RPA Governance: When, How, Why...

If you closely look at Robotics Process Automation and listen what people talk about “robotization of processes”. You will find that everybody agrees that RPA can be realized in any of the chosen operating model- centralized, decentralized or hybrid manner. And it is critical that there is a well-defined governance overseeing the development and operation of BOT's. This governance will provide assurance of the quality of that automation, minimizing risk and avoiding rework. 

But if you go few steps back and relook at this Governance, you will find that we all talk very high about this governance, and surprisingly it is there in the system from decades but is one of the most undervalued modules of running an RPA business model. This is considered as unnecessary overhead cost. Someone said very rightly that this module is treated a bit like toilet paper in a public toilet; no one wants to pay for it but feels that it better be there when you need it.

If you look closely at RPA; you will find it very strange that almost everyone wants to get their hands on this hot technology is a governance platform in itself. In Fact, governance is the primary value proposition of RPA, and go forward will become the primary value proposition of all the platforms as businesses expand their digital workforce. This is a mixture of old and new technologies, applying a modern, robust governance platform to a combination of established, and perhaps even outdated, technologies. These old technologies exist in most organizations, and their use is scattered, random and uncontrolled and are almost never documented. If the person or persons who wrote them leaves suddenly, those scripts, programs, platforms etc. become feral and unmanaged. 

The real value proposition of RPA is to put a layer of control over all these free-range tools & technologies, so that their use is more transparent. Additionally, RPA allows these point solutions to be supported with a centralized set of processing resources, improving efficiency and effectiveness. 

Nearly everyone agrees that BOT's require centralized control, and that is how Center of Excellence, the holy treasure of RPA comes into picture but unfortunately few people seem able to articulate how or why. There is a significant threat that comes from starting a CoE too early in RPA adoption. The level of governance that is required to manage few hundred BOT's inevitably appears to be emotional, unnecessary, and expensive when you only have few BOT's in place. RPA governance is often viewed as an unnecessary cost, and RPA is all about cutting costs.  

There is a perception that BOT governance is another example of IT over-complicating thing. The business wants quick financial wins through BOT's, rather than more meetings and discussions. The more time spent in a governance meeting, the more the ROI of automation is eroded. It is true that when there is only a few BOT’s running in an organization there is little need for coordination or oversight. But increase the numbers of BOT's (processes) and Robots (instances performing the work) you will likely find your BOT's, and their owners, stepping on each other’s toes with growing frequency. 

Part of making governance scalable is to adopt it early in the automation. However, as said above, the level of governance you need for first few BOT's is entirely different from that which you will need when you have over a dozen BOT's. Starting simple and small, while being open to upgrading your governance later, is the key to success. To get past this few BOT's to few dozen BOT's concept, organizations have to deliberately choose to fund their few early BOT's, and the necessary governance model to support them. What is true about some of the companies who succeed with RPA at scale is that they adequately funded their initiatives to get past the concept of few dozen BOT's. With appropriate governance in place, they find that their second phase of BOT development, deployment & management was far easier to support, and generate far better financial returns, than their first few BOT's. And the business benefits continue to grow as the BOT workforce grows. 

The key to properly adopting governance is to have it before you need it, but only just. The more we rely upon automation working, the worse the consequences when it inevitably doesn’t. But the more governance we apply too early, the harder we make it to reach and pass through the concept of few dozen BOT's, and the more likely it is that organizations will talk itself out of investing in RPA just before it’s about to achieve success.  

Most governance frameworks and CoE charters focus on how projects are selected, the various approval processes and stakeholders to be consulted with, and so on. These things are critical to governance at scale, but they are largely irrelevant, and counter-productive, below the concept of at least a dozen BOT's. The most important governance factors, by far, with few BOT's are how you intend to pay for them, and how you allocate your support costs across them. This will directly impact whether these first few BOT's are perceived to be financially successful by the business. If they’re not, you won’t need more rigorous governance in any event.

---------------------------
---------------