The Most Expensive Mistake in Automation Projects: Turning Workarounds into Code

When people talk about automation, the focus is usually on tools.

Which software to use.
Which AI model to plug in.
Which workflow to automate first.

But in practice, one of the most important parts of an automation project has nothing to do with technology at all.

It’s understanding why a process exists in the first place.

Processes vs Workarounds

In most companies, you’ll find a lot of things that look like well-defined processes.

They’re documented.
They’re taught to new employees.
They’re defended when questioned.

But many of them are not real processes.

They are workarounds.

They exist because, at some point in time:

• the right software didn’t exist
• the tools in place were too rigid
• systems couldn’t talk to each other
• reporting was unreliable
• controls had to be enforced manually

So people adapted.

They added steps.
They duplicated data.
They introduced checks, spreadsheets, emails, and approvals.

And those adaptations worked — given the constraints at the time.

Over time, they became normal.

The Real Risk in Automation

The biggest risk in automation projects isn’t automating the wrong thing.

It’s replicating a workaround in software when that workaround no longer has a reason to exist.

This usually happens when teams ask:

“How do we automate what we do today?”

instead of:

“If we had the right tools, would we still do it this way?”

When new systems are introduced — modern ERPs, integrations, APIs, automation platforms — the original constraint often disappears.

But the behavior remains.

And that’s where projects quietly fail.

Not because the automation is buggy.
Not because the technology is bad.

But because it faithfully preserves a problem that should’ve been eliminated.

A Simple Real-World Example

I’ve seen teams manually re-enter the same data across multiple systems “for control”.

Invoices copied from one system to another.
Statuses updated by hand.
Spreadsheets used as a source of truth.

When asked why, the answer is usually:

“That’s how we avoid mistakes.”

But dig one level deeper, and the real reason shows up:

• systems were never integrated
• data couldn’t be trusted
• reports were delayed or incomplete

Manual re-entry wasn’t the process.

It was the workaround.

Once proper integrations were in place and data could flow reliably, the entire practice should’ve disappeared.

Instead, many teams try to automate the re-entry.

At that point, you’re not modernizing the business. You’re just turning an old limitation into permanent code.

Why This Makes or Breaks Projects

Automation amplifies structure.

If the structure is good, automation creates leverage.
If the structure is a workaround, automation fossilizes it.

That’s why two projects with the same tools and budget can have completely different outcomes.

The difference isn’t execution speed. It’s diagnosis.

The teams that succeed take the time to separate:

• what exists because it’s genuinely necessary
• from what exists because the software used to be bad

That distinction is subtle, uncomfortable, and often political.

But it’s essential.

The Right Starting Question

Before automating anything, the most important question isn’t:

“How do we speed this up?”

It’s:

“If we were designing this today, with the tools we now have, would this step still exist?”

If the answer is no, don’t automate it.

Redesign it.

Because the goal of automation isn’t to preserve the past. It’s to remove the constraints that created it. f