Full automation removes the person. Human workflow automation removes the queue.
Most process steps don't need a human. The ones that do need one accountable person, not a shared inbox nobody owns.
The workflow runs on the same model Model holds, not a parallel routing rulebook.
Because the workflow is generated from the process model rather than configured separately from it, what's automated and what's routed to a person stay in sync with the design as it changes.
Visibility of the process in flight
See where every instance actually is, not just where it's supposed to be.
Automated task allocation and SLA alerts
Work reaches a named owner automatically, with an alert before the SLA is breached, not after.
Instance reporting and documentation
A record of the work completed on each instance, evidencing what happened rather than what should have.
Data integration and synchronisation
The workflow reads and writes against the systems already in use, rather than holding a separate copy of the same data.
Evidence, not assertion
What you say you do and what you've done become the same record, available to audit and compliance without a separate reconciliation exercise.
Frequently asked questions
Is this full automation with no human involved?
No. Human workflow automation deliberately keeps a person in the loop for the steps that need a judgement call. Full automation without a human is a different, narrower use case.
How does this stay in sync with the process model?
The workflow is generated from the same model iGrafx Model holds, not configured separately. When the model changes, the workflow reflects it, rather than the two drifting apart over time.
Does this produce audit evidence automatically?
Yes. Instance reporting records what actually happened on each run, which is the same record audit and compliance can use, rather than a separate evidence-gathering exercise.