The Enterprise Evaluation Dilemma

Imagine that across a team of five employees there are five types of work. Each type requires 20% of the employees' time (or 8 hours a week). This scenario will serve as the basis for the remainder of the article to evaluate contingencies that may be missed in decision-making in the interest of increasing efficiency within an enterprise.

Consider that if 100% capacity is expected to be created through automation (20% is 8 hours * 5 is 40 hours), then it appears that the time freed for the remaining employees (light green 20% row) could be used to complete Ernesto's remaining work (dark green 20% column). One might even go so far as to implement automation, confirm the savings, and promptly provide Ernesto with a layoff letter based on this hypothesis.

Sounds great right?

Maybe... but there's a catch...

Consider if the entire team was already operating at 10% of overtime per week (10% of 40 hours, or 4 hours per individual). This little fact wasn't factored in before letting Ernesto go, but he's gone and anxiously figuring out where he can apply next.

In the real world, one might expect that overtime was factored in proactively but things don't always pan out like they do in textbook decision-making. In some cases it may even be decided that a team in this scenario wouldn't mind the additional pay if overtime is needed. A company might even consider that the overtime pay would remain the same but it would be able to reduce the cost of employing Ernesto - at which point 'employing a robot' is alluring and appears to be a better proposition than retaining a person.

What the previous perspective doesn't account for...

The individuals that were stretched thin to begin with now have to work more challenging activities (the dark green activities from Ernesto). Additionally, the four-person team must work one more hour of overtime per week (to collectively account for Ernesto's prior overtime).

The human implication of this scenario isn't great — especially for a team that was taking a half hour lunch instead of a full hour. Maybe that team was skipping lunch altogether to meet their workload. This is an hour that belongs to them and might have allowed the individuals to hit the gym, get lunch with a friend, or simply decompress. With Ernesto's layoff, each remaining team member will be required to put in an additional hour per week (which could very likely be on a Friday evening to catch up from constantly being behind).

If the remaining team experiences an event that pushes them to the limit (such as an incident) it wouldn't be a surprise for the company to receive a resignation notice.

In the scenario of a voluntary departure on a team of four, taking on the workload of 46 hours per week would require the remaining three teammates to work an additional three hours per day. The manager that was involved in the layoff of the first employee may even find themselves picking up the workload during their own lunch or evenings. This would further erode the manager's ability to support their team and improve quality on the variable processes that have a higher propensity for errors.

The reality is that it would have been more beneficial to upskill one of the employees, or confirm if one would like to work part-time, as a result of the automation than simply laying an individual off.

Another alternative would have been giving team members the responsibility of working on other tasks that add value to the business after automation frees time up for this - but they'd still be available if an incident occurred with the RPA process or if someone left the company and picking up additional work was required.

For argument's sake, suppose that it was possible to shift the work of five employees in this example to just four (while mitigating or avoiding all direct negative ramifications). If management is successful in this endeavor and an employee is laid off on a team of individuals that have each been there for longer than three years, that'll still have indirect consequences for future automation projects. Think about the message it sends.

The chances of putting future automation at risk are greatest when the Enterprise Evaluation Dilemma isn't properly accounted for. One benefit could undo the hard work of an entire year's worth of effort — just through an impromptu knee-jerk reaction to save direct dollars regardless of the indirect outcomes.

Proper accounting requires a balanced perspective that keeps the employees in mind, as well as the business's effectiveness (doing what's desired), efficiency (producing more with less), and ethics (treating workers like stakeholders and not mere cogs that fill employment seats).

The Conclusion

If the fifth employee in the case discussed were to leave by choice, then there may be no need to rehire (as everyone else has been cross-trained and they're able to comfortably handle the workload that they've taken on). Enough time would have also passed to know whether operating with four people became possible or whether a replacement would still be optimal. In this way, automation could enable the long-term transformation of the company rather than a means to potentially over-steer in the short-term at the cost of downstream ramifications.

Realistically, an automation can break in a couple of hours, days, weeks, or months after it is implemented. Vendor changes made for security or licensing purposes can cause such a breakage that can last anywhere from days to weeks.

Anything could happen, and in a worst case scenario, having a reduced team without having contingencies in place could be detrimental to the business.

Taking the approach of not laying anyone off would establish trust within the company and guarantee that future automation opportunity identification would remain transparent between teammates and leadership.

Granted, this is a scenario with a limited view for illustrating the multi-faceted approach of decision-making that is required for a successful automation program. The perspectives in this scenario have been shared so that decision makers can remember the implications and weigh all the options before making a critical decision. In light of RPA vendors' pitch, it's important to factor the success of the busines sin the long-term over the intent of vendors' selling more licenses in the short-term.

The term 'Robotic Process Automation' is used due to its popularity in the industry. Process automation is a clearer term that'll ideally replace 'RPA.'