23% use a workflow engine – what are the other 77% doing?

Many IT and digitization managers confuse two things that seem similar at first glance but are fundamentally different:

1. Connecting applications: Systems exchange data, but employees continue to manually switch between interfaces.
2. Central document storage: A shared repository creates transparency but does not control a single process step.
3. Workflow engine automation: The process runs independently – from initiation to approval to completion – systems and roles are automatically controlled.

Only the third form actually reduces manual effort, shortens throughput times, and makes processes measurable. Those who stop at the first two forms have created the appearance of automation without achieving its effect. More about the concrete technical implementation with a workflow engine like Camunda – a widespread automation platform for business processes – can be found on our webpage «Process Automation with Camunda».

The pressure of expectations on BPM and automation solutions is noticeably increasing – regardless of industry or company size. The industry comparison in the study shows how different the actual progress of companies is: While in the IT industry, 33% of companies are already automating processes using a workflow engine, in public administration, it is only 11%.

Without a company-wide coordinated idea of which tools should control which processes in the future, several teams often automate in parallel and past each other. What happens if two departments automate an approval process with two different tools instead of agreeing on a common solution? This dynamic is particularly evident where processes have historically grown and are poorly standardized: Different departments have introduced their own tools over the years without ever having a common standard for process control. An additional automation project then does not encounter a clean starting point but rather a patchwork of point solutions – and this is precisely what complicates the prioritization that a workflow engine implementation actually requires.

These patterns typically do not appear during the first attempt at automation, but only afterwards – when the initial euphoria of the first automation meets the sobering reality of everyday operations. In consulting practice, some constellations repeat themselves:

• Objective without a plan. «We need to automate» is stated in the strategy paper, but no one has systematically examined which processes are actually suitable both professionally and technically.
• Prioritization based on gut feeling instead of criteria. Several processes are considered, but the decision is made based on the urgency of the loudest department rather than the cost-benefit ratio.
• Disappointing first attempt. A previous automation was introduced but provides less relief than promised – mostly because the underlying process was never optimized beforehand.
• Automation as a solo project. Individual teams automate for themselves without feedback to the overall strategy or other departments.

The result is the same in all four cases: project stagnation, rising costs, and lack of ROI.

Before a workflow engine can be meaningfully introduced, clarity is needed on three questions:

1. Which processes are suitable both functionally and technically?
2. Which technology fits the existing system landscape?
3. How can the implementation be structured so that it fits the corporate strategy instead of creating another isolated solution?

These are exactly the questions answered by our «Automation Health Check» – from the initial assessment in the kick-off workshop through expert analysis to the individual results report with a concrete action plan. The goal is not another concept paper, but a clear, prioritized path to the first quick wins – embedded in your overall strategy.

The figures from the BPM Study 2025 clearly show: Automation is becoming increasingly important strategically, but the technical basis for it – genuine process control instead of tool integration – is still lacking in most companies. Those who close this gap now gain a clear advantage before customers, partners, or their own management demand faster, seamless processes.