100% Process Automation: A Bold Claim?

Hello there!

We, VersionX as a company, say that we do 100% process automation. That’s a bold claim that we make. But what does it really mean? Let’s begin with the basics.

When companies say they do, or claim to do, process automation, they’re essentially saying that their software or solution completes entire processes without manual intervention.

So, in the case of VersionX, are we claiming that we eliminate all human involvement in physical operations and processes? No, not really.

There are many ways of looking at it. Let’s break it down for a closer understanding. I found an interesting angle and I try to put it into words here.

Let’s begin from a common English word—exception. We all know what it means: someone or something that is not included in a rule, group, or list or that does not behave in the expected way.

In operations, it simply means: anything outside the standard process or workflow.

Examples:

• If a normal workflow is: Request received → Approved → Completed
• An exception could be: Request needs special permission

So instead of following the standard path, something unusual happened: an exception, a non-standard case requiring intervention, alternate routing, or additional decision-making. In this context, 100% automation would mean that every case in the workflow, including both standard cases and exceptions, is handled by the system without human intervention.

So 100% automation doesn’t mean a lack of exception. On the contrary, it means all exceptions are anticipated and system-managed.

Since exceptions are non-standard cases, would 100% automation then mean, shall we say, our systems can handle exceptions “exceptionally” well?

So, 100% automation is not about automation ONLY in the case of clean, straightforward workflows—this is the easy part and most companies and solutions can handle this.

The more important question is: can they handle exceptions?

This leads me to another angle: anyone who’s building a system that is capable of handling exceptions must also be knowledgeable of the exceptions that exist or may show up in the future. That’s where one’s subject/field/domain expertise helps. (In the case of VersionX, we deal with exceptions in physical operations and business processes. If you don't understand physical operations, you can't build a system that manages them, leave alone exceptions.)

Even then, despite all the subject matter knowledge that goes into building a system, most hit a limit exactly when exceptions show up.

And then to claim 100% automation, well that’s bold.

So, what do we mean when we say we do 100% automation? We mean:

• Our systems handle exceptions
• If a process can be automated, we shall do it

It’s not about removing 100% human involvement.

It never will be so, hopefully.