In the field of enterprise workflow automation platforms, a paradox prevails: while every platform advertises similar features, the execution results differ dramatically from each other. Research by leading industry analysts (Gartner, Forrester) shows that more than 60% of Enterprise BPM projects fail to achieve expected business results – not due to technical failures, but because there are fundamental misunderstandings about how seemingly identical workflow automation solutions differ from each other.
The reality is that in four critical areas – access and identity management, external collaboration, contextual communication, and implementation support philosophy – there are such profound differences between traditional workflow automation platforms and AI-native workflow solutions like Fluenta One that significantly influence long-term operational efficiency and user satisfaction. These differences are not spectacular at first glance, yet they can determine whether software truly supports complex business processes or only automates them on the surface.
Most decision-makers think that access and identity management is a simple question: there are roles, and appropriate permissions are assigned to them. However, this approach ignores the true complexity of modern business processes.
Traditional workflow automation platforms typically use Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) systems. This sounds logical at first: roles are defined, and permissions are assigned to them. But what happens when reality is much more nuanced? A user is authorized to see certain documents below a certain value threshold, but not above it. Some confidential data in a document is visible to the internal team in the early stages of the process, but remains hidden from external consultants.
In an RBAC system, these fine-tuned rules can only be implemented through complex workarounds, which are often fragile and difficult to maintain. The result is a permission structure that works on paper but requires constant exception handling in reality.
Advanced workflow automation platforms, like Fluenta One, apply Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) systems too. This means that not only "who you are" matters, but also "what you're trying to do," "with what data," "in what context," and "when."
ABAC enables the creation of rules like: "A user can see financial data if the project value is less than their approval authority, and the project is not yet closed, and they are not an external consultant." In the era of DORA and similar regulations, a sophisticated ABAC system automatically documents all access, ensuring compliance in real-time.
Modern business processes increasingly extend beyond corporate boundaries. This is where significant philosophical differences between platforms become visible.
Take a typical supplier qualification scenario: The buyer organization needs to collect complex information about every potential supplier before tendering. With traditional (workflow) software, it's the responsibility of a single contact person to gather information from various areas of the seller organization – legal, financial, quality assurance, technical data.
In reality, this means the contact person sends 15-20 emails to colleagues, waits for responses, asks further clarifying questions, then tries to collect the necessary information. The end result: a lengthy process full of potential errors for both parties.
At Fluenta One, we recognized that due to paradigm shifts, fast and smooth business processing is in the interest of both parties – buyer and supplier – so this is actually a two-way collaborative process. Therefore, we made it possible for the processes of two organizations to connect so that only the desired data flows from one organization to another. In practice, this might look like when a workflow running on the buyer's side sends out a qualification questionnaire, the supplier can also build a workflow on their own side that can forward different questions to different departments as needed (legal questions to the legal department, quality assurance documentation to the quality assurance team), possibly automatically answer certain questions, then send the collected information back to the requesting organization.
Each area of expertise directly fills out or evaluates the parts belonging to their own field, with full professional context. The key point is therefore not only in the branching: full-fledged workflows run on both sides with approval points, decision steps, and feedback. Throughout the process, all information is recorded and fully traceable – which is not only an efficiency advantage but also an auditability advantage.
The third critical difference lies in communication management. This is seemingly a less technical area, but actually one of the most determining factors in the success of process optimization.
During an average complex business project, there are more than two hundred email exchanges between different actors. Six months later, when someone wants to understand the background of a decision, they must begin digital archaeological work (possibly with others) in the email archives located in different user accounts.
When it becomes necessary to involve actors outside the process – superiors, experts from other departments, or external lawyers – the situation must be explained from the beginning, with all background information attached. This is time-consuming, and important details often get lost from the context.
Fragmented communication therefore causes problems on multiple levels:
Advanced workflow automation platforms, like Fluenta One, are built on the concept of "contextual communication." All communication is automatically linked to relevant business processes, data, and decision points.
This ensures that every decision is documented in the appropriate context. Years later, during an audit, the entire decision-making process can be reconstructed with a few clicks, including all participants' contributions.
The most defining difference lies in the philosophy of implementation and ongoing support. This fundamentally influences project success.
Most traditional workflow automation platform manufacturers follow the traditional licensing model: you purchase the software, receive basic implementation support, and from then on, you are responsible for operating the system.
This approach conceals several critical problems:
Fluenta One applies a fundamentally different approach: it doesn't sell software but provides comprehensive service that includes technology, expertise, and continuous optimization.
These differences – access rights management, collaboration, communication, and service philosophy – provide deeper insight into the true capabilities of workflow automation platforms, and ultimately, it becomes visible in these areas how much a platform is capable of supporting real business complexity.
Fluenta One builds these critical areas into the system's foundations: ABAC-based access rights management, bidirectional multi-threaded workflow, and contextual communication together create a foundation that not only solves today's problems but can adapt to future requirements.
The most important difference, however, lies in the service model. Organizations don't want to buy technology – they want to achieve results. Fluenta One makes this possible by combining technology and expertise into a single, integrated service, providing comprehensive support for implementation.
The real question, therefore, is not "which workflow automation platform is the best," but "which approach is capable of truly supporting the complex business reality in which we operate, and who will be an active partner in implementation." The answer often lies in these invisible but defining differences.
.png)
