What needs improvement with Fortra Automate?

The user interface could be slightly enhanced to make it more modern. I would recommend improving integrations with some tools. The tools I have in mind are Office 365 and SharePoint.

In my particular use case, for session management, it would be better if I could get a more granular view into connectivity issues to servers. Sometimes, although your flows or tasks are running as scheduled, connecting to the servers can hit a snag without alerts or error logs to check. Some servers might need patching or could be affected by network issues or latency. The workflow sometimes gets stuck without clarity on the errors. An explicit error report would be helpful, especially when the connection fails unexpectedly. It's complex to analyze problems that might arise from firewall issues or other anomalies that could hinder the flow from executing as expected. The depth of these connection challenges would benefit from better debugging capabilities. As for improvements, if Automate wasn't designed primarily for script execution, that's understandable. However, for Linux, I would prefer to see less complexity in workflows to achieve a natural completion of scripts. There are features, such as 'wait for terminal output,' that should more intuitively detect completion based on the shell prompt. Improving those aspects would make Automate more efficient for my needs. Regarding error reporting, I think Automate should offer better error reporting when connecting to servers. Currently, there are many instances where I see empty logs, indicating that, while tasks are scheduled, commands are not executing successfully. This is a significant concern, especially with critical workloads where visibility into errors is essential.

I do not think there is much that should improve because this system has been working effectively during the year I have used it. Regarding complex implementation, though the implementation might be complex, it is the best way of implementing it as all tools function properly. I would not suggest improvements because altering features might make it harder for users to locate and function properly. Though it is somewhat complex, this is the best way for the tool to run smoothly and deliver optimal productivity. The reason for not giving it 10 out of 10 is that we have some minor problems that do not require technical team intervention. Some challenges include the system being too loaded or delayed in taking instructions and responding quickly as needed. These issues are resolved easily, but these minor challenges prevent a perfect rating. As an organization and system, we do excellent work but cannot achieve perfection due to these small challenges. I rate it nine out of 10 because there are minor challenges that limit the solution from reaching perfection.

I find that most important features are strong, however, there is a lack of good development for artificial intelligence, such as machine learning. In this area, the solution is not as advanced as it could be, which can be complicated as there is increasing demand.

We were waiting for the product's FTP capabilities to be updated as they needed to catch up in some areas for which ciphers were permitted. The module for those file transfers or communications had issues with partners tightening their security and turning off certain cyber suites. We stopped communicating until we could resolve some problems. A part of it may have evolved into an actual version upgrade. They've recently made some release notes and added enhancements regarding that topic. I'm glad to hear that attention is still being given to getting the required changes. The product also has a limited use case in some respects. However, it offers vast more capabilities than what we're utilizing. The only thing they can improve on is its marketing sales. The costs have become exponentially more than what we used to apply it for. It was only about 200 to 300 bucks when I first purchased it. Now it has become five grand receipts.

I haven't really come across anything I haven't been able to do with it yet. I am still finding things to automate but I'm sure there's a lot more to explore. My script is quite extensive so I do wish I could jump to parts of my script more quickly but being able to set regions (expand or collapse part of the script helps.) The support was great. One thing I got from support was some basic templates like logging and starter scripts, maybe just include some, the help is very useful but the start templates really get you off to a running start. I am truly surprised by the functions I can perform already on the system straight out of the box and I recommend the video training.

We really need a free development environment for customers. Building and testing automation on production isn't ideal.

I believe we need to test various OCR tools that assist in evaluating six different customer resyncs. We analyze their spending patterns and documentation, but current OCR support has limitations, requiring highly standardized documents, which isn't always the case. With a more advanced OCR system, we could improve processes related to credit risk management and legal matters. We're exploring how to integrate Fortra's Automate with our CRM platform, taking cues from instances where Salesforce seamlessly merged with Automate. However, we use a different CRM, Insight for New Enterprise, and we're seeking ways to connect the automation process within our CRM. We aim for the automation to continue smoothly, even in instances where traditional automation methods might face hurdles.

It would be an improvement if Automate had better stability tools, whether by recommending a certain amount of memory because it can be a memory hog at times, depending upon the type of application or license you run. Fortra does have an enterprise-level automated manager to manage different automated machines running on different servers. We primarily used a desktop version before they discontinued the desktop license. So, going on to the Automate manager, the enterprise manager is a good tool for using it to check the different servers that are running the actual tool. Maybe there are more alerts built into the enterprise tool to check on things like system memory, uptime, or any freezing in the OS versus the application in terms of turning the application from a piece of software into a service or a system running in the background.

Fortra's Automate is not as reliable as I would like it to be. For example, it sometimes has trouble finding elements on a page. I noticed that on occasion when I come in the morning and check the automation, it did not run properly. I am not sure if it is because of the way I programmed it, but this happens more often than I would like.

The documentation for errors needs improvement as many of the error messages we receive are very vague. For example, an error message might simply say, "The workflow has run into an unknown status," which does not provide any insight into how or why the failure occurred. As a developer, it can be difficult to debug these errors due to the lack of information. The logging and failure notifications could be improved because we can set up logging for each step, but we have to manually add it to each task. Similarly, we can set up an action so that when the task fails, a screenshot is taken and an email notification is sent, but we have to go into the task and build a condition for that. It would be better if the logging and error failure notification could be done at a global level, rather than having to go inside the code and adjust each task. The stability could be improved slightly. This is not a major issue, but we do occasionally lose connectivity. For example, the main central server for Automate is the developer console we are working on. If the developer console loses connection to the main console, this can happen occasionally without us realizing it until later. We may think our task is being saved, but it is not actually being saved on the server and we can lose some data. These occurrences are not frequent, but they do happen. Additionally, there are occasional crashes, although these are not too frequent. I would like to have more third-party integrations, as Automate already has a lot, such as Microsoft Dynamics and SharePoint. However, it would be nice to have native actions built into Automate for further third-party integrations. The community portal is not very active, so it is not a large community. Therefore, if we encounter an issue, we cannot simply search for a solution on Stack Overflow or a similar platform.

Error messages should be better. For error status, there should be better documentation because a lot of times, error messages that you get are quite vague. For example, you get a message saying that the workflow has run into an unknown status, which is vague. It just tells you that it failed, but you don't know how or why it failed. It makes debugging difficult. From a developer's perspective, it gets a little difficult to debug at times due to these error messages. It's not with all the errors, but for quite a few errors, the documentation is vague. Event logging and failure notifications could be improved because you can set up logging for each individual step, but you have to go and manually add it to each step or task. The same issue is there with the failure notification. You can set up an action so that when a task fails, you can take a screenshot and send an email notification, but you have to go into the task and build a condition for that. It would be better if event logging and error failure notifications can be done at a global level without having to go inside the code and add it for every single task. Its stability could be improved a little bit, and it could also have a few more third-party integrations. Currently, you can integrate with almost any third-party service. You can integrate either through the API or through the GUI, but it would be nice if there were native actions built into Automate. It already has a lot of integrations. For example, we have Microsoft Dynamics, SharePoint, etc. We do have a fair bit of third-party integrations, but it would be nice to have a few more software integrations. There is a community portal, but it's not particularly active. It's not a very big community. If you run into an error, you can't just look it up on Stack Overflow or something like that. However, the tech support from the vendor side has been excellent, so it isn't a big issue.

The intelligent automation feature could be improved. It's interesting because it's simple, but the automation quality isn't always good. It's easy to use, but sometimes you need to make a slight improvement to the automation, and that's not so easy. We have many customized cases, so sometimes, it's not enough. We need to change and customize some processes. We have a little methodology where we sit with the key user and save all the programs because they often have a lot of exceptions. Understanding the risk and whether the processes are good candidates for automation is crucial.

There is room for improvement regarding cloud functionality; there are a few missing features, and the logging could be better, especially air logging. We can go into logging events and create our own task, but it would be nice if this were more detailed.

The OCR needs improvement. The solution needs image recognition to integrate front-end and back-end workflows. They need to offer better organization of image capturing for image recognition. The documentation is not that great. There have been times where I've had to reach out to HelpSystems to just try to accomplish what we're looking for. I've used other solutions that have much better documentation available.

The stability of the studio client could be improved upon. Currently, sometimes it slows down and occasionally it will force the program to close completely - which is unexpected. The interface could be more user-friendly and easier to navigate. It would be helpful if the solution was available in the cloud as well as opposed to just being available on-premises. On-premises infrastructure offers limited scalability.

So far, for two years, I have not found anything amiss. That said, nothing is 100%. Each RPA product is not mature enough. There are always have to find innovative ways of automating. There are always challenges for automation. It is a continuously growing process. The majority of the clients want more automation in AutoMate and they want that in the roadmap. Some companies have asked for voice integration. This is likely part of the roadmap.

The technical support could be better. We suffer from language barriers, as we are in Argentina. The OCR (optical character recognition) capacity could be improved a bit.

It's difficult for me to answer as I'm not really an expert on HelpSystems and I don't know it well enough to really give great feedback just yet. I'm not really that comfortable critiquing the platform. I'm sure there are some of those issues there. It's possible that they could use a stronger community for seeking guidance and help. For example, I know with Automation Anywhere or UiPath, there are strong community areas where I can ask questions and search for information. I don't know if that exists for HelpSystems. I find, for example, it's helpful, if I'm using UiPath, to go onto some of the community pages and I have found answers to my questions fairly easily. I don't know if that's something that exists with HelpSystems. The user interface could use a bit of an improvement.

In the case of health systems, particularly the OCR functionality is not available. You need to buy a separate license for OCR. Sometimes and the server loses contact with the agents installed in the equipment. That's something that I personally worry about due to the fact that, when the agent loses contact with the server, you stop receiving the locks of the receiver of the program. The solution has a very weak knowledge base. Much like Automation Anywhere, the product could offer virtual development via the web. AA has a web browser interface that allows users to deploy from the web using AWS. It's less reliant on on-premises technology. The solution should have stronger password management. This should be centralized.