UiPath Platform Reviews

We use UiPath to automate business processes such as certain types of reporting that have to be repeated on a month-to-month basis. Another example is invoicing processes, which can be automated. Generally, it applies to different business cases for enterprise automation.

An example of how UiPath has improved the organization stems from a cyberattack in 2018. We already had an RPA team and during that cyber attack, all of our systems went down. Our SAP provider cut our access to it, leaving us with a limited number of users. It was not a big enough team to deliver on to our clients all of the orders that were being received.

What we did with UiPath in that crisis scenario in a couple of weeks was that we created a process for order automation. We already had a proof of concept, and we were able to scale it quickly. It was not perfect but rather, done in an emergency situation.

With that couple of users and limited access to SAP, a couple of robot users were capable of working 24 hours, seven days a week, and we started to process all of the orders that were coming from the rest of the company. This is probably something that you could not have done with more classical solutions.

This was, of course, an emergency order automation and it was a topic that we were already working with. Prior to this, it was already a benefit for the company, but the fact that we had this flexibility showcases how powerful this tool is, or what its potential is.

Having the cloud-based version allows us to be at the latest version of UiPath Orchestrator and different products without having to take care of the upgrade process.

UiPath's portal for enabling business users to trigger and monitor jobs is a big deal for me because it's something that we have been trying to do for a long time. We have been asking for it. With the previous solution, which was the orchestration platform alone, it was not a good approach because the business users would have a lot of information on their hands and you have to either split your licenses so that they could not access everything, or create your own web portals for them to access specific parts.

The fact that they now have an intermediate portal where they see only their processes, which they can monitor for themselves without getting too much information that is not relevant for them, is a big deal. Something as simple as triggering your own process, which in the past would require dedicating a full license to, can now be done through the portal. It might be a task like checking emails for customers or creating your own application with their API. It's a huge increment in quality.

The portal can also be used for administrators and although we have the Action Center, we don't use it that often. From the point of view of administrators, I can say that the recent improvements make our life much easier. It also enables us to think of more complex setups. In the past, I would never allow certain configurations because they would either be a security risk or it would just create more problems than solutions. Now with the current interface, especially with what they will be adding in the future in terms of more governance from the platform, they just enable you to do more complex things. It allows you to go a little bit beyond what the normal scope would be.

That applies to the platform as well as the orchestrator in the new modern setup. They have the option to split within the same tenant and different companies, or different company departments. Also, the fact that you can dynamically allocate the licenses so that you don't have to worry or have to split them, brings us to another level.

It offers more granular and role-based access control and management. We now have more complex scenarios that in the past we would not even consider because it would be a problem if someone were able to see something that they should not see.

The fact that this is a SaaS solution is important to us and it is clear to me that they want to push a SaaS solution, more than the on-premises deployment. It means that we have the latest version without having to upgrade the systems. We always have the latest version of the studio, for example, and there's no disruption to our services. Furthermore, we are able to follow all of the previews that they come out with. We can try all of their new products, which is something that in the past, we would not have been able to do. It would have required, for example, upgrading our system twice a year. Certainly, we wouldn't be able to do it at the speed we can now.

Being able to minimize our on-premises deployment is really important. It was almost a given for us because we lost some of our interfaces during the cyberattack. From that point on, the company has had a clear policy of cloud and SaaS as a priority. The fact that we have the opportunity to access all of our services without any requirements from our side suits us very well.

The vendor continues to add services to the portal and we are connected through their insider program. This is something that we are really happy with.

It is helpful for us that new services being added to the portal are all managed from the same place because it simplifies our work, makes it cohesive, and makes sense from a philosophical point of view. Definitely, if they had it on different platforms, it would take away from the ease of management. The fact that they have it in a single place makes everything a little bit more interconnected. What they are doing seems to make sense and for me, it is good because we only have to take care of one single platform. This also speeds up our processes, which is a plus.

On the topic of security, especially coming from a cyber attack, having SOC 2 certification is important because it is a requirement for us. We probably would have tried to find an intermediate or an agreement, but the fact that UiPath is now SOC 2 certified means that we have complied with requirements.

The licensing system is something that needs to be improved. I think that if they are trying to push for a SaaS solution, with respect to the way they license their individual products. The robot licenses and the Studio licenses should be something closer to a pay-per-use, rather than a year-to-year license. Right now, the licensing model and the pricing are the only stoppers for us, in terms of escalating our use. The bottom line is that the licensing system is not as modern as the tool that we're trying to implement.

We have been using the UiPath Automation Cloud since January 2020, and prior to that, we had an on-premises solution from UiPath.

Four to six months ago, this was not the most stable solution. We had a lot of issues, especially during the summer and early autumn. The system would fail, or would not be accessible, or we had lost some of our logs.

Right now, the tool is working and is much more stable. It shows that they have put an effort into making it more robust.

With respect to scalability, the licensing system is the limitation.

The platform itself is scalable, although not infinitely, but to a couple of orders of magnitude of what we have now. However, you still have to go through the procurement processes, which always makes it a little bit more limiting. Ultimately, it means that we cannot utilize the full power of what this tool offers in escalation.

Currently, we have five people who are working on UiPath. There are three developers, I am the technical lead, and we have a manager that operates as a product owner for the projects. The three developers are also responsible for maintenance. We also have a business analyst who works through the documentation and is the point of contact for some of our business.

We have other non-official roles, who are people that know and use the tool or perform business analyst functions, but there are only five people in dedicated roles.

At this point, we are using the tool to the full extent of what our licenses allow us to do. We could scale it to be much bigger but in the current situation, I don't think that we will do so. We negotiated the last contract to be a five-year deal and I hope we can move beyond that, but for now, there's no plan to a scale.

We have mixed reviews for the technical support and depending on the topic, they will answer faster or slower, more personalized or not.

They have a ticketing system and the webpage is normally broken, depending on the browser. The response time may vary from topic to topic, so I don't have a consistent impression of the support system. They do answer our questions, but it is not always within the proper time or with the solution that we were hoping for.

What we are using now is the same thing as the previous product from UiPath, without the cost of having to host it yourself.

I have some experience with other products, but not at the professional level. My impression is that with UiPath, you can get started more quickly when compared to other RPA products. Also, the licensing costs are not as high.

Migrating from our on-premises solution to the cloud was not a typical case because we lost our on-premises deployment during the cyberattack. We had at least a few months without the Orchestration solution. When it comes to execution runtimes, where we run our processes, we used the same machines.

Basically, we had to set things up from scratch on the cloud. The process was pretty straightforward, and the fact that we didn't have to set up the Orchestration tool saved us from a lot of the complexity in the setup process. Normally, this is the complex part, including setting it up with the databases. We just had to connect our runtime with the Orchestration platform, which made it much easier.

With respect to the setup costs, the cloud setup balanced out because you don't pay for the orchestration platform, but you pay a little more for the individual licenses. 

Having this product has reduced the amount of maintenance work related to our automation operations because it is a managed solution. The fact that we don't have to host it ourselves is very important.

With respect to maintenance costs, we are a relatively small project, so I wouldn't say that we had a huge overhead. It would certainly be higher if we tried to do what we are doing now, which is being at the latest version all of the time. To do that, we would have needed somebody in a role who was taking care of it. As it is now, from a development or project management point of view, we can take care of these things without needing an architect involved all of the time.

We chose Automation Cloud because it was, at that point, the most flexible option.

UiPath is known for a certain number of products, and the role of our team is to use all of them. On the topic of the UiPath Cloud, the new products that they have come out with, like the possibility to create your own applications for your internal customers, or host certain data services from the same platform, were things that were not available in the past. These capabilities are useful. In general, all of their products are pretty important for us.

For UiPath as a company, we like the availability that they have and the fact that we can try and test all of their products beforehand, without paying. For a relatively small project such as ours, or even for a big company, it's pretty useful to be able to access this type of information and not be burdened with extra budget requirements.

This is a product that I recommend because the starting point is completely free. That's one of the great points of UiPath. My advice is that when it comes to scaling the project, it's really important to clearly set up goals and expectations. Otherwise, there will be an eternal loop of PoCs and non-viable products.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We have a use case that involves an invoice billing process, where vendors from an external organization submit their details for the invoice. This automation works as expected, independently of anything else. It is also a good example of how we were able to scale RPA benefits in the company with the automation of a specific process that requires human-robot collaboration.

Our internal tools include the database where all of this information is stored, and we have a second automation that is used by the billers in our organization to tally the data that includes details such as what each vendor has submitted to get their payments.

We built a third automation in UiPath, which basically compares these first two. But, due to the complexity and the nature of the tally that has to occur, we require some human input in between certain steps.

For these particular steps, we have developed a four-bot configuration. These are four separate bots that run and a couple of them have an attended automation part, where a human can intervene. It's a verification step, where the human can decide whether or not something is okay. Specifically, the bot compares two fields and if they match, then it's great, but if not, it triggers a request to a human user for manual verification. If they approve then it is marked as a successful verification.

Because we use technologies like OCR, there are details that cannot always be interpreted properly. This is where we need an additional check, which is the reason that we have humans in the loop as part of the process.

We have saved a lot of time by using UiPath. We have also improved a lot in terms of accuracy and reducing errors in a lot of projects. In fact, in one of the projects, we automated the entire job, which involves coaching people on what has to be done end-to-end, by the robots. It was built on UiPath and on this project, we had a savings of more than €100,000 euros. That was a big saving for us, and it's continuing right now.

More importantly, a lot of the clients had complained about the end-user, which is outside of the organization, with respect to the accuracy of the data. There were errors. When we deployed robots based on UiPath, the accuracy has vastly improved and the clients are very happy with the results. They no longer have to keep coming back to our billers and telling them that things were not done properly. The robot functions like it has been programmed every single time. So, it's been perfect for that purpose as well. The customer trusts us more because of our deployments in robots.

UiPath definitely allows employees to delegate mundane tasks to their personal automations, saving them time. A major reason for a lot of our automation cases is because most people are not 100% involved in certain tasks. For example, if you spend two hours on a particular process, and then over the next four or five hours, you're supposed to be working on more complicated processes, but what happens during the first two hours is that things get complicated and the day is ruined dealing with small tasks. Now, suppose that the two-hour allotment for the smaller process is automated using UiPath, the person is free to dedicatedly perform more important functions. In the entirety of our automation effort, this has been a primary driver for all of the new use cases. It's a huge plus for us.

With respect to employee satisfaction, it has been a mixed result for us. In certain cases, it's been a huge boon because there was a heavy workload on the employees and UiPath really helped them cope with it. This was especially true during COVID when the workload increased exponentially, and people could not go into the office. However, there were times in the past when people were no longer required because UiPath was doing their jobs perfectly, making them redundant. As they were no longer required, they left the company.

So, we have had both scenarios, but moving forward, instead of telling people that they're no longer required, we have retasked them to other projects. Essentially, we have reabsorbed them and in turn, have simplified the hiring process. In this regard, we have adjusted.

The new UiPath assistant is very good.

The customizable forms that UiPath has recently launched allow us to give the user an exact input that they can provide. Being able to customize this is extremely helpful for us because we have other attended automation processes, and they can each be tailored to the needs of the business.

We use the selector technology for automating processes with dynamic interfaces on a daily basis in almost all of our projects. Our extensive use of this feature includes all of the different kinds of selectors that UiPath allows. We have the flexibility to modify these selectors as per our need. This functionality gives UiPath a big edge over its competitors and I know this because I've personally used products by other vendors. The selection-making process is much simpler with UiPath, with improved accuracy and reliability.

This feature is important because a lot of the processes are Citrix-based or remote desktop applications. Because the robot would not have a direct connection to the application, we have to use Citrix technology. All of the applications are different in nature, so having the flexibility to switch between different kinds of selectors and select our activities allows us to build the perfect solution for remote applications. Even the performance, in my experience, has been the best, especially for Citrix-based automations or remote desktop-based automations.

There are a few features that could be improved, and one of them is good integration with the Microsoft ecosystem. For example, Microsoft launched Power Apps as its platform, and even though its capabilities are not as good as UiPath, it has the advantage of being so well-integrated with Excel Online, Word, and everything else. We don't have to perform a lot of development work, and it's pre-approved in our organization. Applications like SharePoint are another example of pre-approved solutions. But with UiPath, we have to prove that it's a secure process. Simply put, a stronger collaboration between Microsoft and UiPath in a lot of areas would be helpful because it would ease the development process for us.

Another example is with the Automation Hub. At this time, Automation Hub does not allow you a direct login process or single sign-on option using Azure Active Directory. This means that you're limited to going through either Gmail or something else. This is true for the on-premises solution, not the cloud one. Although we had decided to purchase the Automation Hub license, this lack of functionality held things up because we did not want to manually go in to update all of the new users again and again. We wanted the information to be picked directly from Active Directory whenever a user wanted to sign up for it.

I have been using UiPath Attended Automation for approximately three and a half years.

In the past, stability has been great. However, more recently I have been facing some issues, and I'm hoping for some resolution. For example, we recently upgraded to the new orchestrator in Studio, and we had to upgrade a few packages also, In particular, the UiPath automation packages.

Some of our GUI activities, which are not fully backward compatible, have been facing some issues. Consequently, some of our bots have been impacted. We have already raised the issue and we are in discussion to find a resolution. This was the first time we actually faced an issue in terms of reliability with UiPath.

Our past experience has been very good, and I cannot say that we have any complaints regarding the reliability of UiPath solutions.

Scalability-wise, it is very good. It is easily scalable and we have a lot of options for expanding and configuring as per our requirements. It is also customizable.

We have a team of between 20 and 30 people, which includes approximately 10 developers, 5 team leads, two architects, two production managers, and one overall manager. We have some contractual workers, as well.

We have approximately 35 automations that are in production right now. From a process perspective, we have pretty much worked on all verticals including finance, healthcare, internal IT processes that needed automation, and more. An example is ServiceNow, where jobs like creating user accounts, deploying new machines, and other administrative tasks have also been automated. HR processes, including onboarding, have been automated.

It is a very large organization, and there are lots of processes, so I expect that our usage will grow.

The technical support is excellent in our experience. Whenever we have had a problem, they've always been there to support us and help us with the problem. I don't have any complaints, as they've always made the effort. Even if things have taken longer than we had hoped or expected, they've always come back with the best resolution they can offer.

I have worked with Blue Prism and in my experience, UiPath does a much better job, both in terms of dev and listening to the community. For example, Blue Prism is a very closed community and very limited. They have improved, I would say, based on the success of UiPath, but it's not very open-source or open-natured.

The biggest advantage that I have noticed is with Citrix-based automations or remote desktop automations. There are cases where Blue Prism did not work, but UiPath was very good. I did not have to spend too much time with UiPath before it worked perfectly. The reliability was also great.

More importantly, UiPath listens to the customers as well as the developer community, and in turn, they implement features that make their lives easier. They constantly reach out for feedback and it's a good process because it helps to know that the customer is happy. If I am speaking about myself, I'm happy that if I have a need, or I'm facing some challenges, I put it in the pipeline for UiPath and within six months, I will see that feature live in production.

We started with a disaster recovery scenario, where we have one live production orchestrator, as well as one backup orchestrator and a load balancer installed. This is a high availability disaster recovery (HADR) configuration, where all of our live bots are on the main orchestrator. In the case that the live orchestrator goes down, we have the backup orchestrator kick in.

The overall deployment and installation process was simple. However, we did face some issues with the Redis part. Configuring Redis was one of our pain points, and we reached out to UiPath about it.

Although it was resolved, it took a lot of time and effort, from our end as well. That was the only experience that stood out as a problem for us. But overall, it was a smooth process.

It took about a week to set everything up, although we had constraints from our own internal infrastructure team. The delay was not related to UiPath issues.

The licensing is close to optimum; however, there is room for improvement in both the cost and flexibility of the licenses. It isn't the best pricing in the market but it's pretty close.

For developing our attended automation, we began by coding the bot to our requirements, and then made modifications to it for attended automation.

My advice for anybody who is considering UiPath is to be sure of what your needs are regarding an RPA product. If you're looking for something very small-scale, very easy, then there are a lot of options. But if you're looking for a long-term, feature-rich solution, which has access to third-party integrations, then choose UiPath.

You will require a development team, at least to some level. UiPath is now simpler with the Studio X products, but in the past, it was a bit more challenging to dive deep into UiPath directly. It required some training but now, things have definitely improved.

One of the major lessons that I have learned from using UiPath is to make sure that everything is documented well. There is a lot that needs to be tested before bots are put into production because a lot of things that work on your local machine may not work on another. It can vary from machine to machine and where something works on one, a change in environment for another may cause it to fail. This means that you should change from machine to machine during the testing phase.

Overall, I feel as if now UiPath is on the right path with its competitors. It is a very good long-term solution.

I would rate UiPath a nine out of ten.

We use it with ServiceNow for maintaining tickets. Our task works to automate some scenarios such as software updates. In that scenario, there are some repeated steps. We use UiPath with Python scripting to automate those repetitive steps.

One of our use cases is for our insurance team where we have built a prototype which has helped the insurance team cut pricing. That is one of the automations that has made a difference.

Also, the fact that this is a SaaS solution means we are able to innovate much faster when it comes to automation. We have been able to complete use cases in as little as one month. There can be problems with the on-premises version because there are certain restrictions for accessing that database. But because this is on the cloud, we can access the data from anywhere in the world. That is very beneficial.

UiPath has also helped to reduce the amount of maintenance work related to our automation operations. It has a feature to keep the different automatic tasks monitored. That monitoring helps us if there's any problem in an automation. We get notification that there is a problem. If we don't know about those problems then, after some time, maintenance on them will be harder. It does help us to maintain things.

Before, we were using the on-premises service for our automation activity. By using UiPath Automation Cloud, we don't need to go anywhere. There is a single tool where we can keep track of the maintenance. Doing so with the on-prem solution was much more time consuming and slow. With UiPath it's so much faster so it helps us cut costs.

And in terms of overall cost savings, before we implemented one of our automations there were around 100 people taking care of the task. Using UiPath, we have automated that task and we have saved the fees of 100 people.

The speed is much better because we're doing it on the cloud. With other solutions there were network problems, but in UiPath I have found that network connectivity is much stronger when transferring data from the back end to the front end. It is much faster.

The Portal for enabling business users to trigger jobs with business input and for monitoring those jobs is great.

There is also the granular, role-based access control and management which is very important in our organization because we have different roles. Our manager has a much higher role, so that if there are some changes in an automated step, there are permissions from that higher authority. Otherwise, low-level employees could make changes without informing the higher levels and there could be a lot of conflicts. This way, we don't allow the lower-level employee to make any changes without proper permission from the higher authority.

The solution's single sign-on is also important because without it, a user ID and password could be compromised by a third-party or hacker. Single sign-on gives us another level of security when logging in to UiPath. It's very important and a good security feature.

UiPath also continues to add services to the Portal. There are proper updates that come out monthly or quarterly. They update different features or any problems with features, so the updates are very useful for us. It's very important that all the services are managed from the same place because no matter where a team is, if there is a glitch and we raise a question with customer support, and they do some fixing, that fix is available for all the users who are using UiPath. It comes from the centralized location, which is a very good thing. It is available for all our users around the world.

They should include new machine learning and AI algorithms for better forecasting and analytics.

I've been using UiPath Automation Cloud for two years.

It is very stable. In most software, we find that when we increase the data size, there is some kind of decrease in network connectivity, a delay or lag. But UiPath is very stable because they release updates very frequently.

We use it for day-to-day purposes. The tools are working on different jobs, daily. We have plans to automate more scenarios and we are working on a PoC for them. If they go well they will be implemented in UiPath as well.

Their support is very proactive. When we reach out to them, they fix our problem within a day. We can also use the Portal to have a chat about any issues that come up. Customer support is good and the community support is also great.

The fact that we don't have to worry about future installations and upgrades of Orchestrator, was important in our decision to go with UiPath, because those things are already built in. We don't need to worry about the infrastructure part. It is maintained by the UiPath team. They also have better community support to help us if we face any problems. That is one of the great things about UiPath.

The initial setup was very easy. The vendor was very active and the community is very active so there was no delay in communication. It was very straightforward.

We started UiPath as a desktop application and then we slowly moved to the cloud.

And in terms of the setup costs of our automation operations, UiPath doesn't have a lot of dependencies, so it is quick. We don't need to contact another party to maintain things because the UiPath community helps us with every aspect. It works. 

The pricing is good compared to other software. Based on the features that UiPath is providing, and the community support, the price is reasonable.

I have used different tools like Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere. When comparing all three, when it comes to cost, UiPath is great. It is also easy to use. Anyone can learn to use it within a couple of weeks. It is very useful and user-friendly.

The user interface and the usability of the other solutions is not as user-friendly. We also found some glitches in those solutions, things like network delays.

We haven't found any problems with UiPath. It is working great. It's a great tool. I would suggest that everyone go with a UiPath because it has helped us a lot.

We are using attended automation. I help drive a lot of products in UiPath. Now, we are using their data process mining and document understanding features. We are creating forms, then putting data on the forms, so our attended bots will work.

We use UiPath to resolve customer complaints by creating buttons that link to back-end integrations.

Employees can see information very quickly, reducing a lot of complications.

Uipth gives us as good speed and accuracy to improve all the bot la performance.

I like the document understanding feature. It gives us more accuracy. 

The AI and machine learning features are very useful for us.

UI Targets enabled us to quickly build automations within multiple applications, even without the right connectors. For example, we can drag and drop Outlook activities.

We use UiPath selector technology is a wonderful feature, especially compared to other RPA tools.

From mobile applications, we use Orchestrator where we can monitor processes and share them. 

Need more AI and Machine learning build technology and integration of 3rd party applications. Need some improvements in orchestrator

We have been using it for around two years.

5,000 people are using UiPath.

Any queries that we have, we can go onto their forums. If there are issues, we can contact their support and they will resolve them.

We have used Automation Anywhere, which is complex to understand. 

The initial deployment was not complex.

I will rate the level of expertise is 9(out of ten)

The attended automation has saved us time.

The pricing is average; it is not too high nor too low.

Its speed is better than other RPA solutions. They release more updates, details, and features compared to their competitors. 

We can learn from UiPath Academy.

I would rate the solution as a nine (out of 10).

We're mainly focused on finance for the time being so we've used UiPath for invoice processing and e-billing reconciliation. It makes sure that all of our converting information matches within our client databases. We've done a couple of solutions that track budget spend for certain clients, making sure that if the budget overruns or comes close to overrunning, then someone gets notified. If we get a new client or if a new legal case is opened, automation can make sure that all that information is then uploaded into our database. 

We've done a couple of smaller automations for the legal teams. These have been fairly basic ones though. There were a couple that download files from an email for them, and then rename them with the correct naming conventions, and saves them into correct drives. 

Another use case is to remove outdated users or information from our databases in line with the GDPR system.

In a general sense, UiPath has helped with data lineage, understanding where a process starts, who it rests with, and where it ends. It has made the process that we have automated a little bit more clear of which parts of the process are necessary, which are the parts that hold up the whole process, and which are the ones that are needlessly complicated.

For starters, it just helps give a bit more of an understanding of our processes once they're automated. Secondly, it's changed the way that we approach problems. We're tied into contracts that we might necessarily not want to be, but because we rely on the solution, we don't have a choice. Whereas, because UiPath is so versatile, we can use that to fill in gaps to take over processes, which otherwise in the past, we thought that only one specific tool could do for us. Now, we feel like we'd be less reliant on these specific tools to do a specific job. 

Third, a lot of teams are starting to understand that things can be automated. Whether it's in finance, HR, or even the legal teams, we started speaking to all the different teams and now they're bringing work to us and they're getting an understanding of things that do need to be done by a person and which don't. People aren't just doing work for the sake of it now. If they think there isn't a point to something and it can be automated, they bring it to us and we automate it. So, it's changed the way that we look at processes and don't just hardheadedly get someone to do it for no reason.

It checks our invoice stage for one of the processes that we do for e-billing. Previously, there wasn't anyone to check the financial data that we have in our systems against our clients and our recipients, and making sure that it all matches up. That process wasn't done at all so a month or two months later, a client would come back to us and say, "Hang on, you billed a strong amount or you've put our billing address wrong" which is obviously a little embarrassing. These things went completely unobserved for months. The client had to chase us, complain, and tell us we needed to fix it. Whereas now, it's more of a proactive approach rather than waiting for clients to come to us and tell us that we've done something wrong. We actually have the automation that can check and then validate those mistakes before they're even a problem and before they're spotted by anyone.

We're still in the early stages but we are starting to reach the point where UiPath is speeding up the cost of our digital transformation.

The digital transformation has made a couple of the lawyers' jobs easier by getting rid of the admin staff. It's freed up time and it makes things easier for everyone.

UiPath has definitely reduced our processing times as well. It really depends on the process but it has sped up. 

It has also decreased our error rates. At the moment we're looking to purchase an orchestration platform. At that point, we'll be able to collect more information about exact numbers and we'll actually have the analytics. 

The ability to use APIs within UiPath is really helpful. The web scraping is really great. It's so easy to use, it's very intuitive, and it's usually pretty consistent. When web pages change you need to update it, but it makes it quick. If you need to do another quick process, it's really easy to get it quickly and set something up. I can just scrape data from a website and save it somewhere.

The ease of building automation depends. UiPath makes things that are fairly simple but looks a little bit tricky in another language really easy. But if you're trying to do something really complicated, then sometimes it can be a little bit more tricky. It depends, sometimes it's really simple for fairly basic automations, I think it's fantastic. But when you want to try and get into the nitty-gritty and try and write your own code and then stick in there, it can sometimes be a bit difficult to use.

The documentation can be a little bit lacking. I think they improved it a little bit last month. Last time I checked, it seemed like they spent a bit of time trying to improve it. Sometimes some of the processes are nicely documented. UiPath offers training, which they provide on their website. They teach you how to use it, but for some processes, it just seems like the documentation isn't really there. It makes it a little bit difficult when you're using a specific process from the first time. 

If you're trying to invoke a method in UiPath, if you're trying to write a C# in there directly,  or if you need to do something which can't really be done in UiPath, but it can be done in C# or Python or something else, sometimes it's not that intuitive. It can be a little bit more complicated than it needs to be. I think that integration with other languages could be a little bit better.

We have been using UiPath permanently for around eight months, but we've been using it in-house for about a year before that.

UiPath itself is very stable because it interacts with so many different applications. I noticed in the past, at times, when using it with browsers, for example, using it with Google Chrome or Firefox, occasionally Chrome or Firefox will update and UiPath can take sometimes a week or two to update with it. For that week, you're able to use any solution that involves Google Chrome or Firefox, because it's waiting for that update. I've seen that happen with a couple of different applications, not as much recently. UiPath itself is very stable because it can interact with anything. If anything is updated and UiPath doesn't have time to update drivers to match that, sometimes you can get left a little bit stuck.

It's not really easy when you're using orchestrator to scale up and create a server, add a new bot, get a new license, and get it running. 

At the moment, it's just me using UiPath. I'm a developer and the architect for the solution as well. But we're planning to expand the team next year. 

We have a couple of processes that are running constantly, so I think we're using it as much as we can, and as much as our licenses allow. We're at a point now where we need an orchestrator to keep track and run everything at the same time. We're in the process now of purchasing that. I'll see where we're moving to, to expand quite far beyond that after we've got it. We're just at the point of ramping up.

I've sent a couple of requests to support when we needed licenses and when we changed to a different computer or a different user, and they got back to us really quickly and solved it within a day or so. I've been pretty happy with UiPath so far. I think every time I've sent a request to them, it's been resolved pretty quickly, and even if they couldn't resolve it super quick, the response times are usually within 24 hours or so, which is really good. I can't remember a time where we've been stuck in the dark with them.

I've used Automation Anywhere, but I haven't really used it within my work.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I implemented UiPath for a couple of years before I came to my current company. It was quite easy, but even the first time it's always been quite easy and quite simple to implement.

The initial setup only took a couple of days to get it all installed properly and cleared with IT. In terms of getting the first process up and running, it took about a week or two because we already had a couple of processes that were available. That's just a case of tweaking them, making sure they're all okay, and then just getting them set up and getting more packaged up.

Our initial strategy was mainly to focus on finance and to try and reduce the outsourced headcount with a couple of the finance teams. We outsource a lot of our work to a couple of other companies and we want to reduce the cost of that, so I automate it in-house. Our other strategy was to try and free up as much time for our lawyers as possible to make sure they weren't bogged down with work. It gives them more time to focus on the clients and work up better relationships with them.

We're still looking at the process that we've automated and seeing how much time and money we're saving with this crisis, but we don't have that information at the moment.

The pricing is pretty fair. Sometimes the pricing can be a little bit strange. There are different prices if it's for a specific user, a specific PC or if it's an attended bot or unattended bot. The price can be quite different, but I think when you talk to UiPath or when you look at the pricing sheets, there's not always a justification of why a certain license is more expensive than another. 

Licenses are more expensive than another but I wonder why there's such a big difference, why attended is four times more expensive, and that sort of thing. In terms of the orchestrator, I think it was a bit too much. It used to cost about 20,000 pounds a year. Now, they are ramping up costs. If you get an orchestrator but with just a few blocks, it's cheaper and then you can add up more parts to the orchestrator. So the cost goes up, which I think is better.

Definitely to try and get as many teams involved as possible to open up the conversation about RPA within the business. It works best when you've got lots of teams who have an understanding of RPA and how it works. They can come to you with their potential projects and you can filter through them and see which ones are going to be the most helpful.

It's hard if no one else in the business really knows RPA or how it works, or if there's a bit of a wall there. It's important to introduce RPA to as many different teams as possible and to encourage people to get involved, think about the processes that they do in it, and try to identify what can be helpful.

It's important to keep RPA close to the applications and the IT teams because if you're using RPA or UiPath you're going to need to be able to be speaking to your team who need permissions or admin privileges, or you need apps to be updated. It's important if you're going to put it in, have it as close to apps and development as possible.

It's a case of understanding that it's not a case of trying to get everything automated that you possibly can. The goal shouldn't just be to automate everything. If you've got a process and you can do 99% of it automated but you can't automate the last 1%, you can but it's going to be really fairly inefficient. Understand that it's fine for a process to have some bits that are automated, some of which are done by a person. The hybrid workforce, rather than going into the strategy of just automating everything is ideal. I've learned that trying to find that balance and getting that communication between the two is good.

I would rate UiPath a nine out of ten. 

We are in healthcare, and the supply chain can be a fragmented process, and now with the Pandemic quite fragile. In recent years, companies have been implementing leaner supply chains to reduce their costs. We found that our best approach to dealing with supply distributions was to create a partnership with a distributor who could provide us with a very large percentage of our day-to day-supplies. We have Central inventories in each of our hospitals; however, we use a stockless operation Monday-Friday. This means we fill supplies for our nursing units on the weekends, but during the week, the distributor is picking, packing, and shipping those supplies in a low unit of measure. Orders are placed electronically by noon daily, and start arriving by late evening. A 'back order' list is sent to us each workday in the late afternoon - too late to do anything with it. 

We did work with our distributor to develop a more customized spreadsheet that detailed each item, by hospital and delivery location. Each following day we would break the file down so that we could e-mail it to each area, to get feedback from them on critical needs.  This took our resources time to prepare and send the next morning. Staff getting the information didn't have much time to review and respond. In addition, we would update each PO line item with the revised 'due date', for back-ordered lines - this was a manual process.  This same resource would then use a tool to send each requestor a 'delayed delivery' e-mail notice.  The overall PO update and communication process took an additional 1-2 hours a day in staff resource time.

With the robot doing this work for us, the vendor sends a file to an address by a certain time. They send it in at about 3:30 PM every day. The robot now takes that file and works that file, which it has ready for us usually by 4:30 PM. Now, it still may be too late for us to work, but the first thing in the morning, we have the file, and the Bot has already sent out notifications to all the users of any backorders. First thing, when they walk in the morning, they know what their backorders are. They didn't know that until halfway through the day before. Now, they get the information first thing in the morning so they can react. Now, we are getting the information first thing and have the time to work with the manufacturers and distributors to come up with other products so that we might backfill or get a branch transfer.

Our end goal was to make sure that we had a daily tool that was 100 percent accurate and could be deployed across a broad spectrum of healthcare workers. Then, they could get information faster and more accurately with as much information to eliminate a lot of extra calls and communication. That is what we embarked on. We dissected our current process and looked at all its different triggers to see how we could turn this into an automated tool. We broke down our process and identified everything that we were doing, then UiPath helped us identify what we needed to modify. We worked that into a tool where a Bot could come along and process it every day, then deliver every afternoon. That was our end result, and it's been extremely successful. We started using the tool last December.

We combined some automation that we already had in this process into this tool to make it a whole automated process, rather than partially bringing it under. We have a vendor who delivers us a report daily of all their backorders because we use the main distributor, so they deliver us a backorder report. Therefore, we made sure that they aligned it in a way that the robot could read it. Then, we wanted to break that down in a way so each of our hospitals could see their section. So, we added some data to this tool which allowed the robot to see that record, and say, "This belongs here, and this belongs here."

Our staff have been reassigned to more value-added tasks. We haven't eliminated anyone because it's been very challenging for us to keep up with the COVID-19 issues. Now, we have resources who have the time to contact vendors, and find out, "When are we getting this? Can we get ourselves pushed to the top of the list?" They can actually be a voice on the other line, a human voice, who communicates. When you're sitting there doing all this other work, you don't have the opportunity to spend it on being a voice for the health system. So, we put people back on working back orders with other vendors and doing other things that needed to be done. We have not eliminated staff because we are using them in more productive ways, getting more work done.

Our staff can now do the things that we need them to do. It has given us the agility to pivot and move to other things, because we are not trapped in trying to work these files every day.

Our customers are getting information about 12 hours earlier, which makes it much faster to resolve back order concerns for their areas. If they have procedures, or certain kinds of cases coming up, and see that they have a back order, then they have much more time to react and try to address their shortage.

It provides information to people by automating that information in a much faster time.

Since we are getting information out to folks faster, they can spend the resource time needed to determine the best approach for what to replace it with, or if we need to work with a sales rep. It ensures that our staff have the best tools to do their job faster.

We have not seen it do OCR, and that would be helpful. Right now, the tool will not read a PDF file, and we can't use PDF files. We want it to able to take an image, then take that image and put the particular field out in the right spot in a table. We have not seen it where you can scan a document in, then it reads fields and places those in a table.

We began our journey last Fall - 2019 

It is very stable. Once we got all the kinks worked out, there hasn't been any maintenance. 

We had a little problem with getting it to run at night. We moved it off of one platform and put it on another one, which fixed that problem. These are things that we encountered early on that went away as we figured out how to resolve them. Most of those changes that we made were internal to our process and caused by some slow responses within our Citrix environment. Once we resolve those, we have not had issues with the tool itself.

I have one person in IT doing deployment and maintenance. We also have a second person under contract if we need support.

The solution is scalable. 

The robot processes the file in an unattended mode, then sends out an email with a link to its output file. From there, all the users, and there are probably about 20, get this file and react to it. They review it from their perspective because there are many hospitals involved. Each one of them has their own tab because the robot creates a tab for each. This makes it easy for them to go right to what they need. There are a lot of folks reviewing the results of what the robot has produced.

I have not used their technical support.

We were passively looking at some tools to automate some of our procurement processes. We are highly automated in our department, but we are always looking at ways to take the things that are not already automated, get into those, and see what parts of those we can streamline.

We met with UiPath last Fall. At that time, we went through a company by the name of Speridian, UiPath is a partner with them. We came to the conclusion that we had a manual process where the right components could be automated. Therefore, we made that our focus and started answering all the questions around the process to ensure that we had everything necessary for a robot to be able to answer the questions and keep moving the process forward.

The initial setup was very straightforward. We outlined what we do and what our end result needed to be. They asked us some questions, then sat down with our resources and walked them through it (or did it through Webex). I don't think there was ever any confusion on what was being discussed.

We didn't spend that much time on the process. Overall, as far as our work, the deployment was 10 to 12 hours, if you look at the meetings and such. Most of the time was spent on their side, because they had to go back and do all the development. So, I thought it was very painless.

We worked with the UiPath team and Speridian to ensure that the bot would know how to handle each aspect of the data and where apply it. As we tested it, we saw that we needed to go back and reconfigure this or this isn't how this is handled. We were kind of working through the things we forgot until we got to the point where, "Yes, this is it. We can do this every day." 

We had the robot tied into an automated tool that we were already using to send notices out. They were able to pull up that tool and have these automated components to all this stuff that we had a manual person sitting there doing every day. She was sitting there taking this data and sending it out, and now the robot was like, "I got the data. I'll send it out." So, we just ran it through the whole process. However, it does take having resources who can ask the right questions. What I found with this team was they were good in actually asking the right questions and helping us with what the robot would need in order to make decisions. Because that's what the robot is doing, it is automatically looking at a value, and saying, "I do this. I have that." 

We learned with it: How we need to respond and how we need to give the robot the feedback. It was quite an interesting process for us. Although you're always thinking you can automate so many things, there are components that you do need a person's brain to figure out. We found those pieces in this tool. We found some areas where, "Here's the exception." So, it even writes off the exceptions for us. While I do still need to have a person looking at exceptions, rather than the 100 lines that they used to have to look at, now they look at two, three, or four lines, then make decisions on those.

They gave us the opportunity to create a tool which would automate as much as possible, then provide us the data that we needed to act on. It has basically filtered out all the things that we didn't need to deal with. It has taken care of those, leaving us with everything that a human being needs to respond to.

I felt very comfortable with the UiPath person who was doing the programming, though I never really met him. I was very impressed. We talked on the phone a time or two, but they just seemed like they got it. They understood. It didn't take a long time for them to figure out what it was we wanted to do. They were able to tell us, "This is what we're going to need. Can you get it?" So, they were easy to work with. They also acted quickly. I thought the whole process of developing everything that we did went very quickly. 

They were able to link into our tools. They made suggestions to us, "Well, these are exceptions. We can put these here. We can do this. We can give you all this." They were providing us with ideas on how we could even expand on this. I found that to be very helpful. I really thought that they did it very quickly. They did not take long to understand what we were trying to do before getting in and really learning the impact. When we needed a change, the changes have come very quickly. 

It has gone so well that we will be doing a few more enhancements. Now that we've worked with the tool for a while, and know that the ability of UiPath and what they can do, we can enhance it even further.

We are doing things at a much earlier time in the day. The robot compressed the time it takes. We are getting our users' information earlier in the day. Now, it may take five to 10 minutes, where processes used to take half an hour or 45 minutes to go through everything. 

With COVID-19, so many supplies have been impacted. Our line items expanded and grew, so it would have been very difficult management manually. Thankfully, we had this process in place last December. It really came to our aid in March, April, and throughout this year, because it has streamlined the process. It has given everybody more time to pivot and make decisions.

The UiPath tool takes redundant processes away, and says, "Let us handle those, then you do all those creative things." It has given us back a lot of staff resources that were being used up by mundane, redundant processes. That's how it worked in our world. In other areas, anytime you fill out a form or answer a question, a robot can post that to a table. There are all kinds of things it can do. However, for us, it took these manual processes that we were doing day in, day out without a lot of thought and gave us that time back to be more thoughtful of what it is we need to be doing to be more thoughtful of what it is we need to be doing, in order to ensure that our health system has the products that it needs to support the community. In my mind, that is what it is about: Giving back your resources to use them in the way they were intended and using a robotic tool to do those things that you can eliminate, like mundane, redundant processes.

Start with processes that happen over and over every day. Something that you have to do, like data entry, whatever it is. Peel back the onion, then look and see how you can automate some of that through a tool. You have to look at what your processes are and understand how those are getting done today. Maybe even share that information with somebody outside your area, because people from the outside might say, "Well, why don't you do it this way?" Because you've lived it so long, you don't even know why you wouldn't nor do you know the questions to ask. Therefore, look at your base processes that you're doing day in, day out and see how you might be able to automate any aspect of those that doesn't require human thinking. I'm sure you will uncover many things.

It is a learning process for everyone, but I thought it was a very fast track learning. Sometimes, you think, "Well, this is going to take six months," and it didn't. In a very short time, we were seeing samples of what we were going to get. Therefore, I was very impressed with the amount of resource time that it took. It was beyond what I expected.

Some tools we are working on will reduce the purchase order build, but we haven't implemented that yet. That's a whole other project that we're working on with them, and that piece goes into procurement.

It is very doable. I was probably fairly skeptical, but once we started thinking about it, it became very clear that this would be just a slam dunk. You have to open up your mind to it, but it was something that when they said, "Well, we want to use some robotics." The fear is you're going to take my staff away. There are some cases of that, but it is not so bad. I don't have to worry about the robot taking days off, getting sick, having a mother in the hospital and needing to be with them. I don't have to pay it scale. I just don't have to do any of those things. Now, the robot can't automatically think outside the box, but sometimes it can depending on the questions I ask it. 

Everybody just needs to take a breath step back, and say, "Yeah, maybe it can replace this." However, that doesn't mean we won't use this resource in another way.

I would rate this solution a 10 out of 10. I'm not the type of person who just gives a rating of 10 all the time, but this solution has just been a phenomenal tool for us.

Originally, we were using UiPath to draft documents and send emails on mass to where we had large communication exercises. We used a robot instead of a small army of paralegals to generate the documentation and draft up the emails where we had to communicate with 2,000 to 3,000 people. It was a little bit more involved than just doing a standard mail merge, but we were able to use UiPath to create a number of documents and email it to an individual customer, all through a central email address.

Fast forward to where we are now, we have a few of these things focusing in on what we call post-completion activity, like the things you do after you sign a contract. So, it may be you're uploading it to the client's contract management system, applying stamps, or registering the contracts in an official register. The robot is able to do that for us post-completion. Those are our primary use cases at the moment. We're looking at more data integrity type stuff, like comparing our internal data sources against public record.

The ability to displace some activity that was traditionally on our paralegal team has improved my organization. We're an outsourced managed legal services provider. We're primarily a people-based business and UiPath displaces some activity off those paralegals and brings in automation. For me, it becomes an additional type of resource. The long and short of it is that we are able to move work that was traditionally done by people and would be charged at a rate, off to automation where we can bring the costs down. It enables us to reduce our running costs of our clients. A single bot running post-completion has saved as two FTEs.

UiPath has helped to speed up case resolutions in a couple of ways. It's focused on doing particular jobs, so it achieves the job faster. People don't need to complete an entire task end to end. They can stop at a certain point and the robot takes over. That allows a person to get through more work. Also, the fact that the robots are able to do this stuff overnight 24/7, means that we have more capacity to do stuff.

It gives us the ability to respond to clients. It gives us an option in how we're going to automate work for clients. It's hard to say if it has reduced the cost of our digital transformation because we deal with all the people. I suspect it hasn't done it internally, but suspect that has made some things cheaper for our clients. It enables us to deliver digital services cheaper for our clients. 

UiPath had an effect on our legal staff. It takes work that people don't want to do at the moment, having to download the document, take some details off the top and the bottom of the document, apply a stamp, and then re-upload, it's not what our paralegals and new trainees want to be doing on a day-to-day basis. So we are able to shift activity nobody enjoys onto a robot and let them focus on the stuff they've been trained to do.

In terms of how much it has reduced the processing times, the task itself still takes as long but we've got a robot doing it instead of a human. I don't think that the impact isn't that dramatic on-site processing times. At the moment, humans are only involved in 80% of the transaction and 20% has been held by robots.

These automations have decreased errors but it's hard to quantify by how much. They've inserted 20,000 transactions a year. I have no doubt that the error rates improved. It's just a hard thing to quantify.

The most valuable aspect of UiPath is the fact that it's a low-code platform. Being able to use a low-code platform really lowers the barrier entry of introducing automation. Normally, you fill in a request to go to IT to get a development resource allocated, and then you spend six months trying to do a project. Because UiPath is a bit of a platform, you can quickly, within weeks, start to knock off automation and get it checked and then successfully deployed. The low-code development environment is key for us.

Now that we're scaling up and taking advantage of Cloud stuff, it's become a lot easier to use. When we started our journey, we just bought a couple of bots and had them sit around on machines. It was a bit chaotic and we thought that if we take advantage of their wider platform, the orchestrator environment, it would make life a lot easier because we have all the monitoring and management. We have access to that in one platform rather than having to watch the individual robots, which is where we started.

We're going to use the solution's AI-enhanced document understanding feature. It's something we're looking at to help us with invoices and incoming bills that come in. It's on the backlog. We haven't got to it yet.

UiPath enables me to free up capacity for people to work on new work because they are involved, they're less accessible. At the moment, the majority of our staff is focused towards the end time making sure that things are filed correctly. It's more about focusing resources rather than being more responsive.

As things become more and more data-heavy and accessing other people's products and managing things, like obtaining the data through APIs, it feels like there could be a lot more for them to do, to make interacting with data or manipulating simple things like text strings. You need quite a strong development background or a reasonable level of understanding to achieve that. I think that could be made a little bit more achievable.

Three years ago we started using UiPath relatively small and we are looking to scale up significantly this year. Originally we started on-prem and as we're scaling up, we're going to move towards the cloud instance.

So far the stability has been good. With all of the low code platforms, it's actually more of a problem of what we've developed and deployed. It's how well we make our own software so that the platform will provide. It seems to stand up very, very well. I have not really had an issue. Anytime we have encountered a bug or whatnot, it's something we've introduced to ourselves, but thankfully there's a strong community where we can post questions and queries to get a response within a couple of hours.

I don't see scalability as being too much of a challenge. If we need more capacity on the robots, we're able to buy more licenses and additional VMs on the machine. If we need to expand or scale, it's just about deploying more machines. I don't feel it's that complicated. I suspect there are some constraints on how you build your applications, but that's more of an internal decision rather than UiPath's.

There are three people who are responsible for how to put a source of business analysis as well as development. Their role is to work with SMEs or people within our business units to understand a customer's process, get them deployed, and work with them to do it. The stuff we've taken on tends to be the easier, quick wins. We have three internal developers who were able to break down processes. We're a large organization. We have a large IT function that helped us with virtual machines and data centers, etc. We're not directly involved with them.

It's very easy to build an automation and just let it run. One of the key lessons we learned is the fact that you have to keep an eye on these things and that things change in the environment. Passwords run out and expire, folders may move as people move things around the network and a robot is just as susceptible to everything else that our user is. In terms of when you're designing any solutions, you have to pay a little extra attention to things that may cause you problems in six months' time. The simple fact that a password that you were using has been reset or is expired or something else, could cause the robot to failover. While the robot can tell you it's got a problem, you still have maintenance effort to keep an eye on. There is a maintenance commitment that you need for everything that is put on it. You need to spend a bit of extra time detailing exactly how you are going to respond to those things. Just because it's easy to deploy stuff, it doesn't do away with the fact that you have to keep an eye on it.

There are three analysts who are respondents to book fixes, etc. We have people in the business who we work with to automate these processes. They take a level of responsibility and keeping an eye on anything we try to automate. They're the first line of support. If anything's going wrong or something they can keep an eye on it and then if it is a technical book fix or something that needs to be resolved, that's then escalated to one of those three developers.

I only had one issue which was to do with the proxy setting when deploying some of the software. I raised the ticket on the website, got a response within half a day and it explained what I needed to do to fix it. That's my only experience of having to deal with them. I raised a ticket, I got the answer, and it worked. My experience so far has been fairly good.

We decided to use UiPath three years ago when RPA was starting to become a bit of a buzzword. We took a look at it and realized that it would be a very, very good solution for the right project by allowing us to automate mass activity all at once. One of those projects came around and we had to communicate it to a large audience. The process once agreed upon and nailed down could be very heavily scripted. We looked at a way that we would communicate it to the 30,000 people, all with documents that are pretty much the same but with a slight variation. We knew we wanted to try an RPA solution. UiPath was a very strong contender in those days and it was easy to access. That's why we ended up with it. We're able to achieve something with a single bot. All of those things make the software easy to test out. And then from there, you're able to make a decision.

The initial setup was really straightforward. In such a large law firm that has high data security obligations, we set these things up, appoint the orchestrator, and it just works. I have not encountered too many problems. 

It doesn't feel like a heavyweight ERP system or some larger workflow tool. These things are deployed onto a desktop and they speak to a server. It's not heavy. It doesn't feel like a piece of software with a heavy footprint.

The deployment took a week. It took us longer to end-to-end to get the invoice approved.

We've taken advantage of the architecture. Our IT team set some ground rules about where the virtual machines need to be hosted and deployed, but it's not that heavyweight. We increase some standards with IT and then install the software on those machines. We're using the Cloud version so there's not a lot to worry about.

We were able to do the deployment internally. 

Some of our ROI is quite dramatic. We have to email lots of stuff out to different people and our projector will require this to have a team of six or seven staff working solidly for a couple of weeks. The robot was able to get it done after a couple of weeks of configuration. This thing was able to pay for itself in a matter of hours once it was done. One of our post-completion robots took a week or two to develop and get stable enough to deploy. It's able to offset seven or eight hours a day. If we target the use cases correctly, we are able to get a return on the automation we deploy.

Take advantage of the Cloud-based implementation. You'll have to handle the Orchestrator licensing costs. It's obviously different for every organization. It's beneficial to get away from the on-premise installation. Also make sure that your business case justifies whatever the license cost is for an unattended or attended bot. 

Show your business case and that the automation will help you to exceed the license cost. You want to look at things that are going to give you a return on investment in about six months' time. Take advantage of the Cloud-hosted version so as not to pay the cost for Orchestrator. Then for your bots, make sure you will see a six months ROI in terms of how much automation you've gotten and how much you can get the robot to get done.

We also looked at BluePrism and Automation Anywhere. We took a quick look over the top three solutions at the time. UiPath seemed to be one of the leaders in the area.

We partnered with an organization to help us deliver it. We got some consultants in and sorted out what they were comfortable with using and what they recommended. For us, it was the size of the platform. We were looking at Automation Anywhere or BluePrism. It just felt like it would be a bigger project to implement when in reality all we wanted was one robot to do one job for us at the start of the project. It was more about the barriers of entry to getting started.

I would rate UiPath an eight out of ten. It feels like nothing deserves a 10, and I highly recommend every organization has a handle on RPA. There are still a huge amount of features we're still yet to explore.

We are a UiPath customer, working with them to develop some products. It is a bit of a mixed thing where we are developing some products with them from scratch, but they are acting as the provider. We develop things, and if they're useful for others, then others can use them.

We are doing some pretty bespoke things to help us develop some solutions, but also help them develop their UI solutions in the legal area. We are working on a few things with UiPath to develop some search robots, some solutions to automatize subcontracts, and some timekeeping entries. These are several things that we are doing right now.

We are doing three things with them:

1. A robot to help us with software for time management, automating time entries. 
2. A robot to help us with filling in our engagement letters (contracts). 
3. A robot to help us with various public searches, i.e., the automation of searches of the public record.

We are adjusting robots from similar things that they do. The robots are not yet in production. 

The most valuable feature is its ability to save time with a task. In general, it improves accuracy as well.

UiPath's ease of use for automating our company's processes is a five out of five. We have found it very easy to talk to them, identifying what can be done along with the potential use cases. They have been very good at guiding us through what is realistic at this point, how their robots could help us save time and improve accuracy, and how our users can engage with their robots, e.g., ensuring that users engage with the robots and use their product. 

When we started to talk about practical implementation, their team was extremely switched onto identifying and fitting their product to our needs. They explained to us how we can use their products, what can be done to adapt their product, and what may happen sometime in the future, not necessarily now. I found this very helpful and straightforward.

What we have in mind in terms of what the robots could do for us is significantly more than what UiPath does now, but it takes more work. From my perspective, there is just a wide scope of implementation that goes beyond what we're starting right now. That is essentially the improvement. While I have nothing negative to say about our experience with them so far, I think we can work to develop more complex products with them. They are already working to develop something for our use cases, but what I would like is if we could develop more things for more complex needs, e.g., where we start with simpler stuff, then we can add things to what we're doing now.

We are in the development phase.

It is too early. We are still in development.

During the development phase, there are five people involved in the development phase. The users will be about 100.

We have not used their support.

We were not previously using something in this area. 

We have been thinking about ways to streamline our activities using technology. It happens that we knew UiPath, so we started to engage with them about what they could do for us. We had something like 20 ideas that we could implement, then we just started the easier ones which were closer to the products that they have. As things go, we will see whether we expand to other things.

We have known UiPath quite well and for a long time. They are also the leaders in the field, so it was a very easy choice.

The initial setup was quite straightforward. We started to discuss potential solutions, then we met with parts of their team, developing that business area. After that, we met with the technical people designing the product. We had a couple of initial conversations and did some testing. It has been extremely simple and straightforward.

We are supposed to review some of their proposals and provide feedback. We are probably a week or two away from production.

UiPath could have probably implemented the solution in a couple of weeks. We had some delays on our side.

We did the initial setup ourselves.

It is important for whatever we implement that it's cost effective in a sense that the robots will replace some human time. If human time costs less than the robot, then that's not a good deal. Normally, human time will cost more than a robot, and that's what we're trying to displace: the human time. We want to replace it with a cheaper robot. 

We only looked at UiPath, because we know them quite well.

So far, the experience has been excellent. I would rate the solution 10 out of 10, but we haven't finished the implementation.

Look internally what your needs are. Try to identify what you could improve with software robots, ensuring these needs are clearly identified and the product is fit for purpose. Also, you should make sure there will be buy-in in the organization, so people will actually use the product.

We have developed a product for a court of arbitration. UiPath provides the automation engine behind it. Our product is a platform that is live online. It allows a party to provide some contract information, and the robot assembles a document and communicates with DocuSign, our signature provider. It then sends out a correspondence to the other party and manages the signature process for a bespoke contract for an arbitration agreement.

This is a service that we provide to the world, pro bono, as it were, to promote arbitration and the adoption of a particular arbitration clause. It's accessible to all. Parties can log in and it helps them to negotiate and conclude an arbitration agreement in a mediated fashion. The robot sends out email on behalf of a third-party, a court of arbitration, and it helps the parties get that agreement done.

It's about concluding an arbitration agreement before the dispute goes any further.

It helps us in providing added value to the clients and to the community at large. It's a marketing thing for us, in the widest possible sense, rather than something that we use in our practice.

But in terms of reducing the cost of digital transformation, if a person had to do what the robot does, it would probably be impossible. It would be impossibly costly. If one person had to handle the communication, instead of the robot, and try to negotiate each addendum, nobody would do it because it would take days or weeks for a lawyer to manage, and it would be prohibitive. Yet, all of a sudden, we have this service that is so cheap in many ways that it can even be provided for nominal user fees. It's quite dramatic.

I would also imagine that processing time is reduced by many orders of magnitude. As a professional, if I had to manage an addendum like that, it would take me weeks. And it takes about seven minutes or so, if all goes well.

What I have found interesting is that our product acts as a human would but it's not intrusive. It doesn't require any real integration or interface with one's own systems, in any meaningful way. Obviously, you need access, an account to log in, but it otherwise acts as a human, and that makes deployment quite smooth. It doesn't require you to change anything in your system. I found that very useful.

Regarding the ease of building automations, I'm not sure how it's done because I'm not a programmer myself, but it's great. Just looking at how fast they moved once we had the program settled in — it was quite fast. For this particular process, which is assembling a document, talking to DocuSign, sending out emails, and so on, the deployment of production was like "today." It was quite quick.

In terms of the ease of management of automations using UiPath, I don't dare poke into it, as a non-technical person, but it looks manageable. I have someone who does not do RPA normally, who doesn't do this type of programming at all, but that person knows where to look for errors and doesn't get lost. It's reasonably accessible.

I could use more standardized features, retail-style, things that I could use off-the-shelf. Right now, all this requires quite a bit of adaptation in bespoke work with UiPath, which they've done very well. But looking at it after having used it, I would get stuff that is prepackaged from them, if they were any.

We launched with UiPath in June.

The stability of the solution is okay. 

The downside of the upside, when I said that it works like a human, is that in some cases, if it interacts with a website that is changing, then it's like a human. You need to adapt it to the changing environment in which it works. That's an inevitable fact of life, that it interacts with other apps. It can also interact through APIs, but you want it to be very flexible, you want it to be an agent, like a human. The downside of that is that if something changes with a website, then of course, you have to change the robot and tweak it a little bit. But that's the only issue that has required our attention so far.

Our product is a public-facing instrument and we have had no problem with the number of users, so we have not seen any issues with scalability.

In terms of potentially increasing our use of UiPath, we're exploring a number of solutions actually, for practice management and actual lawyer work. These would be in-house solutions, rather than public-facing. We have a few ideas that we have run by them and we are waiting for feedback.

We've had no problem with the customer support. We were in direct contact with the whole team. They have always been quick to respond. I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

We would use regular Microsoft automation features. I would have a flag on a particular correspondence, or a particular rule for attachments. We would use little bits and bobs of automation that are available, but we did not have any bespoke solution.

We went with UiPath because they made themselves known in the sector and it was a question of the vision that they communicated. There was a modest vision of providing solutions to very discrete problems, not revolutionary solutions to everything. Rather, they focused on whatever helps in a particular organization. We liked that. It matched our understanding of legal tech as well. It needs to be supportive of whatever little bit of help you need, rather than providing you with an environment that engulfs you with everything. We liked that approach, and when we approached them they were very receptive.

The initial setup process was okay. I'm a non-technical person, but I was able to manage it. 

It took quite a bit to figure out what we wanted from it, the flow and the logic of it. After we agreed on that, on the concept, actual production took two or three days. Of course, somebody had already done a proof of concept, although that was not based on a final brief. We danced around and changed it a bit.

For maintenance, we have somebody in tech that we pop questions to, and our maintenance of the server is done in-house as well.

We have realized return on our investment. It was a joint project with UiPath so we had special arrangements in terms of licensing, but it was very well received in the market. It was very beneficial for us.

Our product is something that we launched in June, and the robot has been featured in general business publications, in the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, and the Resolver, which is the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators magazine, as well as the Romanian Arbitration Journal. Essentially, everybody knows about it. It is one of the most popular UiPath robots out there; the most featured and interviewed robot in the wild. We were quite pleased with the publicity.

My advice is to think about it very carefully and know exactly what everybody is doing every day in the office, the little bits and pieces. Really look at that seriously, because there are so many things that we do in a software environment that are very amenable to automation, and it saves a lot of time. Think very carefully about the particular needs of your office and look into it, because it can save you a lot of money.

It's clear that this is the future.

We use it to automate searches in public databases. We have lawyers who need to search for various companies. For example, we are searching insolvency files for a list of business partners, so we use the robot to perform the search and notify clients about its results. Thus, it helps us with our work in searching public registries.

We have the Studio license and attended robots.

It enables us to provide new services, e.g., our use case is something that we could not have delivered manually. Now that we use the robot, it is something that we can offer to clients. Therefore, it has helped us expand our scope of services and offer to clients more competitive fees. We are now trying to get more clients.

If we were to do this manually, it would take us one day for 200 companies. Now, it takes about half an hour. So, it has reduced our time to process information. Before, we didn't offer these services on a mass scale. We just often did it for a couple of companies. Now, we can offer it on a larger scale.

One of the departments in our organization does use UiPath for compliance purposes: To send reminders to our clients. We have to ensure that clients are compliant when they submit financial statements. We use the robot to send them reminders to update the steps of compliance, i.e., if it's done. This is not my team, but another team who uses it for compliance purposes. It has increased their level of compliance because it's timely and there are no errors in the reminders.

We mostly value the fact that it easily interacts with existing systems. We don't have to go to a complex interface to access public information to send the emails, etc. This is the good part.

Its ease of management is okay. Our attended robots have some Excel files that we use to manage and configure the robots. It is quite straightforward.

It has helped relieve the legal staff of the burdensome task of searching on the public registry. For them, this has been a big improvement. It saves time and also the risk of human error has been reduced, because now the robot does the work. So, you don't get bored when you check 2,000 companies on the portal. The staff is overall more satisfied because they can do more value-added tasks than performing this search.

The pricing for Orchestrator and unattended robots could use improvement. If we plan to roll out and implement more robots, then perhaps lower costs on Orchestrator and unattended robots would make adoption even easier. 

For roughly a year and a half.

So far, the stability has been good. We haven't had any issues.

If you have an attended robot, then it is scalable to a certain extent, but this is because of the price tag. If you think through your use cases, then you can use the same license for multiple purposes. If we think of scalability in the sense of changing the process, then this is something that can be done, but it requires extra development time. So, it's rather scalable.

We have two lawyers using this robot. Their role is to monitor the robot and make sure that the robot works fine. For example, if there are any complaints from the clients, then they can respond.

We, in legal, are among the first to use this robot to my knowledge. Other than a couple of robots that I've mentioned in this review, I'm not aware of other robots.

The technical support is very good. They were very responsive. We had a question about the license and they replied very quickly.

We did not previously use another solution. We decided to implement an RPA solution because we wanted to streamline our processes. We also wanted to be able to offer and develop new services for our clients. For these particular use cases, using other technology solutions would have been more expensive and complicated to set up.

The initial setup was a bit complex. We are a very big company with a lot of IT centers. I think the complexity was on our side. The initial part of setting up the virtual machine and installing the licenses took roughly two months. After that, the development time was very short: one week.

Our experience, as administrators of the platform, is quite good. Once the robot is set up, it is very easy to see the results, reports, and if there are any errors. It is quite easy to use.

The robot that searches for insolvency cases was built in one week. After that, we have been testing it and making adjustments, but the construction and development time were very short.

It speeds up digital transformation because it's easy to implement and have it live. Therefore, it is something that we can use very easily to streamline our operations. 

I handled the project and managed the discussion with our IT. We had several infrastructure teams who set up the virtual machines and helped us install the licensing. We had a third-party developer who developed the robot. We also had an internal team who tested the implementation. I oversaw everything.

We were happy with the third-party developer.

Now, there are several providers/developers who can build UiPath robots quite easily and at affordable prices. So, in our case, it was quite a straightforward process of building the robot.

Our processing time was reduced to half an hour. Something that would have taken up the whole day (eight hours) was reduced to half an hour. This has freed up our legal staff’s time to focus on more important and strategic tasks.

What we have managed to do is to offer a completely new service. It is something that we did not offer on a regular basis or big scale. Using RPA, we can offer it to a larger scale with the reduced costs.

The pricing is okay, but I recommend to build a business case before going live. Ensure that you really use the license and building the robot makes sense. Try to think of multiple use cases, because one license can be used for several robots.

There are additional costs for using third-parties. We also have internal costs with the infrastructure and for the virtual machines where the robot operates.

The costs are quite affordable. It is a solution that makes sense from a business perspective.

We didn't do a very formal business review process.

I think the platform is very good.

Have a good consultant advise you on the processes of automations: How to build the use case and business case. You will need a bit of knowledge around RPA and business processes to be able to have a successful implementation. 

Have a stronger technical partner tool to help with developing the robot, making adjustments, testing, etc. Testing is very important. It is important that you allocate resources for testing.

Robots can do things in a different manner than we can and more efficiently. We have to be creative and think of processes, even if only part of them are repetitive, that we can automate and a human can work with the robot. Then, the overall the process is improved and our experience as humans is a lot better.

I would this solution a 10 out of 10 because they are very good at what they do. It's very important that you understand what the solution can do and its limitations. However, for this type of product, I think they are the best.