That's such an elegant and perfect solution. She keeps track of what's happening, it all runs through her GUI so worse* case scenario she does it herself again, and she can get help if/when she needs it.
* actual worse case would be the script going berserk, but as she's not the one who wrote it, she should be shielded from the blame if that ever happens
Sometimes the reason things aren't automated is because there isn't anything more valuable for that person to do so automation doesn't have a positive return on investment.
> because there isn't anything more valuable for that person to do
I've seen an interesting shift post-COVID where (remaining) ops workers are often more coordinators of / responsible for their area of responsibility.
Which is a distinction because in that sort of job, not having Task X leads directing into finding something else you can be doing to improve your area.
Sometimes it’s about the journey and not the destination.
The point being that the "I" is also flexible -- an existing employee fooling around to learn automation whenever they have downtime is much cheaper than hiring a consultant.
Sure, the automation is worse and delivered more slowly. But you can get automations from a lot of people in parallel, plus you're upskilling your workforce.
Growing up, my mom performed a job where she would essentially copy car crash data from one system into another, row by row. As a teenager learning to program, it was obvious to me this could be easily automated. She (perhaps rightfully) didn't want to run anything I cooked up on her company's computer!
A year or so later she was laid off a long with many others in the company performing similar roles.
And this is the problem, isn't it? Once the job is automated, the analyst is no longer necessary. You really need to "learn to fish."
Critically, still running visually on her machine, and with internal resources for lifecycle support if the process changes.