UiPath Platform Reviews

We are using Studio and Orchestrator.

Our primary use case is automating data processing for clients translating into other systems.

We do not run our automations in a virtual environment.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate this solution a three. I think that the technology that we use in the printing industry is a little more difficult to automate.

I am currently involved in the UiPath Academy training. We have third-party contractors who have been doing the development, and I am the first internal employee who will be developing. I find that the training is good in the first step, and also in the second step where we're learning about Orchestrator. However, when it moves to the third step and they are talking about the framework, I think that it is a pretty big leap and that is where I'm struggling. This is the section that I am in right now.

There was one project that was completed before I started, at my understanding is that from the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was less than six months. For my project, it has taken two months.

Using this solution has allowed us to enter a lot of customer data into our system in a much quicker and more efficient manner.

In terms of eliminating human errors, this solution has definitely helped. I would estimate an eighty percent reduction in the number of errors.

With respect to saving time, automation has taken a process that used to take two or three days to perform, down to several minutes.

The most valuable feature for us right now is being able to automate our process applications.

In the training, between steps two and three, there is a pretty big leap in terms of how difficult the material is. Moving right from the basics into the framework is causing me to struggle a little bit, and I think that there is room for improvement here.

With respect to the stability from a bot perspective, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a four. It has been pretty stable for us.

We have less than fifty people involved in our RPA program at this time.

We have contractors who are doing our development right now. On a scale of one to five, I would rate our experience with them a three. They seem to be struggling with the PDD.

In the project that I worked on, we have definitely seen ROI. We replaced a process that was being done manually, so we began to see returns immediately.

For the way in which we are using this solution, the features have been working very well. Our company is very young in this so we are still learning. We will get a lot out of this solution.

If you have a lot of manual and repetitive tasks in your company then this is definitely a great solution for you. That said, I know that things can always improve.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Studio, Orchestrator, and robots.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate this solution a two. It's been going for about six months now, and we are still having challenges here and there.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a three. The material is on the technical side, and not being a technical person, it makes it pretty challenging to get through. 

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately three months.

With respect to saving time, we have saved about fifteen hundred hours so far.

In terms of eliminating human errors, we have seen a reduction but I'm not sure by what percentage.

The most valuable feature is that you can save time when you have to run the same process over and over again with little variation. 

It is sometimes difficult to work with the exceptions, which can cause us a delay. We have a lot to learn.

I would like to see more options that we can quickly select to help improve the robots.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a four. Most of the time it is working pretty well, but there have been a couple of blips along the way.

We have approximately twenty people who use this solution in our organization.

We hired a consultant to help us with the implementation. I would rate our experience with them at three out of five. It was successful, but we had to redo some of the stuff that was originally done.

We have seen ROI but it is pretty far off right now. After about three months, we began to see ROI. I'd say that it is probably going to be about two years before we break even.

We are excited about the new features that were recently announced.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to hire a consultant who is familiar with the process. It is such a new technology that getting assistance would be helpful.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are using Studio, Orchestrator, attended and unattended robots.

Our primary use for this solution started with automating processes in finance, procurement, and HR. Now, we are researching various directions in logistics.

We do not run our automations in a virtual environment. This is something that we are trying to avoid.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate this solution a four. I'm an IT-based person, and for IT people it is easy to learn. UiPath claims that it is easy to learn and it's for everybody, but it's not true. For business people, it is hard to learn and hard to understand how to code to make things work. They need a lot of help with things like exception handling. If somebody lacks technical or programming skills then it makes it much more difficult to use. Although UiPath is getting closer to business users, there are still some basic skills that they need to have to make it work.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. When I get new hires it doesn't matter whether they have previous experience in RPA or development, they have to go through all of the basic training from the Academy. This includes the Orchestrator and I've been recommending SAP training because we are experiencing growth in the use of SAP. Going to my team, this is the base, and then we have created our internal framework and standards that also require training. Some people may already have experience with UiPath or Blue Prism, but they still need to take the training from the Academy.

Before I arrived at the company, there were already some automations running. However, fifteen months ago we shut down a couple of robots because they were failing terribly. From that time, it took us five months to create the first robot.

We have a project that combines UiPath with OCR and our integration tool. This allows us to automate processes we use in different projects that are coming from different vendors in different countries. Apart from gathering the information, we are template invoicing. The robots take invoice information and post the results into our SAP and other systems. It is much faster than our original process. This has been implemented in Spain, and we are now releasing it to other countries, one by one.

Using this solution is not just about saving time or reducing the number of staff. It is also for improving stability and decreasing the number of errors that we have. In Spain, where we were implementing a pilot project for purchase orders, we saw a decrease in the number of human errors. When they started, there was an error rate of ten percent. After three months in production, the error rate decreased to five or six percent, and after six months it was one or two percent. Also, even though there was still an error rate, it was consistent and it is something that we can account for.

In terms of money savings, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

The most valuable feature is Studio, which allows developers to specifically focus on development. Orchestrator allows us to connect those things together.

I would like to see some use cases and additional information on the process mining and the OCR features that are being released. There are other products that offer OCR features, and at this point, it is hard for me to determine the benefit of using UiPath for OCR rather than integrating it with another solution. This is not just from a business perspective, but from a development perspective as well. For example, I would like to see how you can connect UiPath to all of the applications to collect the logs and the data. Then, how we can put that information together. If there is a thirty-minute delay then how do you identify whether it was because the person went to lunch, or rather that they were working and thinking.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a three.

The stability of this solution really depends on the developer or the execution. It's not always a UiPath issue. If the process is unstable, it's the issue of the business case and not the actual execution of any development. So it really depends on how you use the platform and how you understand it. We will use a more stable technology, such as alerting through an API, before we go to the UI path.

We have about one hundred licenses for production and four Orchestrators.

Both customer support and technical support are really good. Whenever I have a question, whether it is business, Studio, or Orchestrator related, I usually get an answer. We have our own customer success manager who helps us on a daily basis. I also have connections to the lab and to the production team so I can ask questions there as well.

At this company, they did not have an RPA solution in place before this one.

Personally, I have also used Automation Anywhere and Blue Prism. From my perspective, it's about how you use the tool, and not about which tool you use. Personally, I don't like Automation Anywhere, and I used to be a Blue Prism guy.

I feel that Blue Prism is easier to learn because you can do things in terms of processes or objects. Logically, it is easier. In UiPath there are more options, but it's also harder to learn because you need to create a logical structure on your own. It doesn't show you how to do that in an easier way. UiPath has more connections and more inbuilt stuff than Blue Prism, but on the other hand, the navigation between the types of variables is slightly different. It's not a disadvantage, but it is something that takes time to learn.

I find that Automation Anywhere is not that user-friendly. For example, in Blue Prism you have loops that you can put a component into. In Automation Anywhere, you have to copy all of those stages, one-by-one. You cannot create a loop, which is basic.

We have not been tracking ROI yet, although we are working on it. It is difficult to calculate because to collect the information for each process it requires a logging system. Each project will require a specific logging system so that we can collect the same information to compare and evaluate it. We have to consider our development costs, maintenance costs, licensing costs, etc. At this point, we do not have enough people to work on this, so it is a work in progress.

They ran a selection process here and my understanding is that Blue Prism was not able to provide a free Studio license, unlike the policy they now have in place. This is the reason that UiPath was selected. 

The majority of our use cases are unattended, and that is the way that you should go. We do use attended bots as digital assistants, where you have small automations that are triggered by the users on their own to direct the robot. These are two separate products.

My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is not to be scared to use it. Play with it as much as possible and see if it brings value. There are different applications that can bring more value in certain cases.

Overall, this is a good solution, but there are always ways to improve a product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Studio, the Orchestrator, and we have attended and unattended robots.

Our primary use case is automating back-office processes from the corporate side. One example is the automation for ticket closure for some of the customer complaints. We also use it to fill information gaps between systems. Instead of having information run through standard APIs, we have it copied over from one system to another.

We run automations in a virtual environment, and the implementation was pretty easy and quick.

We used the Community Edition before purchasing our license. From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately one week. We found it to be very easy and very fast. We, as a Contact Center, usually face a lot of problems when we suggest any requirements. When we started with RPA, it took approximately one month for a very complex process to be automated.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate this solution a five. It is very easy. You can use the UI, or you can use APIs for the connection. In the end, you can do it.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five, for sure. In two or three weeks, an RPA developer can do everything.

In the Contact Center, the key issue is the handling time. RPA has helped us to decrease our time, and eventually, it will help to decrease the headcount.

For one of our processes, it reduced the time it takes from five minutes to somewhere between forty and fifty seconds. That saves a lot of time.

In terms of eliminating human errors, there has not been much difference because we have very strict processes and strict steps for them, so human error was minimal, to begin with. Our success is in the reduction of time to complete them.

The unattended, back-office robots are the most beneficial feature.

The Form Builder for back-end robots needs to be a web portal instead of a full desktop application. 

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution between three and four. For exception handling, it means that a senior RPA developer has to understand the reasons behind the process. If they have not been exposed to it then it is easier to perform some simple fixes and continue the process.

We have implemented eighteen processes so far, they are they used in several departments. In total, we have approximately four thousand people who are using this solution.

From a scalability point of view, we're not that confident that we can have the robots running twenty-four hours a day with a huge transaction. Being a telecom operator, we have a lot of transactions and the stability of the unattended robots needs some enhancement.

I think that both customer support and technical support are very good. When we have any questions or any issues, we are connected immediately. 

We did not use another RPA solution prior to this one.

We learned about RPA because one of the contractors was working on an RPA PoC at our company, and we were convinced that it could help us a lot. The IT people were invited to see the technology and from there, they decided to implement it with our in-house IT group.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. We used the Community Edition and it is very easy to use. 

We performed the implementation on our own.

We realized ROI in approximately six months. Our cost savings come from savings in agents.

From a cost perspective, unattended robots are better. They run twenty-four hours a day and do not require running on a client machine. The attended robots are not as cost-effective.

We did evaluate one other RPA solution before choosing this one. Our main reasons for choosing UiPath were the price and the ease of development. The Community Edition is very useful, and we are easily able to find RPA developers working in UiPath. This is different than with some of the competing products.

My advice for anybody researching this solution is that it is easy to download and it has a big community. A PoC can be done easily, and you can decide from there whether this solution is suitable.

This is a good solution, but the stability of the unattended robots needs to be improved.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the entire UiPath suite for healthcare revenue cycle management.

Our automations are not run in a virtual environment.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate it a four.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a four. The information about the automation processes was really useful. At the same time, I would suggest including more industry-specific training and knowledge sharing.

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately one month. I felt that the process was straightforward. It was very intuitive. Most of the resources were available to us and we've got it up and running with no problem.

We have clients for which we provide people to perform various processes. Parts of those processes are exceptions that could not be done by these people but were very time-consuming. We have automated those exceptions so that now, we don't have a percentage of our staff evaluating those exceptions every day. They now run flawlessly one hundred percent of the time. Our clients are happier and we're happier.

In terms of eliminating human errors, UiPath is excellent at that. We have one hundred percent accuracy on all of our automation.

This solution saves us time and it saves our clients time. I would estimate the savings at ten percent where automation is deployed. Some of the automations run slowly but they run around the clock.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ease of deployment.

More industry-specific training and information would be highly valuable to us. We're a healthcare company, and it would be helpful to know where and how automation is being deployed within a healthcare environment. For example, what have we done that we could share with people, and what are they doing that they could share with us?

The UiPath platform is stable, but it is dependent on other platforms.

For example, we may be extracting data from or populating data in a customer billing system. That billing system might go down and someone needs to wake up the bots after that happens. It is not the fault of UiPath but it is part of the process.

This solution is easy to scale.

We have approximately thirty people involved in our automation program.

We were not using an RPA solution before UiPath contacted us.

We handled the implementation in-house.

We are very close to seeing ROI, although not quite yet.

We looked at some different technologies that were out there and it seemed that UiPath was ready. These included Blue Prism, Automation Anywhere, and one other one. We felt like UiPath was a solid solution that was pretty easy to use and could scale easily and quickly as well.

This is a fantastic solution and we love it, but we definitely see some room for improvement, mainly around interoperability and leveraging intelligent or cognitive RPA and educating their client base around that stuff.

My advice to anybody researching this type of solution is to familiarize yourself with the concepts and all of the market participants, and then choose the one that works best for you.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our most prevalent use case is invoice processing.

We are using Studio, Orchestrator, attended bots, and unattended bots.

It comes down to saving people time to be able to look at high-value tasks.

The solution has helped us eliminate human error with 100 percent testing and accuracy. This is only where there are exceptions, which generally tends to be under five percent of the time.

The solution has saved us time. It does depends on the specific process. For one specifically, it took a week out of each month, then we were able to process the same reconciliation process within minutes.

Studio is the most valuable feature from the aspect of developing a bot. It is very nice from the drag and drop perspective. It is very easy to follow and has low guidance from the technical aspect.

I would like to have cloud in the next release. It's one of those things that allows customers to be able to have an easier access point.

There are still areas for improvement for some of the drag and drop features and moving more to a bit of a lower code perspective.

I would rate stability as a five out of five. Compared to competitors where we've had instances where either exceptions are kicked out or the workflow breaks, UiPath does not encounter those issues.

About 50 people in our organization are involved in our automation program.

The technical support is very good. They are very good partners.

The experience overall has been really great with UiPath. The culture and individuals at the company really help make the project easy to do.

We had a very manual process that needed to be addressed because it was taking up way too much time of employees' efforts.

The initial setup was straightforward. Going through the certification process, it enables you with the tools to be able to implement at an easy level for low-hanging use cases.

It took about a month from the time we purchase our UiPath license until our first bot was live.

We used a consultant for the deployment. I would rate our experience with them as a five out of five. 

I would rate ease of use as a four out of five. We had a bunch of people that do implementations from a development aspect for our use cases. The solution has been very easy to be able to implement for our specific use cases, given the capabilities of the platform.

We have seen ROI from this solution. We saw it almost immediately in regard to performance benefits around accuracy, timeliness, and the ability to do 100 percent testing.

We also evaluated Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere. We chose UiPath because of stability of the platform, ease of use, and the deployment factors are much easier with UiPath.

We have used UiPath Academy for RPA training. I would rate it as a five out of five. Compared to competitors, the UiPath Academy offers a very easy path to certification. The way that the curriculum is laid out, it is very nice and easy to follow.

Do your due diligence.

We have probably use attended bots more heavily. They're very nice and everybody has a good experience with them working alongside actual humans.

I would rate the overall product an eight out of ten. There are additional features that probably could be rolled out. I think there are on the roadmap.

I have used UiPath Orchestrator, and we have created both attended and unattended robots for our clients.

We have been using the new AI and OCR technologies with UiPath, and we are currently trying to implement the Citrix log capability that was recently introduced.

We are not running our automations in a virtual environment. When we automate any Citrix-based application, it's all email-based. There is a Citrix receiver and we communicate with that, which helps automate Citrix applications much faster.

Most of the clients I had seen have been running in virtual environments, although I have seen some of our clients running on the desktop. We have also seen hybrid scenarios.

One thing is that virtual environments can be standardized pretty quickly. So, that's an advantage. Normally, the companies, which are leaning towards more cloud now, will be happy with this. So, I think that is one factor. As you move virtual machines to the cloud you can migrate your bots to the cloud faster.

I have worked on various different domains including the public sector, commercial, healthcare, energy, utility, and federal. These are the different customers for which we are implementing solutions. Now, the customers are moving towards AI and natural language processing. They are more into chatbots, how they can use artificial intelligence, making use of data science, and putting more machine learning on board.

With respect to how easy it is to automate our company's processes, on a scale of one to five, I would rate it two and a half. I'd say it is about marketing. You can develop anything. There are very small processes that you can develop with having minimal experience. However, when you start implementing complex processes, I would say you need to be a background developer.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. All of my team members have been using UiPath Academy for training and certification. It's not just with the U.S., but outside the U.S. as well.

From the point that a UiPath license is purchased until the first robot is ready totally depends upon what use case we are implementing. There are different methodologies that people use. Some build the bot without exceptions and it can go to production. Like a very simple process can go to production in two to three weeks. A more complex bot will take eight to ten weeks, and depending upon the process, it can go longer. I have seen tasks when a human is performing the job and it takes him around twenty minutes per transaction. But, when the bot comes in, it actually completed that same transaction in five minutes. But, to develop that five minutes of processing, it was understanding system availability and testing. Then you have to do load testing. It takes ten weeks or so.

Our clients decide to implement RPA for several reasons. The first reason, of course, is to have work completed faster. Second, when there is a workload, you can work on it more efficiently and with fewer people. Consider an open enrollment in October, where the open enrollment starts at 10:00 AM and there are a lot of transactions flowing in. Now you have to hire a human and train them. With the bot, we can just scale up instead. Finally, the bots are errorless.

In terms of eliminating human errors, it is a one hundred percent reduction. When you implement bots, it's error-free, as long as you have implemented it properly. The robot does not get tired, so the error rate is actually zero.

I would say, more important than saving money, it's more about business growth and client satisfaction. Our clients all serve someone, so it's more about customer satisfaction. The employees benefit because sometimes they have to do repetitive jobs, and they get bored with them. So, they can use automation and apply their brains somewhere fruitful.

Overall, automation is always improving customer satisfaction. Response time is improved, errors are reduced, and productivity increases because work is being done around the clock.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is user-friendly. I was a coding developer, so I know how to write code, and I've also used other RPA tools. This solution is workflow-driven, where you can easily relay what you had written. If someone has to read the code, it is very readable.

Second, I've always been a Microsoft technology guy, and they have provided the facility where we can implement any of the C# code into it. We have .NET code, and that's why I like it. We say it's a tool, but I would say it can also be leveraged as a custom coding tool. We can actually do whatever custom code you want.

I would like to see more machine learning features and capabilities for more accurate OCR.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a five. It's stable. The thing is, with the software, we have a few glitches here and there, but what I like is that we have the right support. When we actually reach out to verify, we get a faster response and also a faster solution. The responses are effective and fast.

The responses are effective and fast.

I have seen some cases where there is backend automation, but it was a series of processes. With this solution, they combine all of it into one. There were few human-interactive automations. Rather, it was batch-job processing of databases, etc.

The complexity of the initial setup depends upon the client.

There is admin access and a whole lot involved. There are safety concerns from client to client with their security policies, and it may take time. I have hardly seen any clients where it's easy to set up, within a week or two. It takes longer because of the client's own security policies. You have to get a lot of clearance because there is a lot of admin access that UiPath needs. If I had to rate the setup, I would give it three out of five.

A dedicated person is required to maintain this solution. The same way humans get sick and need doctors, the bots get sick and you need a maintenance person.

I would estimate that our clients see ROI, on average, in one year. It depends on what they are trying to save. If it is FTE then eventually you'll be getting everything. If you are trying to have a faster experience, it totally depends. There is a development cost and a tool cost that have to be considered. It also depends on the complexity of the processes and how long they take to code.

We have clients who use almost all of the RPA solutions. The most common ones are Automation Anywhere, Blue Prism, and WorkFusion. We don't recommend. We advise. We can implement regardless of the solution.

The choice is dependent on various factors. What we have seen is that most companies have a technology stack. Some have a Java shop, while others have a Microsoft shop, or others will use a different technology stack again. People tend to choose what best matches their technology.

When we started initially, most of the business users were afraid that the bot was going to take their job. That is not the case. The bot is actually helping them with their substantive, day-to-day work, by handing the repetitive work. So, after seeing the benefits, I've seen a lot of users now leaning towards bots, and they are very happy with RPA.

I am looking forward to the new version where they have implemented libraries. One thing they have done is merged the media packages into one. 

From a cost perspective, there is a difference between attended and unattended bots. I have implemented both, but most of the plans are moving towards unattended. The unattended bots come at a higher cost. For an attended bot, it is being used while the user is at the machine, and is more like an interactive bot. While there is a huge difference in cost, I still prefer unattended bots. I see less benefit in using attended bots and say that I would use unattended eighty percent of the time.

When I'm implementing an unattended bot, I am actually putting it on a machine. I can run as many unattended bots as I need on that one machine. I can do this with attended bots, but the thing is, you need user interactions. Now think in this way, if the user is not there, the attended bot is waiting for that user. Secondly, I see some of the use cases that are really helpful and suitable for attended, but I would rather go with unattended because it's going to show that I don't need a physical machine and it will be more efficient.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to start with the UiPath Academy and do the training. Then, look through some videos, implement a process or two and see how comfortable you are. At this point, you can move forward with it. I would say that it is pretty easy to understand.

This is a good solution, but I'm a hardcore custom developer. I still want that flexibility in my hand to do whatever I can do. With a tool, there are always limitations in terms of policy and rules.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for insurance processes where we have redundant activity and we have pain points for our customers. It allows the employees to do more insightful work.

As we are mostly using unintended robots right now, the main value we see is the ability for the solution to take away the redundant tasks. That's the key value. But there's tremendous potential in the attended or hybrid model. The value I see there is allowing people to automate partially or at a time. Whether that's something that we've identified clearly now or something that we look at in the future, I think that lives in the attended or hybrid piece. It would be nice to just see what more we could do and what more value we could add to the business there.

On a scale of one to five, I would validate the ease of use to maintain our processes almost at five now that the solution has introduced Studio X. Studio X has the potential of empowering people to prototype and then pass along more qualified information. It's a game-changer.

Right now just being able to capture process, even without Studio X, let's say we video it or we capture it by way of a traditional Vizio diagram, enables asking work instructions, etc. It allows us to capture and standardize what people are doing as well as take steps toward optimizing processes in general. It's all good stuff.

I wouldn't know without looking at the actual metrics, but I would say in general our pay projects probably cut time by factors. Simply because people do things more slowly, more inefficiently. They're interrupting where the bot is not. That's the reason why we love it so much. The potentials of cost and time savings and the possibility of really having people get some of their time back is great.

We haven't had any problems that make the solution look unstable. I'd give stability a rating of four out of five.

As far as stability is concerned, I'm not sure what people who have deployments of hundreds or thousands of bots are seeing in terms of stability. We're small. For a small implementation, we've had a few hiccups and a few concerns where I would say, how can we triage more quickly, or how can we understand what we've caused more quickly? How can we implement strategies for redundancy and business continuity management? What guidance is there from the company on that and how can we be very transparent to our customers to be clean, concise and clear about that? 

I've talked to a lot of the technical support team. They all know that we're really happy with their responsiveness. We were really happy with the product and we're really happy with them. Just continuing to get the guidance, meeting with them, considering strategies and having them support us has been great. 

In this day and age, RPA is the appropriate tool for certain issues where a lot of times I think a lot of firms, not just ours probably go, "Hey, we don't need a longterm solution that will last forever, but we do need something that's going to automate this process and is going to take this pain point away from the business and this appeases that need." I'm not sure if that's specific to any one certain company; that's just the way that people approach it.

I'm not quite sure the exact reason why our company chose to automate. It was decided before I joined the team.

Implementations from process assessment through actually bringing something to production takes about three months. We'd like to be at six weeks like everyone else. But right now, we're at about three months.

It'll be more straightforward in the future now that we have tools like explore apps and insights. 

The complexity of the project informs the complexity of the implementation. We are an IT services company. We have a very standardized kind of approach to testing and bringing things to production, so I don't think that's terribly complex. It's kind of business as usual. We recently brought a project to 10 productions that had three parts to it. We staggered the implementation that typically might be more complex than what other people are doing. The complexity of the project introduces complexity to the implementation, which is fairly straightforward.

We have a partner that assisted with implementation.

The performance benefits are usually pretty quick. The process assessment that we do that hopefully determines the processes that we would pick, allows us to see ROI fairly soon. I'm not sure what the timeline is on that exactly.

I'm sure our process probably looks like a lot of other companies. We go and look at not only one solution but also its competitors. We look at the top of any certain field and make a decision based on what fits the need the best. 

My understanding is the solution is deployed on-premises.

We also run our deployments in a virtual environment and we have the potential to do hybrid things as we have more processes that are in the pipeline that we must review to see what our roadmap looks like going forward in the future. Our experience with automation within virtual environments so far has been fine.

In terms of the UiPath RPA Training Academy, I've taken a few courses. I've also done Academy live and watched tutorial videos. The UI path engineers and customer service managers, as well as some of the directors that are local to our area, have been very helpful in providing this information. I fully intend to continue to do that and as long as it's available. If I were to rate the training materials, I would say the training materials are probably a five out of five rating. There's a lot of information there.

I would suggest others give the solution a good hard look to see if it works for them. Hopefully, for others, it will be a successful product and a useful tool.

Overall, I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.