For years, the default approach to automation looked something like this:
pick a platform, build a CoE, hire developers, define governance, create standards, scale the capability.
And to be fair, in many large organizations, this approach still makes sense. But for a growing number of companies, the reality looks different.
A lot of them successfully started their automation journey… then got stuck somewhere between “a few robots” and a truly scalable automation operation. Not because the technology failed. Usually because operating automation turned out to be much harder than expected.
Automation is easy to start - harder to operate
The first automations are often the exciting part. A repetitive task gets automated. People save time. The business sees quick wins.
Then reality kicks in.
Suddenly there are:
• production issues
• process changes
• monitoring needs
• support expectations
• documentation gaps
• security reviews
• platform maintenance
• competing business priorities
And there is another layer that is often underestimated: platform commitment.
At some point, many organizations realize: “We’re not just implementing automation anymore - we’re building an automation organization.”
That’s a very different challenge.
The hidden cost of internal capability building
When companies think about automation costs, they usually think about licenses or development effort.
But the bigger cost often comes later: maintaining and operating the capability itself.
Hiring and retaining automation talent is difficult.
Governance takes time.
Support requires dedicated capacity.
Scaling creates operational overhead.
And these costs do not always scale neatly with the number of automations.
A company may need to buy licences before the platform is fully utilized.
For large enterprises with strong internal transformation organizations, this may still be the right direction.
But for many companies, the question becomes: do we actually want to build all of this internally?
A different model is starting to emerge
This is where managed automation becomes more than a delivery alternative.
Not as classic outsourcing. And not as “external developers”. But rather as an operational model.
Instead of building a large internal automation capability, companies use automation as a managed service:
• development
• operations
• monitoring
• maintenance
• scaling support
all handled as one operating model.
The goal shifts from: “building automation internally” to:“getting business value from automation sustainably.”
Strong interest often comes from automation-mature organizations
At first glance, this may sound like a solution for companies that are just starting with automation. In reality, we often see the opposite.
Organizations with existing automation programs are usually the ones that understand the operational complexity best.
They already know:
• how difficult scaling can become
• how much operational ownership is needed
• how hard it is to maintain momentum long term
And because of this, many are becoming increasingly open to more flexible operating models.
Maybe the future is hybrid
We don’t think managed automation replaces internal teams entirely.
In many cases, the most sustainable approach is a hybrid model: internal business ownership combined with externally managed automation operations.
The company retains ownership of priorities, process knowledge, expected outcomes, and strategic direction, while the automation partner is responsible for delivery, operations, monitoring, maintenance, support, and continuous improvement.
This allows companies to avoid choosing between building everything in-house or outsourcing everything entirely. After all, not every company wants to become an automation operator. Many simply want the outcome: more efficient operations, less manual work, and scalable processes - without adding organizational complexity.
The key question is: what does it cost to build, staff, and operate automation internally, how much value could a managed model create, and where is the right balance between internal ownership and external operational support?
If you’re curious what this model could mean operationally or financially in your own environment, we’ve put together a simple calculator here: