Automation routines MUST be robust, must handle all weird cases that happen frequently (at least once a year), and must notify when they fail to do so always. Then you should come back and see how to not make them fail even then.
It's easy to spend upward of $10000 on really robust automation, when the same manual process would cost only $3000 over its usable lifetime, and the economical-but-less-robust automation costs $1000 over the same period.
The robust automation, in that case, has over 10× worse ROI. What's wrong with that calculation?
The thing about really robust automation is that for it to pay off, the process have to be static over a large number of executions. For many business needs, the process, or its inputs, change every few executions, and you never get to reap the benefits of robust automation before it needs to be redone at great expense.
As for thinking that it's a dichotomy between "no automation" and "absolutely robust automation"... well, I think you're robbing yourself of a large chunk of the strategy space by refusing to see any middle ground but the two extremes.
Edit: also note that I'm not talking about "failed scripts" at any point. I'm talking about scripts that do exactly what they are supposed to, but they are performing a narrow, easily automated slice of the work. A human can chain such scripts together in the requisite sequence by spending very few minutes of their day.
> It's easy to spend upward of $10000 on really robust automation, when the same manual process would cost only $3000 over its usable lifetime.
Manual process is incomparable to automation, because $3k human will make mistakes as humans are not good robots. Also, your miserable $3k human can now do normal thing.
> The thing about really robust automation is that for it to pay off, the process have to be static over a large number of executions.
It doesn't have to be static, it just mustn't be random. Also, how often process changes is important and automation with scripts (that can be changed ad hoc) allows for quick flexibility when problems arise.
> As for thinking that it's a dichotomy between "no automation" and "absolutely robust automation"... well, I think you're robbing yourself of a large chunk of the strategy space by refusing to see any middle ground but the two extremes.
You are also robbing yourself of time to do other things which may lead to more progress, since you are fixing flaky automation all the time.
> A human can chain such scripts together in the requisite sequence by spending very few minutes of their day.
I LOLed. A minute for a single script. You must have missed that in enterprise there are hundreds of scripts. Heck, I usually have 20-30 on a single project.
It sounds like you think robust automation takes zero minutes to create, since you think of robust automation as always freeing up time. In my experience, robust automation is something that takes considerable time to create and maintain.
Maybe you know of some trick I don't. But since you keep writing about "failing scripts" and "flaky automation" despite my attempts to correct such misunderstandings, I'm starting to suspect you're interpreting my comments as what you want them to say for the sake of your argument, rather than what I'm trying to say.
I have never experienced that someone wants to keep human if machine could be put to use. No, humans do not prevent mistakes for highly unimaginative repetitive work. Even if it happens, its outlier.
> It sounds like you think robust automation takes zero minutes to create, since you think of robust automation as always freeing up time. In my experience, robust automation is something that takes considerable time to create and maintain.
It takes, and it gets MUCH better with experience. However, the time is finite, unlike that with human corrections.
> Maybe you know of some trick I don't.
Probably - I know how to write robust and resilient automation scripts that over time converge to almost 0 failures.
Let’s say I have a crawler which automates some data gathering. It’s sources keep changing frequently, robust automation here is probably a research project and simple automation is orders of magnitude more bang for buck.
Here is the exact case you mention, just WAY worst. This is something I did for chocolatey community:
https://gist.github.com/choco-bot/a14b1e5bfaf70839b338eb1ab7...
This page is report of the PowerShell framework I developed mostly in first year of development (https://github.com/majkinetor/au) that checks ~250 web sites for updates on various software. Today it has 6 errors and usually never much more. On my own location I keep ~60 packages and I I tackle errors maybe once a year. Stuff just work, and you rarely have to visit, otherwise I would be involved entire day into this and I am not, while those packages have many millions of users.
Now I spend almost 0 time maintaining packages and I am one of the top choco package owners.
Check out the options used, some of which make it so robust:
https://github.com/chocolatey-community/chocolatey-packages/...
> It’s sources keep changing frequently, robust automation here is probably a research project and simple automation is orders of magnitude more bang for buck.
Even if the source changes frequently its better to automate. Its not when it keeps changing daily or more then that. By automating you learn something new, so it pays more for your experience. Manually working every day the same thing (that may move around) doesn't involve complex thinking and is just waste of time.
