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.
But then reality hits.
What looked like a three-week project turns into six months of discovery, scope creep, and “just one more stakeholder.” You launch… and no one uses it. Or worse: they use it wrong.
Let’s be clear: the problem usually isn’t the tech. It’s everything that happens, or doesn’t, around it.
Automation doesn’t stall because you picked the wrong tool. It stalls because the humans in the loop got ignored, misaligned, or bypassed entirely.
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
- 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
- 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.
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. 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
- Tooling decisions made in a vacuum without user feedback
Automation isn’t magic. It’s a system. And systems break when humans aren’t in sync.
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.
They start with alignment. Who owns what? What does “done” look like? Where do approvals happen? What happens when something breaks? Then, they validate quickly. Pilot with real users. Iterate with feedback. Keep the scope narrow until the foundation is solid.
Here’s what working automation looks like:
- Stakeholders agree on the goal, scope, and success metrics
- Humans are intentionally included at key decision points
- Business teams feel ownership, not just involvement
- The process is flexible enough to evolve as needs shift
- IT isn’t babysitting every escalation or exception
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.
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.
So the next time an automation project stalls, don’t just debug the tech. Debug the people.
That’s where the real work begins.