UiPath
Robotic process automation for the systems that have no other way in — built to survive the first screen change.
Assessment + implementation. Opportunity assessment first. Architecture, build and the support model from there.
Operations and shared services leaders with high-volume manual work, and the IT teams asked to keep robots running.
A pilot worked and nothing industrialized, robots run on somebody's desktop, or every change to the target application breaks the automation.
The practice
Opportunity assessment
Which processes are worth automating, what each is worth in hours and error rate, and which ones have an API that makes RPA the wrong answer.
Architecture
Orchestrator, environments, queue-based design, assets and credentials, attended against unattended, and how capacity is shared when three processes want the same robot at month-end.
Implementation
Built against a framework rather than as a recording: reusable components, configuration outside the code, and selectors chosen to survive a cosmetic change.
Exception handling
Business exceptions routed to a person with the reason attached, system exceptions retried and escalated. The difference between the two is most of what makes an automation trustworthy.
Document Understanding
Where the input is a document rather than a screen — invoices, statements, field tickets — with a human validation step where confidence is low.
Credentials and controls
Robot identities and secrets held in Orchestrator, not in code, with an audit trail of what ran, when, and against which account.
Monitoring and support
Queue health, failure alerting and a named owner, plus the maintenance reality: screens change, and somebody has to be funded to keep up.
Modernization
Retiring robots as APIs appear. RPA is often the right bridge and rarely the right destination, and we plan the exit rather than discovering it.
Enablement
Standards, reusable libraries and developer coaching where you are building a capability rather than buying a build.
No API, and enough volume to fund the maintenance.
RPA is often the right bridge and rarely the right destination. We plan the exit rather than discovering it.
Screen-only and occasional. The maintenance would cost more than the work it saves.
Screen-only and high volume: legacy desktop apps, terminal screens, vendor portals with no integration story.
An API exists and the work happens rarely. A person doing it occasionally is the cheapest answer available.
An API exists and volume is real. Cheaper to run and far cheaper to maintain than a robot clicking the screen in front of it.
- Way into the system
- Documented API → Screen only
- Volume
- Occasional → Constant
We assess which processes are worth automating, design the Orchestrator architecture, and build against a framework: queues, reusable components, real exception handling and credentials held properly — with a support model that survives the first screen change.
Built as software, not as a recording
A pilot automates something visible, the numbers look good, and then nothing industrializes. The reason is almost never the tool. It is that the pilot was built as a recording rather than as software — no framework, no queues, credentials in the code, exception handling that consists of stopping — so the second process costs as much as the first, and the first breaks when the application changes.
Queue-based design is the difference
Work goes into an Orchestrator queue as items. Robots take items, process them, and mark them complete or failed with a reason. That one structural decision gives you retry, throughput that scales by adding a robot rather than rewriting, a business exception path that makes sense to the operations team, and reporting that tells you what actually happened rather than whether a script finished.
Business exceptions are not system exceptions
An invoice that fails validation is a business exception: it belongs with a person, with the reason attached. A robot that cannot find a field because the screen changed is a system exception: it belongs with support, with a retry. Automations that treat both the same are the ones operations teams stop trusting, because everything lands in the same pile.
We will tell you when it is the wrong tool
Where a system has a documented API, an integration is cheaper to run and far cheaper to maintain than a robot clicking through the screen in front of it. Where a system is being replaced next year, a robot may still be the right call for the eighteen months in between. That is a judgment about cost and lifespan, and we make it in the open — including the integration or Power Platform answer where one of those is the better buy.
Robots running on somebody’s desktop? Bring it to a briefing.
What you keep
The code and the data·Your existing relationships·Approval and control·The ability to stop·The off switchWhat that means
The parts of the platform we work in.
Assessment first: which processes are worth automating, and which have an API that makes RPA the wrong answer.
- Studio
- Development against a framework, with reusable libraries and resilient selectors. The practice.
- Orchestrator
- Queues, assets and credentials, triggers, capacity and monitoring. The practice.
- Document Understanding
- Classification and extraction with a person on low-confidence results. The practice.
- Action Center
- The human-in-the-loop step where an automation needs a decision rather than a retry.
- Test Suite
- Coverage over the paths that matter, so a change is verified before production rather than after.
- Robots
- Attended and unattended, sized against the peaks that actually collide — month-end, payroll, reporting.
Studio
Automations built as software — reusable, configurable and resilient to the next screen change.
Learn more ↗Orchestrator
The control layer: queues, credentials, schedules, capacity and the monitoring that tells you before the business does.
Learn more ↗Document Understanding
Reading the documents a process runs on, with a person on what the model is unsure about.
Learn more ↗Start with a 45-minute briefing.
No pitch. We’ll map your situation against what actually works and tell you honestly where to start.