What is our primary use case?
Currently, we're using Studio and soon to be using Orchestrator. We have not actually deployed any bots yet, but we have looked into both Orchestrator and bots. We have just looked at the solution set of that on why do we need to deploy in the future.
Our primary use will vary from department to department. We have what we call 11 global practices. These range across different platforms, but the underlying theme of that is we want to automate different items which might be finance or accounting or HR or whatever. But where I think it will be most useful is in our core business where I'm looking to apply it to engineering project management.
What is most valuable?
The most valuable feature for us has been the ability to take data out of where we have it — Excel sheets or wherever it may be — and translate it into customer-owned Citrix environments. Our primary core is engineering. A lot of our business requires us to take data what we have developed as part of the design process and relay that into work orders or other process triggers, ordering triggers, or material ordering, or different things for our clients. Allowing us to interface local data with Citrix environments is going to be a big deal.
What needs improvement?
I'm not exactly sure what I want to see enhanced yet. I know that we do a lot of small processes. Depending on how good Studio X is and how easy that is to build and manage we could potentially do a lot of small little things inside of various design tools like Excel, Word, and Outlook and to be able to kick out the workflows from that.
We like to do a lot of the design side locally for Excel, whether that be in a BBA or an add-in type environment. Being able to manage and deploy or build those will be helpful. Maybe we won't call them bots, maybe we call them processes that are centrally managed. In addition to the Microsoft stack, we use many other vendors like AutoCAD, Bentley MicroStation, Revit Inventor, BIM 360 and Autodesk Forge. To us, the CAD world is where we can see a lot of time savings and benefit ROI on a solution. That would be our next horizon.
I think this solution has room for improvement in the area of ease-of-use. It does require a little bit of coding background to be able to get in and really build out the solution. After I get in and look at Studio X a little more, I may change my opinion on that.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
We have six people working in the organization involved in our automation program. We are pretty confident that can scale easily.
What other advice do I have?
Since we have not deployed to production yet, we are not sure which direction we'll be going in. We were looking on-premises but the software as a service cloud deployment will likely be a hit with our IT department. We plan to run our automation in virtual environments through a Citrix interface but not in Citrix.
On a scale from one to five where one is very difficult and five is very easy, I would rate the ease of the use of the platform as a three or four for now. I saw some things today I'd like to dig into a little farther, and I think that that Studio X would make it a whole lot easier for citizen developers to get in and do small tasks. Rebuilding tasks for accounting and finance where there are fairly rigid rules will be great. In the engineering world, our interfacing with the clients sometimes changes on a weekly basis. So having something that is very flexible like Studio X will make it possible to flex and change with those environments very quickly, very easily, very nimbly, and to deploy and redeploy. So if Studio X is what I hope it is, that rating may be closer to a five than not.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
Start Your UiPath Free Trial
Accelerate your digital transformation now with free access to the UiPath Platform