Component: Automated Activities

Component: Automated Activities

Description

Automated Activities are system-driven actions executed without user intervention. They are used to:

• Set or update data fields and flags

• Trigger downstream behaviour (routing, tasks, events)

• Enforce timing and sequencing

• Capture system decisions for audit purposes

In the current environment, automated activities are:

• Built on TM-style constructs and data dictionaries

• Heavily intertwined with routes and configuration tables

• Often used as workarounds to compensate for design gaps elsewhere

Over time, this has led to:

• Activities firing incorrectly or inconsistently

• Hidden dependencies that are poorly understood

• Activities acting as de facto controls or decision logic

Option 1: Continue on PCC Upgrade Plan

Lift and shift automated activities as-is

Action

• Lift and shift all automated activities from PCC 1.1.1 into PCC 2.4.

• Preserve existing triggers, logic, and sequencing.

• Make only technical adjustments required for compatibility.

Target State Score

2 / 5

Change Impact

2 / 5

• No visible change to users.

• Minimal operational disruption.

Business Benefit

1 / 5

• No improvement to activity quality or reliability.

• Existing defects and inefficiencies persist.

What this option gets

• Faster migration path.

• Reduced behavioural testing effort.

• Preservation of existing system behaviour.

What this option does not get

• No reduction in unnecessary or redundant activities.

• No correction of known misfires.

• No improvement in explainability or audit clarity.

• No reduction in downstream noise (tasks, events, route churn).

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• Continued reliance on fragile automation.

• Activities remain opaque and hard to govern.

• Persistent operational frustration.

Delivery Risk

• Subtle behavioural differences in PCC 2.4 may expose latent defects.

• Harder to diagnose issues post-migration.

Accelerator

• Cursor can catalogue activities and dependencies.

• Limited uplift without remediation.

Option 2: Pivot to Target State

Redesign automated activities during the PCC 2.4 upgrade

Action

• Redesign automated activities from first principles.

• Rationalise triggers, sequencing, and purpose.

• Align activities tightly to SM decisioning and redesigned routes.

• Remove legacy workarounds.

Target State Score

4 / 5

Change Impact

5 / 5

• Significant change to system behaviour.

• High dependency on segmentation, routes, and data readiness.

• Extensive testing and retraining required.

Business Benefit

4 / 5

• Cleaner automation model.

• Reduced long-term technical debt.

• Improved clarity and governance.

What this option gets

• Simplified and intentional automation.

• Reduced operational noise.

• Better audit defensibility.

What this option does not get

• Behavioural continuity.

• Fast delivery.

• Easy validation of edge cases.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• High change fatigue.

• Risk of unintended behaviour shifts.

Delivery Risk

• Very high design and testing effort.

• Strong sequencing dependencies.

• Elevated go-live risk.

Accelerator

• Cursor can support redesign and rationalisation.

• Acceleration constrained by interdependencies.

Option 3: Tactical Activity Remediation (Preferred)

Fix known issues in PCC 1.1.1, then migrate automated activities as-is

Action

• Retain the existing automated activity framework.

• Remediate known issues in PCC 1.1.1, including:

  • activities firing incorrectly

  • duplicate or redundant activities

  • broken or unnecessary triggers

• Remove unused or obsolete activities.

• Migrate the cleaned activity set into PCC 2.4 alongside routes.

Target State Score

3 / 5

Change Impact

3 / 5

• Limited behavioural change.

• Targeted fixes rather than wholesale redesign.

• Manageable testing effort.

Business Benefit

3 / 5

• Improved reliability and predictability.

• Reduction in noise and downstream impacts.

• Preserves operational familiarity.

What this option gets

• Safer migration path.

• Reduced defect risk post-upgrade.

• Improved audit clarity without destabilising execution.

• Avoids duplicating redesign effort during the upgrade.

What this option does not get

• Fully modernised automation design.

• Structural simplification aligned to a pure target state.

• Removal of all historical design compromises.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• Some inefficiencies remain.

• Risk of incremental fixes expanding in scope.

Delivery Risk

• Requires disciplined scope control.

• Coordination required between remediation and migration.

Accelerator

• Cursor can:

  • inventory all automated activities

  • identify misfires and redundant logic

  • flag high-risk or high-noise activities

  • support controlled remediation

• This enables a pragmatic clean-up without destabilising the platform.

Overall Assessment

For Automated Activities, Option 3 provides the best balance.

• Option 1 carries forward known defects.

• Option 2 introduces excessive risk at scale.

• Option 3 improves stability, preserves audit continuity, and reduces migration risk.