Your most compelling case for process automation

Question

How do you convince people (i.e. not programmers) that process automation is a GOOD thing?

The general argument against it is something like "But you only need to do [X mindnumbing task]" and "it only takes time, but just do it and don't waste time making a difference."

Any other programmers working in non-dev-jobs where automation is useful, but avoided, misunderstood, afraid, etc.? How did you get around it? Do you argue with logic?

Me? I kind of work in secret, but it can bite me in ASCII.

Answer 1

Repeatability voltage. Repeatability and consistency are often missed but very useful side effects of automation; when you use automation, everything is done the same every time, and this repeatability, as a rule, does not depend on fatigue, boredom, etc.

Answer 2

Logics? All you need is a cost-benefit analysis. Break your time down by the hourly rate, multiply by the number of times you need to complete the task in a year and how long it takes, and then compare it with the cost of automating the procedure.

This is usually obvious after this. Of course, theoretically, all the time when you save, you can use it elsewhere, but how do you prove this ?;)

Answer 3

Ask them: "When you need 100 photocopies of a document, do you manually feed it through a copier 100 times?"

Actually, thinking about this, some people probably do: - (

Answer 4

There's a great quote from Terence Parr, creator of ANTLR:

Why spend 5 days doing something manually so that you can spend five years on automation?

First, make sure you do not.

Secondly, try to make sure that you can use automation without affecting anyone. Let people see how much faster you can do your job ... then show them how to do it.