By Charlie Hart, USMC MAJ (RET.)
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) programs are growing throughout the Department of Defense (DoD) with varied levels of success since their inception over three years ago. To-date, they have served to automate processes that reduce man hours and create more efficiency, allowing federal government workers to shift efforts to more critical work. By speeding up thousands of functions, RPA has enabled faster decision-making, which positively impacts federal employees and U.S. citizens. To accelerate RPA success within DoD, one critical point must be brought into focus: Trust.
Trust not only in whether the software is going to do what the design document and code say they are going to do or whether the program has the appropriate governance model and auditable. But the trust that is most concerning, surprisingly enough, is organizational and HUMAN. This is ironic but not completely surprising, given the fact that RPA’s purpose is replacing human actions.
There are two perspectives that could limit or slow successful DoD enterprise RPA implementations, one at the micro level and one at the macro level.
Micro level approach (Tactical)
Starting at the micro level with the tactical HUMAN approach: RPA Contractor vs Federal Employee. Currently, federal automation programs are heavily reliant on contractor support. According to GSA’s 2021 annual review of federal RPA programs, 72% of RPA developers and 62% of all RPA business analysts are contractors (The State of Federal RPA, An Update on the Governmentwide Impact, Deployment, and Best Practices of RPA, 29 DEC 2021). This presents a unique trust dilemma since contractors 1) are, by design, temporary, 2) do not own what they develop, and 3) implement automations that will likely require maintenance and change management over time (which require additional contracting actions from the government).
Contractor-driven automation usually comes with recommended low and no-code Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) software that is not organic to the federal workforce’s toolbox. These “tools” require licenses both for the automation itself and for the developer to create the code that runs the automation. With every license comes licensing costs. “Another contractor peddling another expensive program” does not improve an already lopsided trust equation. Using software that federal employees are not familiar with and cannot adjust or modify without contractor support–is problematic. And they require special licensing and acquisition costs. Not exactly a trust-building scenario.
There is another, better way to implement an RPA program at the tactical level that not only cultivates trust between contractor and federal employee but also empowers and educates while assisting with change management for the organization:
- Implementation should focus on empowering the federal employee, the process owner, and the subject matter expert getting the job done today. It’s not just about codifying steps within the process. Its collaborating and educating each other along the way.
- Solution/Tools should be agnostic–let the problem determine the solution. If one only has a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
- Solutioning should prioritize, to the greatest extent possible, the very tools the federal counterpart is familiar with and has available on their desktop. Not all automations require COTS solutions. Desktop automation can often be the bridge a counterpart needs to support a more complex automation solution.
- Every solution should be NON-PROPRIETARY, meaning the design and code, once complete, belongs to the government and is documented to the extent it can be replicated, modified, or scaled without needing the Rosetta Stone. Let the successful bot be the driver of business development, not a lemon that constantly needs repair.
Macro Level (Strategic)
The other perspective is the macro level view. Looking solely at an Enterprise’s top-down implementation focus results in trust challenges.
Headquarters vs The Field: There’s a lot to unpack here, but funding is a critical place to start. The closer one is to the flagpole, or the “five-sided building”, the more likely they are to secure funding for RPA contract support. This does not refer to the seed dollars required to establish an agency RPA program (policies, governance, and program oversight); rather, it refers to the dollars that go to the RPA developers/business analyst contractors building the bots. Field commands have tight budgets. And despite the never-ending stream of unfunded mandates and reporting requirements, all of which could be supported by automation, these field commands are the least likely to receive automation support dollars. Next, in looking at the Return on Investment (ROI), it’s important to understand what is done with those funds. Not long ago, Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) programs were established within all Departments and Federal agencies. Enterprise reporting tools were implemented to track the benefits and cost savings derived from successful projects. What was this data used for? Budget marks—-if a department saved money, they were likely to lose the reported savings or even worse, their budget was cut up front and they were expected to find the savings with the cost cutting ninja tools CPI black belt training provided. Recent history did not cultivate trust in reporting ROI or sharing information from the field.
As a result, departments only investing in the top-down RPA implementation models are missing significant opportunities for innovation and workforce buy in. These represent critical gaps in building the trust necessary to realize true program success and maximize ROI. Investment in a balanced top-down/bottom-up approach empowers federal employees at every level of command and establishes organizational trust and automation awareness throughout the enterprise. Recommendations for a balanced implementation strategy include:
- Invest in Communities of Practice and RPA contract support at multiple levels of command
- Simplify the acquisition, maintenance, and access to the software/licensing by centrally procuring, managing, and issuing licenses
- Create an ROI program focused on celebrating command efficiency and effectiveness, without risk of losing resources
At Significance, we are investing in building our RPA capabilities that will allow our clients to own and continue to optimize their processes to limit the dependency on us. We prioritize building trust as part of the way we do business, and much of that is focusing on solutions that help our clients—not us. By doing so, we build long-term relationships that create value for everyone.
*A government report on the progress of RPA provides valuable background to this program. (link to open PDF)