Glossary
Robotic process automation uses software to perform the interface actions a person would perform (opening applications, copying values, clicking through screens) to complete a repetitive task without changing the underlying systems.
Rather than integrating two systems through their data layers, it drives the screens a person drives. That is its whole appeal: it can automate a process across software that offers no integration options, without touching either system.
Anything driven through an interface breaks when the interface changes. A relabelled field or a new confirmation dialog stops the automation, often silently, and maintenance becomes a permanent cost rather than a one-off build.
Used deliberately for those reasons it is pragmatic engineering.
Automating a bad process at the interface layer preserves every step that should have been removed, and adds a fragile dependency on top.
No. RPA drives user interfaces to mimic a person. Workflow automation connects systems through their data and events. Where an integration is possible it is almost always more durable than driving screens.
When the system genuinely offers no integration path (old vendor software you cannot modify) and the process is stable. Treat it as a bridge with an owner and a maintenance budget, not a permanent architecture.
Robotic process automation uses software to perform the interface actions a person would perform (opening applications, copying values, clicking through screens) to complete a repetitive task without changing the underlying systems.
