A rule‐based method to effectively adopt robotic process automation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is an emerging software technology for automating business processes. RPA uses software robots to perform repetitive and error‐prone tasks previously done by human actors quickly and accurately. These robots mimic humans by interacting with existing software applications through user interfaces (UI). The goal of RPA is to relieve employees from repetitive and tedious tasks to increase productivity and to provide better service quality. Yet, despite all the RPA benefits, most organizations fail to adopt RPA. One of the main reasons for the lack of adoption is that organizations are unable to effectively identify the processes that are suitable for RPA. This paper proposes a new method, called Rule‐based robotic process analysis (RRPA), that assists process automation practitioners to classify business processes according to their suitability for RPA. The RRPA method computes a suitability score for RPA using a combination of two RPA goals: (i) the RPA feasibility, which assesses the extent to which the process or the activity lends itself to automation with RPA and (ii) the RPA relevance, which assesses whether the RPA automation is worthwhile. We tested the RRPA method on a set of 13 processes. The results showed that the method is effective at 82.05% and efficient at 76.19%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".