The Real Reason Automation Projects Stall

Automation Should Be the Easy Win — So Why Isn’t It?

You'd think automation would be the low-hanging fruit. The backlog is overflowing, manual tasks are sucking time, and every vendor promises drag-and-drop magic, especially BPM platform vendors who claim "comprehensive automation" and "unified orchestration."

But then reality hits.

What looked like a three-week project turns into six months of discovery, scope creep, and "just one more stakeholder." The BPM vendor brings in professional services. Implementation costs triple. You launch… and no one uses it. Or worse: they use it wrong, working around the rigid workflows that can't handle organizational reality.

Let's be clear: the problem usually isn't the tech. It's everything that happens, or doesn't, around it. And often, it's the BPM platform itself—designed for process perfection on paper, not for the messy reality of how work actually happens.

Automation doesn't stall because you picked the wrong tool. It stalls because the humans in the loop got ignored, misaligned, or bypassed entirely—or because your BPM platform forced rigid workflows that couldn't adapt to how people actually work.

And if you’ve ever watched a “streamlined” workflow get derailed by one VP approving via email because “that’s how I’ve always done it,” you know exactly what we’re talking about.

What a Stalled Automation Project Looks Like

You don’t need a Gantt chart to know when an automation effort is going off the rails. You feel it.

• Discovery calls that go in circles
• Requirements that change mid-sprint, then change again
• BPM consultants extending timelines and expanding scope
• Business teams asking “What does this button do?” six weeks after go-live
• Half-automated processes that now require more manual follow-up than before
• Workflows that break when someone needs an exception the BPM platform can't handle
• Users working around the system because “it’s faster if I just do it myself”
  
  

And maybe the biggest red flag? You're spending more time explaining how the new process works than the time it was supposed to save—or worse, you're paying BPM vendors for every workflow modification because the platform won't let business users adapt processes themselves.

That’s not a tooling issue. That’s a trust issue. A clarity issue. A people issue.

The Real Problem: Automation Without Alignment

Most stalled projects have one thing in common: misalignment. Not just between IT and the business, but between people and purpose.

It starts with noble intent: automate a messy process to save time, reduce risk, or make life easier. But somewhere between the kickoff and go-live, the vision gets fragmented. One team thinks it's about speed. Another thinks it's about compliance. The BPM vendor thinks it's about selling more modules. No one agrees on where the humans are supposed to step in, or when. Ownership gets fuzzy. Decisions get delayed. Momentum dies.

Here’s what misalignment often looks like:

• No shared definition of success
• Unclear workflow ownership across functions
• Human approvals or exceptions not designed into the process
• Conflicting incentives between departments
• BPM platforms that force process redesign around vendor constraints instead of business needs
• Tooling decisions made in a vacuum without user feedback
• Rigid workflows that can't adapt when organizational reality demands flexibility

Automation isn't magic. It's a system. And systems break when humans aren't in sync, or when your BPM platform assumes humans behave like API endpoints: always available, instantly responsive, and perfectly consistent.

Where Successful Projects Do It Differently

There’s no silver bullet, but there is a pattern.

The teams that succeed with automation treat it less like a technical upgrade and more like an organizational behavior shift. They know it's not about removing people, but about designing around how people actually work—with all the exceptions, delays, and judgment calls that traditional BPM platforms can't handle.

They start with alignment. Who owns what? What does "done" look like? Where do approvals happen? What happens when something breaks or requires an exception? Then, they validate quickly. Pilot with real users. Iterate with feedback. Keep the scope narrow until the foundation is solid—instead of committing to 12-month BPM implementations before anyone sees value.

Here’s what working automation looks like:

• Stakeholders agree on the goal, scope, and success metrics
• Humans are intentionally included at key decision points
• Workflows adapt to organizational complexity instead of forcing process re-engineering
• Business teams feel ownership, not just involvement
• Business users can modify workflows when needs change—without calling consultants
• The process is flexible enough to evolve as needs shift
• IT isn’t babysitting every escalation or exception
• Systems orchestrate across your existing platforms instead of forcing consolidation

It’s not glamorous. But it works.

Final Thought: Automation Is a People Strategy

When automation works, it feels invisible. Fluid. Trusted. People stop thinking about the system because the system just works—and adapts when reality demands it. 

But that kind of fluidity doesn't happen by accident. It happens when IT stops trying to automate around people and starts building with them. When stakeholders share ownership. When alignment beats velocity. And when your automation platform is designed for human-in-the-loop orchestration, not rigid process models that assume perfection.

This is what we mean by BPM Reimagined: automation that respects how people actually work, workflows that adapt to organizational reality, and orchestration that puts humans at the center instead of trying to engineer them out.

So the next time an automation project stalls, don't just debug the tech. Debug the people. Debug the process. And ask yourself: is your BPM platform helping or hindering adoption?

That’s where the real work begins.