We use attended and unattended bots, Orchestrator, and Studio for development.
We're seeing increasing adoption of Studio because more people see how easy and straightforward it is to use a lot of the features. It helps that UiPath training is free. Our entire team, including our salespeople, have gone through the training. It's free and it makes a big difference. For the salespeople, they're able to talk more intelligently about RPA.
On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five, for sure. In fact, I have taken a lot of ideas from their training to educate my customers about RPA. When it comes to RPA, a lot of it is education because some of them don't know exactly how automation can be done. I've told UiPath that I use their training in my presentation, and it is great.
We are working with a technology company called Rammer, Rammer.ai. What the Rammer software does is listen to conversations to learn the details of what is being discussed. A third-party system is used to transcribe the conversation into text, then Rammer will learn the details without much training. It knows the topics, it understands what is talked about the most, talked about the least, how much we are adhering to the script if it's a call center use case, or if it is a simple meeting use case then it knows who is assigned what tasks, it recognizes the follow-ups, and it knows the summary of the discussion. All of this is summarized in a nice, consumable manner. So now, when a bot knows all of this information, it goes into Orchestrator, logs all these activities that are picked up by unattended bots downstream, and they trigger all those processes back. So it's a massive consumption of all of those heavy use cases.
We have not yet run automations in a virtual environment, although we do have customers who are asking for it. We are not sure if we will need UiPath's help for this yet because we haven't tried it.
With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate it a five. Really, it depends on how clearly we understand the requirements. So a lot of times we are able to find process gaps, which wasn't the case earlier before we started thinking about automation in this manner. I would say the ease of use is actually dependent on some of those factors as well.
Usually, starting is the biggest challenge for most people, and I think this is because it is in a trial environment and there is a lack of documentation, with multiple people doing one part of a small subset of a task. There are these challenges and then if none of them are documented, you need to figure out the process flow. From person one, where does it go? This can change when people can do multiple things.
It becomes a very complex web to understand and navigate through. We need to understand the task and how it should be performed. For developing the robot, it's very important to have the clarity upfront, otherwise, we cannot code them. That is the biggest challenge, I feel.
From the point that a UiPath license is purchased until the first bot is ready is almost immediate. This is because we usually start with a PoC on a small scale, just to see if automation with this approach makes sense. By the end of the PoC, we'll normally know exactly how many bots are needed. Sometimes it is on us, more than the customer when we cannot estimate every process that is outside of the departments and division that we work with because we just work at finance. For example, we can't just estimate what marketing would use, and so on. That will sometimes delay things.