We’re exploring whether we should invest in a no-code platform to let business teams build their own automations instead of always coming to engineering. The argument is that it reduces development cost and speeds up time to production. But I’m wondering if we’re underestimating the actual cost of supporting non-technical builders, training them, and fixing the automations they create that don’t work quite right.
Right now, with Camunda, all automation requests go through engineering. It’s slower, but it’s controlled. The workflows are built by people who understand scale, error handling, security, all of that. If we move to a no-code model, are we just shifting cost from development to support and maintenance?
I’m also curious whether the licensing math changes when business teams can own their automations. Camunda charges per instance, which means more automations might mean higher costs. But if we’re consolidating licensing somehow, maybe the financial picture is different.
What’s the actual experience here? Has anyone measured:
What percentage of automations built by non-technical users actually run smoothly without engineering intervention?
How much support and training overhead does it really take to enable business teams?
Does the development cost savings actually outweigh the new operational costs?
How does licensing scale when more people are building automations?
I need to understand whether this is real savings or just accounting magic.
We made this transition about eighteen months ago. The honest answer is that you do save engineering time, but you trade it for different kind of work.
The first three months were rough. We found out that non-technical users were building automations that worked in happy path scenarios but crashed on edge cases. We had to do a lot of hand-holding. But after we set up templates and built out documentation, things smoothed out.
What actually happened was that our engineering team went from building everything to reviewing and maintaining what business teams built. For simple automations—data syncs, notifications, basic approvals—business teams can handle it. For anything involving complex logic or cross-system coordination, we still get pulled in. But that’s maybe 20% of requests, not 100%.
Licensing-wise, the cost per automation went down because we weren’t paying for engineering time on simple stuff. But we did need to invest in better admin features and templating, which has its own cost.
The support part was bigger than we expected. Non-technical folks don’t know how to debug when something breaks. We had to build better error messaging and set up a support process for them. Over time, we trained power users who became internal advocates, and that helped a lot. It’s not zero overhead, but it’s less than if engineering had to build everything.
The real cost reduction comes not from eliminating engineering, but from engineering focusing on complex problems instead of routine requests. We saw about a 35% reduction in the volume of development requests once business teams could self-service simple automations. The per-automation cost dropped, but we also invested in platform support and training. Net savings was probably 25-30% when you account for the new overhead. The bigger win was cycle time—business teams could iterate faster without waiting for engineering bandwidth.
The licensing question is important. If you’re moving from Camunda’s per-instance model to a unified subscription where more automations don’t proportionally increase cost, then yes, the equation changes significantly. More automations from business teams doesn’t mean more licensing spend if you’re consolidating under one platform. That can actually be a substantial savings. The development cost question is real, but if licensing stops being a bottleneck, the total cost does decrease, even accounting for support overhead.
def saves dev time for simple stuff. but u need support infrastructure. net savings like 20-30% when u account for training and maintenance. licensing model matters tho.
Support overhead is real. Simple automations save cost; complex ones still need engineers. Plan for 25% of business team builds needing engineering review. Training investment pays off.
We had the same concern. Here’s what changed: when we moved to a no-code platform, the math shifted because the licensing model changed too. Instead of paying per automation instance, we had one subscription covering everything our teams needed.
Business teams could build and iterate without worrying about licensing costs going up. Engineering reviewed critical workflows but didn’t build from scratch. For standard automations—data syncing, form routing, notification logic—business teams handled it. We probably reduced engineering time on automation by 40%, even accounting for the support we had to set up.
The real shift was that licensing stopped being a constraint. Teams could experiment without cost friction, and that alone changed how many automations we actually built.