Contact Us