The Past of Process Design and the Present of Fluenta Designer

Seven o'clock in the morning. András, the process development director of a logistics company, sits at his desk. Before him lies a thick dossier containing three months of work: detailed process descriptions, data flow diagrams, system connection charts. Four specialists worked on it – process analysts, developers, testers. They worked out every tiny detail, thought through every possibility.

However, when he meets with the head of IT to discuss implementation, reality hits hard: "If everything goes well, we'll have a beta version in six months. But count on 5-8 months for the full handover."

This isn't a unique story. Thousands worldwide face the same dilemma: how did digital transformation become digital waiting?

The World of Traditional Process Design – The Documentation-Centric Past

Classic corporate practice is built on detailed pre-planning, where every element is committed to paper or digital modeling before a single line of code is written. This approach undoubtedly brought order to chaos and gave professionals a standardized language. However, in today's accelerated world, its limitations are becoming increasingly obvious.

The machinery: People, weeks, and iterations

Let's look at what an average process development cycle actually looks like in the traditional model:

• 1 business analyst: Interviews users, documents requirements.
• 1 process modeler: Draws diagrams, creates flowcharts.
• 1 developer: Based on received documentation, writes code and implements logic.
• 1 tester: Checks functions and validates results against original plans.

For an average-complexity business application, this process means:

• Human resources: 3-4 people total
• Time requirement: 18-32 weeks, with countless iterations

These detailed models are like beautiful building blueprints that never become real homes – often remaining just static documentation divorced from reality.

The "Telephone Game" Effect: When every handoff takes you further from the goal

The biggest problem is information loss – not dramatic, but gradual and imperceptible. As information passes from business analyst through modeler to developer, it distorts a little at each step. The gap between business and technical language, tasks passed without context, and lack of feedback mean the end result often bears little resemblance to the original vision.

It's not uncommon for continuous information loss and misunderstandings to result in final software that reflects only 60-70% of the original business goal.

The price of quality and flexibility

This model doesn't just suffer from being slow – it struggles with quality and flexibility issues:

• Human error: Every transcription and interpretation point introduces new error possibilities.
• Version control chaos: After a while, nobody knows which diagram or document is most current.
• Delayed testing: Fundamental logic errors often only emerge at the end of development, when fixing them is extremely expensive.
• Rigidity: What happens when the business environment changes? In András's story, three months after finalizing plans, a new legal requirement meant restructuring the system. In the traditional world, this would have meant another 6-10 week, €15,000-40,000 project, including redesign, consultation, development, and testing.

The end result is a slow, expensive, and risky process that degrades the promise of digital transformation into digital waiting.

Fluenta Designer – The Execution-Centric Future

Imagine a different path. An approach where ideas become executable applications directly, without unnecessary intermediaries and information loss. This philosophy is embodied by Fluenta Designer, whose core principle is clear: the running program is the most perfect documentation.

The new team: Efficiency and focus

Fluenta Designer radically transforms the required team and workflow:

• 1 process owner: A single expert from the company who deeply knows and understands the process.
• Fluenta experts: Support and assist the process owner in implementation.
• AI agents: Artificial intelligence working in the background handles configuration, testing, and documentation.

This setup in practice:

• Human resources: 2-3 people (from client and Fluenta side + AI)
• Time requirement: 1-2 weeks, with just 1-2 iterations

The financial and temporal reality

The difference in numbers is most striking. Let's compare the two worlds for an average-complexity business application:

The result: 60-70% cost savings, while development time decreases by 95%.

The new dimension of quality and freedom to change

Conventional wisdom says speed comes at the expense of quality. Fluenta Designer disproves this theorem:

• Automated consistency: Since everything is generated from a single source (the model), errors from human misinterpretation disappear.
• Continuous validation: Built-in QA agents test immediately after each step, so errors surface instantly.
• Dynamic documentation: Documentation is always up-to-date because it IS the executable program itself.

And what happens when changes are needed? In András's case, introducing new legal requirements in the Fluenta world looked like this: after defining new requirements, AI agents generated new workflows in 4-6 hours, which were implemented and validated in 2 days.

• Time requirement: 3-4 days
• Cost: €2,000 - €4,000

The hybrid future: Combining the best parts

Fluenta Designer doesn't sweep aside the experiences of the past. It intelligently combines proven practices with the power of artificial intelligence:

• What we keep: The importance of visual representation for stakeholder consultation and proven operational principles.
• What we transform: The slow, multi-actor, information-loss-riddled process is replaced with a fast, focused, and efficient implementation path.

Conclusion: Two philosophies, clear choice

This isn't simply comparing two technologies, but confronting two fundamentally different philosophies:

• The documentation-centric past says: "First we plan in detail, then months later maybe something will come of it."
• The execution-centric future says: "Working software is the best documentation, and it's available in days."

Think about it – when was the last time you had a process where the end result, months later, did exactly what was envisioned in the original model? Maybe it's time to switch.