Governance and Transparency

When designing the first artefact, one of the main focuses was attempting to solve some of the challenges analysed in Chapter 5. A challenge both LEO Pharma and Skatteforvaltningen experienced was a lack of transparency on which automation projects each department was currently working on and had been working on. This had specifically caused problems in LEO Pharma, where multi-ple departments had started identical projects without any communication. Dis-covering this late in the process of developing the robot wasted much time that could have been spent on other processes or areas. Even though Skatteforvalt-ningen did not experience as severe difficulties on this matter, they still expressed concern regarding transparency. (Skatteforvaltningen, Tina, Appendix A) Since each subject area is responsible for submitting the processes they deem suitable for automation, the lack of transparency is decreasing the quality of ideas being submitted. Mainly because the subject areas do not have the ability to get inspiration from each other and also since there is a risk that the depart-ments are submitting similar processes that could have been combined in the initial phase. The challenge will result in a misuse of time for the leadership as they will have to spend time understanding the ideas of other departments that might be similar or achieve the same goal. Moreover, departments are not able to be inspired by other departments, as they are only able to view projects in their own silo. Some benefits are, therefore prohibited by having reduced trans-parency.

The initial focus, when designing the first artefact, was to create a framework that could optimise the transparency. Therefore removing some of the challenges that have been identified, by a lack of transparency. The framework should include projects across the entire organisation. Each department can then see what oth-ers have submitted and seek inspiration and consciousness from their ideas. This should also reduce the risk of different departments developing similar robots at the same time as they will at least be aware of what is being worked on in the other areas, even if they are not necessarily working together on the project.

The new framework is based in a Computerised Decision Support System, which will allow all departments to get full read-rights to all other projects that have been submitted across the organisation. They will be able to both identify projects that have been submitted previously as well as the current top-ranking projects, to understand how a qualified project should be submitted.

They are able to see these top-ranking projects, because of the AHP frame-work in which all projects are scored on the same parameters by the same weights.

This allows for a more quantifiable and fair measurement and selection of pro-cesses.

Some important factors in the selection process, such as ’Reusability’, will also become even more valuable as this framework will create an even stronger foun-dation for reusing different modules or snippets. The departments will not only have the ability to gather inspiration from other departments projects, but also the ability to identify similarities in automation projects where elements can be reused, which can make their time to deploy even faster. Reusable Modulesas a criterion will be presented further in Section 6.2.4.

When organisations have built their process description and workflows on frame-works such as ITIL, we must expect that the processes have been documented thoroughly. Some of the informants have expressed that some of the documen-tation is not up to the standards that would be expected. (Skatteforvaltningen, Carsten, Appendix B)

Therefore a part of the implementation of our framework is that organisa-tions should align each of the process descriporganisa-tions, to the current flow. That is often an issue that has also been seen in implementations of ITIL. By ensuring that the process description has been updated, we are minimising the risk of er-rors and enhance our abilities to estimate the benefits of a process accurately.

Another focus in the design was to integrate a measure of how well the project was aligned with the overall strategy in the organisation. The literature on IT governance states this as one of the key factors to realise the benefits of an IT project. Furthermore, the analysis showed that several informants from both or-ganisations stated that aligning the projects with the overall strategy was not something that they had given enough focus at this point in their RPA life cycle.

Johnny explicitly stated that this should be something with a higher priority in the future.

"I think the next step will show RPA being a strategic priority where a more centralised approach is adopted, which includes more centralised governance and a higher connection to LEO Pharma’s strategy."

(LEO Pharma, Johnny, Appendix F)

As shown in table 5.3, both LEO Pharma and Skatteforvaltningen have a lack of awareness on RPA from the management. According to the literature, this is also a significant factor in realising successful and beneficial IT projects and some-thing that can be very harmful if the right level is not obtained. This is a factor that can be difficult to implement in a framework like this since gaining the trust from the higher-level management is something that will evolve over time if the technology shows good results. However, integrating the overall vision of the organisation in the prioritisation is something that can contribute by showing that RPA development is aligned with the companies best interests. Multiple theoretical grounded frameworks, such as the ROBIS framework that are built to assist in generating value from IT Projects, do agree that there is a need for a strategical foundation in the organisation, as there should be agreement on, e.g.

to use the technology for either innovation or to enhance current processes.

Therefore it can be a factor in how well and how quickly the management will become aware of the potential of the technology. This is especially important in LEO Pharma since they are allocating very limited resources to RPA in most of their departments. This level of resources is significantly decreasing their poten-tial in realising the benefits of RPA.

"For the other areas, I don’t think that they have this level yet, because the management is not there. For example, in HR, Jesper, I mean he is a student, and they put all the responsibility on a student, which I don’t see sense in doing. There should be more people."

(LEO Pharma, Jens, Appendix G)

Organisational Vision as prioritisation criteria will also be presented further in Section 6.2.4, among other important criteria.