UiPath Platform Reviews

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.

We play significantly in the BFSI and healthcare space. A lot of use cases have been related to BFSI. Insurance is much bigger, with claims and underwriting, policy admin, health benefits, and so on so forth. There are also good use cases on the functional level, HR and finance, and that cuts across industries. 

As an example, looking at fatality insurance for pets, clients had a high volume of documents come in, claims in all different forms, and they had to apply logic eligibility. There's a simple rule of whether you allow or disallow. If they don't allow the claim, then there's a comp process. By a sheer ability to read whichever way the document comes in, clients are able to load the system and quickly get the eligibility. 

This dramatically improves their claims operation by a big margin. Whenever there is some complexity in one, then we do an exception. We crunched the time so well and made the process so cost-effective it has given the client a huge benefit.

The democratization, automation, and attended automation, all of these are pretty good features. Those are all good value add to what it was there previously. 

The moment a machine takes over, there are fewer errors. That is inherent. When you say value, that is the cost-benefit. 

We have seen a lot of benefits on the backend, but then the algorithm is constrained, which can't transform because of the older technology. 

Sometimes in their partner communication, they aren't consistent. This maybe is related to the fact they are growing as a company.

The solution is fairly stable. 

The initial setup is always complex. Clients don't know the hardware, the licensing, or how it works. Any large organization will always have an initial hurdle. 

We have roughly around 164-165 trained RPA credentials on the engineering side, all on UiPath.

You do have complexity when it comes to maintenance, as you get to 50, 100 bots. 

As an example, one of the customers for whom we did an early bird, we estimated we could save this one division of their company $44 million. They only may have to invest about $4 million. There's $44.5 million for about 12 months. That's what we think we could save. 

The adoption of RPA has definitely been increasing and we know that all of that has been largely in the back office. In the back office, it's easier to check ROI. We've actually gone beyond ROI because ROI is a very simple statement, so we start showing clients value.

How long it takes to achieve ROI actually depends upon the client's way of implementing it. For example, some people will wait to take away the manual effort while they will stand by. Because what if it doesn't work? What if it fails? What if then my backlog increases dramatically? So, it is really up to them. If it is simple task automation, we can do it in about four or six weeks. In eight to 10 weeks they'll see the benefit. 

We're using all components of UiPath: attended, unattended robotics, and Orchestrator Studio. We have a very wide customer base and our clients use all of them.

Cloud adoption is increasing. Deployment models are a little bit more a logistic question than anything else because companies who want on-site are a little bit more conscious of security, but they take a normal amount of time, just to figure out the infrastructure. If we moved clients to the cloud, we can make it easier to implement. With email on the cloud, they have a huge set of processes. The larger the company, the larger the processing. With the cloud, it becomes faster. 

I've got a deep partnership with UiPath. I would absolutely rate them high. I'd give them a ten out of ten.

We have two customers. One is in the insurance industry. We are implementing it within our own company to automate HR and finance processes: back office. This is the same thing with the customer: back office. That's the focus.

We are using Studio, Orchestrator, and attended bots. We are not using unattended bots yet.

For one of our clients, their intent is to create a bot because one of their key folks was retiring. This person had a lot of knowledge of the processes and how things happen. So, the idea was to create a bot that helps. They want it to do 25 percent of most of the work, and this person would just validate instead of training somebody new to do the job. Their idea was to not hire for that position anymore. Instead, if the person is just doing validation, 25 percent of that load is then spread across their current staff.

It is easy to use. That is definitely one thing that attracts people. 

I really like the feature that you get to record actions. I wish that feature was a bit more advanced where I could build more automation. Sometimes, you have to stop the robot because the robot doesn't get the level of detail that I am expecting to see in the automation. Then, you have to stop the bot, and stop or break the recording. While it's nice in creating a first sort of brush off your automation, I wish it would just go a step further.

I really like the new products that were announced here. The apps have a lot of potential. I'm interested in learning more about that in the next few months. The same thing with StudioX. Although, it would be interesting to see if they're more business-friendly or not. While UiPath is advertised as a low code platform, you can't put it in the hands of a business user. They have no idea what some of the features are. Some things, they need to have extensive training and be tech savvy in several things before they can go there.

Several of us took training using the UiPath Academy. I thought the UiPath Academy was very intuitive and easy to use. I would give it a five out of five rating.

When you are tech savvy and been trained, it is a four out of five for ease of use. Having that automation recording feature operate better and capture more of the automation that you're trying to build would make it a five. 

With the new products that were announced, UiPath closed a few of the gaps. I can see how they could expand the products into other areas. There is potential there for some workflow capability. I know this would be going beyond RPA at that point, but having one platform that does a lot of things would be nice. Because as it stands, when you need to do a workflow or approval process, you need to send this out somewhere else. There are things the bot can do, but I can see some of that functionality already showing up though with the tasks and apps. However, I would like to see more. That would be good.

Moving bots to the cloud would be the next good step. The new product has Orchestrator in the cloud. I think moving to bots to the cloud could also be next along with having Studio in the cloud where you can do everything in the cloud: Deploy and run your bots from the cloud.

It is pretty stable. I would rate it a five out of five.

I haven't used the technical support.

We learned about this stuff about two years and a half ago. We started exploring it, then we decided to take the plunge and try it out. That's how it came about.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. 

It took us about four months from the initial purchase of UiPath to putting the robots in production. With our first deployment, we made a lot of mistakes. For us, it was like the first time you do something, you don't know exactly what you're doing, you just do it. Then, the second time, you're like, "Oh, now, I can go back and do other things differently." With us, it was very much like that. We learned sort of on the job.

We did the installation ourselves. 

I didn't do it, but I know that the people that did the installation didn't have any issues with it. They didn't need to open a ticket in particular or anything like that. This tells me that it was fairly easy. 

We have saved steps and time from people doing their jobs because they're not doing all this crazy validation anymore.

We evaluated the top three. UiPath at the time was number three, Blue Prism was number number two, and Automation Anywhere was number one. So, we weighed them out.

I liked some of the functionality from Automation Anywhere. The recording feature of Automation Anywhere was much better and easier to use than UiPath. Although, I haven't seen the new Studio. In 2019, maybe they changed some things in there. Regardless, the Automation Anywhere tool seemed easier to use. But, in terms of partnership, they were not a good fit for the values of the company. Those things all go into account when trying to partner with somebody. That's why we decided to go with UiPath.

Some of the features in the software looked the same between Automation Anywhere and UiPath. Blue Prism seems very hard to use. That one we kind of killed on the spot. Between like Automation Anywhere and UiPath, it was more about how the company's vision, and where things were headed. All of that sort of helped. So, we were at that point that we were not really looking at the software anymore. We were looking at other things. That's how we ended up here.

With the new additions that were announced yesterday, I'd probably give it an eight (out of 10). I still would like to see some other features, which I know UiPath would start crossing into BPM a bit when you start talking workflows and things like that. However, that would be a good next step given their market share, customers outreach, and beyond API and some partners that they have today.

We primarily use the solution for the financial processes. 

In our company, we are freeing up 14,000 hours per month.

All of the UiPath's components, meaning Studio, Orchestrator, and Unattended Robotics, are really important for us because they offer really clean processes. The one that generates more value for us is the Orchestrator because we are planning to really scale up the factory. It helps us to have an overview and control. With the insights that they announced recently, I hope we have really great control over it in the company.

In terms of ease of use, I would rate the solution five out of five. It's really intuitive and any people that have the basics of coding can handle it. 

In the next release, they need enterprise connect. That's something we were wondering about. 

The solution could maybe use more artificial intelligence components or stuff we can start to use in the AI field. 

It could use an easy integration with SAP. Most of the processes of our company are in SAP. Sometimes it's kind of tricky to automate it.

I'd rate the stability four out of five. We haven't presented problems but sometimes with the UiPath robot, the robot attended license breaks.

We have reached out to technical support. We are in Columbia so sometimes there are slow responses because they don't have too much capacity to attend to us in Latin America. It could be better.

Our time to market in implementing our first robot was four months because it was new for everyone in the company. We started too many processes at the same time and we were preparing everything around the company. It was slow. It was four or five months.

The initial setup was easy. We didn't have any problems.

We implemented the solution ourselves. Our IT department and our robotics architect handled it. We also had UiPath help us with the set up as well.

I'd rate their assistance five out of five. They helped us a lot.

Unattended robot costs are high.

For our company, we have money to buy the solution and we have a huge contract with UiPath, but for companies that are smaller, the costs are too high. For example, a company that is not too big, because they have to pay in dollars, may suffer because conversion rates are high.

When we started we started with UiPath and Blue Prism. We made 14 processes with each and we decided to stay with UiPath. Mostly because of the IT architecture. We really like the Orchestrator, for example. It was like a huge consideration we had because Blue Prism is like a closed book and we didn't like it too much.

We utilize the full UiPath package. We are all on the cloud using the Microsoft Azure platform. 

We also use it within the virtual environment. It has been tough implementing it. Sometimes it doesn't identify the selectors or the images. It has a higher risk of failure. It's risky to have a centralized process.

We plan on automating the drilling process, the upstream and midstream process of the company, and the transportation of oil and gas for the company. Those are the main areas for us that we are aiming to automate. We started with back processes such as financial processes, logistic processes, and HR processes because they are not the core. As we continue learning about it, we will focus on the back-office processes.

A prerequisite for us in the company is to go through the UiPath RPA Training Academy. They have many courses, including foundations and advanced certifications. I'd rate the Training Academy four out of five. If they didn't explain too many things that would be great. They do basic stuff that will help people have a different mindset about it. They need more of an overview. Use cases, examples and more explanations about the activities in the UiPath would be useful. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Our client's companies have extensive issues with SAP and getting information out of it. They have another technical ERP system with an in-memory database where they don't get the information out of it, then have to add it manually to SAP. That will be probably the first big use case for automation. So, we will get a bot reading it on the database from the Citrix environment and probably moving it to SAP.

The client will probably have it on-premise. They tend to be really risk adverse in terms of Cloud solutions. We have tried to get them to use the cloud more because it's just easier.

We are using Studio Orchestrator, and unattended bots. I have programmed attended bots before.

The client is eliminating human errors as they are eliminating some of the accrual processes from SAP, where a lot of mistakes can be made. If the bot is not making mistakes, then they are eliminating errors by 100 percent, but this depends on whether the bot is efficient or error-free.

You need an understanding of how to code, use the variables and arguments, etc. That was why I was excited for StudioX. I tried it earlier, and it was amazing. This is actually what they were missing. Studio is great because you can do so much stuff.

On a scale of one to five (where five is beneficial), I would rate the UiPath Academy as a four. There is some stuff that they could do better. I sampled the advanced, which is really difficult because it's just PDF. I had to use some YouTube videos to understand the framework that you need to pass for developer. They could do more videos on that.

They have three parts. The first is the foundation, and they are a lot of videos. The third part of it (advanced), there are no videos except one. That's only those PDF files, which you have to look and read through. I was like, "Okay, I probably can't do it." Then, I fell upon some community YouTube videos from other developers who just demonstrated it. This would be great if UiPath offered that, because I found out later that the developers made mistakes in their videos.

In the foundation, they get into much detail in the beginning. You're overloaded with information. You have to go through videos like three times to get it correctly. They could remove some stuff out of there. Those quizzes are really frustrating too. They are too detailed. If you sat with Uipath, you think it's really easy. However, it's not so much, if you get into those details.

Studio is a bit overwhelming in the beginning. They could get add some details, but not so many, into the foundation training. I've seen StudioX and loved the colors. Please get the colors into Studio. I loved the flow and that you got all these activities and colors too. It was so much easier. It was visually easier to understand where to click. It was really user-friendly.

I would rate the ease of use of the platform for automating our company’s processes as a four out of five (with five being very easy). I would rate it as a four because it didn't work in the beginning to get my bots active. I had to get into a lot of videos to get them running. I didn't understand how it needed to be designed or coded.

The Orchestrator training was much better, but I still somehow missed some details which I needed. However, it's not just do it, then it's done. You need some time to get into it. Though, it's much easier than Studio.

The integration with Outlook is not that good yet.

I would rate stability as a four (out of five). I had some cases where Orchestrator didn't work in it. We couldn't login and the platform was slow.

We are still small and just starting out. We have five developers/solution architects involved in automation projects. We have done our certificate through UiPath Academy.

Support is pretty good. It's responsive.

Our client was having some problems. They got a framework running on a scale: 

• Which processes should be automated?
• What are the easiest processes to automate and more difficult?

For our first client project, it took us five months from the time that UiPath license was purchased until we implemented the first bot. 

The initial setup was straightforward. They identified several easier flows, and it was like learning with the client together. I know they are phasing out some more complex issues where you have to get into the details of HTML coding and stuff like that to get some stuff done. That is where UiPath gets difficult, because it's just coding and tech.

Our client saw ROI after one month. They realized after we showed them the first process that three people would be free to do other stuff. They got to sort of afraid of what they would do with those three people, and those people were afraid, which was a big issue. 

We invented RPI and pizza. We all came to those pizza Fridays and showed them that they don't have to be afraid. They benefited from it more than not, and no one would lose their jobs.

We told the client UiPath is best. We looked for the biggest player in the market and decided UiPath was the platform.

We target medium-size companies and have long-term relationships with them. They trust in our opinion. We told them our reasons that we think UiPath is the best.

UiPath is biggest player in the market. They have this platform economy going. I'm really excited to hear that they bought the process goals. There's a lot of potential there, if they integrate process automation with process mining. That is a big thing for me.

We looked into other RPA tools, like Blue Prism. We decided it's harder to learn and implement.

I would rate the solution an eight (out of 10). They need to thrive to get better.

If you have some tech experienced people, then UiPath is the better solution because it's easier to learn and implement.

Right now, the primary use case is document retrieval from our client system. We are a healthcare billing company, so we have to pull things like medical records and different documents from hospital stays. So, we used the robots to pull those versus an FTE.

We have both unintended and attended robotics that we use. We haven't really delved into Studio a lot yet. That's going to be part of our staging and going into the next phase. We built all of our basic bots, so now we're going into the more complex bots.

We are on-premise. We were looking at moving to the cloud, so that will be something in our next steps.

It has a really good turnaround time for our operations department to start working on claims, because all the information has already been pulled upfront with the bots. Instead of having to go into an account and request medical records or a certain type of document, it's normally already been pulled on the front-end as soon as the account loads because we run everything through the bots.

The most valuable feature right now is we have been able to utilize our staff better with the bots. We can put them on more high priority items. That was the one thing that everyone was afraid of: The bots would replace them. What we did is retrain them to do other tasks that we needed, as that was more of a priority for us.

We do deal somewhat with Citrix. It depends on the client and how the bot has to be set up. We have some clients who do run through Citrix, then we have some who use a VPN tunnel to get in. So, we have it on both.

The implementations or integrations through Citrix are really good. The only problem that we are coming across is just maintenance. If the Citrix platform gets updated and we're not notified, it breaks. So, we have to reconfigure our bot to the new updates. Unfortunately, that's just the name of the game, and that would be true if we were pulling them manually versus a bot. We would still run into that with the Citrix platforms.

I would rate stability as a five (out of five). We have not actually had any issues with UiPath. Most of our issues have been with just platforms changing, breaking, and the regular maintenance.

We have about 40 bots right now with 30 ready to be made.

Our team is really small. We have roughly six people who are working with the developers and actually running the bots. We're the only department using the solution. Our department was asked to lead this on, so we've been very fortunate to be able to lead it and be able to help our own department first. Now, we're starting to look at other areas of the company to deploy RPA.

We have not used UiPath technical support.

The initial setup was a little complex, but that was because we really didn't even know what we were getting into. We were told by upper management (our CFO) that automation was the next frontier and we had to go that route. We were sort of the pioneers going through this for our company,

It probably took about six to eight weeks for us to talk with development and for them to get the context of what we wanted. It took them about five weeks to actually build the bot. Then, once they built the bot, it was in production. Of course, we had to go back and do some maintenance because it did not work first time. After we got the hang of it, it's been great.

We got some consulting from UiPath. We do use their developers. Other than that, we do not go through a third-party. We did everything else ourselves.

Our experience with UiPath services was good. There were some bumps along the way. It's just trying to understand the process and RPA from what we've seen.

It took us about six months to really see what the bots could do. We then started tracking financial savings and how it's helping the company. We set out a bit differently. Our CFO came out, and said, "Automation is where we're going," but on top of that, "This is X amount of money that you have to save in the process."

We have spent the last 18 months tracking how much we are spending and how much we're saving. We hit the goal with no problems because we were able to shift staff. We did eliminate some staff, but this solution really brought out the skill level of our employees. Those employees with the higher skills were able to transfer to more important projects.

Within the first year, we saved a little over $600,000. That totaled to almost 19 FTEs which we ended up saving.

We haven't used any other vendors.

We are on spreadsheets and data. I keep saying we're stuck in 1996. It's been nice to have the vision of being able to be in the 21st century and really be able to use the bots the way we want to use them.

We have not taken part in the UiPath training. That's something that we talked about right before this conference. We really need to start utilizing more of the training that's offered. We want to turn some of our soft coders into people who can really code for us, not always relying on developers to do all of our work. That's definitely something that we're implementing soon.

I would rate it at least a four (out of five) for ease of use. We don't deal so much with UiPath, but from what we do deal with outside of developers, we have not had any problems. It has been very user-friendly, for those of us that don't know coding. We are able to look at things, sort of fix things, etc.

I rated them a four for ease of use, not a five, because we want to see what UiPath can do. We have a lot on the table. We have 30 bots ready to go. A lot of it's more screen scraping, which will be more complex. So, we want to see really if UiPath can do what they say the solution can do. We want to test its scalability.

I definitely would say UiPath is the way, especially with everything that they're coming out with now. It helps you understand more about RPA instead of just being thrown into things. It helps you understand all that on a smaller level. It is what everyone else has said here at the conference too, "Start with a small project. Don't go out with a big thing because it's not going to work." Luckily, we did start small, and we've just grown from there. Those would be my suggestions.

I would rate the solution a 10 out of 10.

We are using attended and unattended bots. The attended ones are very low profile. We are also using Orchestrator.

Our primary use case for this solution is to automate underwriting processes.

We do not run our automations in a virtual environment, yet.

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. I think that we still struggle sometimes with what kind of a bot we need to use for what kind of work. It may be a lack of understanding on our side. We need to have more clarity on this.

On a scale of one to five, judging how beneficial it is, I would rate the training a five. This is what I have heard from my team members. I did enroll in the training but I didn't make much progress. That said, I have heard good things about it.

From the point that we purchased our UiPath license until we had our first robot was approximately a six-month transition.

In terms of eliminating human errors, I would say that this solution has done so to a certain extent. The stuff that we are automating was quite simple to begin with. As such, there was not a lot of room for error because we have multiple verification steps. I cannot estimate a percentage for the reduction of human error.

I would say that we have a time-savings of approximately fifty percent.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the unattended robots because I can schedule my jobs and it can run on its own. I don't need to pay much attention, except in the case of an exception. That is the only time that I need to deal with it.

We sometimes struggle trying to figure out what kind of a bot we need to use for what kind of work, and it would be nice to have more clarity on this.

With respect to the stability, on a scale from one to five, I would rate this solution a five. It is quite stable.

We have a team of ten developers who work with this solution.

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

We got involved in automation because it makes us more efficient and we save money. These are a few of the important things that we are always looking for.

The implementation of this solution was done in-house.

We have seen ROI because a lot of the work is now automated, so the people who used to do these tasks, the monotonous work, are now doing better things. I would say that we saw ROI in five to six months.

The licensing costs for the unattended bots are a little too expensive. If it were lower then I think we could use it more effectively.

We are excited about the upcoming features with artificial intelligence and document understand capabilities. I think that those are features that would come in quite handy for us.

My advice for anybody considering this solution is to take a look from the grand scale to see which use cases are the prominent ones. Do not look at all of the tiny details because sometimes we can make a use case very complex. The end result is less valuable. Look for the high-level stuff that can be quickly automated, then come down to the final stuff later.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.