Many IT leaders confidently say they “already do” network automation, but this blog shows that what they usually mean is using vendor-supplied tools that only partially automate their standardized hardware and mostly boost individual productivity, not deliver cross-team, business-level outcomes. Leaders avoid in-house development because it diverts scarce network engineers into software roles, creates support and retention risks if key developers leave, and is hard to justify versus buying “store-bought” tools with support, training, and updates—even when those tools are expensive and only cover 60–80% of a heterogeneous network. The result is a disconnect where leadership proudly claims automation success while rank-and-file engineers see limited, fragmented automation and painful vendor deployments that struggle with legacy gear. The post argues that until organizations squarely address this gap in definitions, expectations, and strategy, “network automation” will remain a buzzword that means very different things at the top and in the trenches.

Network automation is not a side gig or a few Python scripts; it is full-fledged software development, with all the expectations that implies around standards, testing, documentation, and formal processes that managers and funding sources rely on to feel confident about risk and maturity. The post argues that slow adoption stems from trying to bolt automation onto traditional network engineering without recognizing the need for broader skills, frameworks, and roadmaps that look like any serious software practice. Doing business-impacting automation means starting with a strong network engineer and then layering on DevOps, CI/CD, and engineering rigor—effectively creating “next-level” network engineers, which takes time, investment, and intentional strategy. Once organizations accept that reality, they can finally have meaningful conversations about how to design, build, and support automation that truly improves customer-facing services.

Network automation hasn’t fully taken off not because the tech is lacking, but because organizations treat it like a shiny “gizmo” instead of a clearly defined, business-driven capability that must be explained, justified, and operationalized for engineers, ops, and leadership alike. The post argues that automation is only one tool in a broader IT toolbox, and until the industry can plainly answer “what is it, why do we need it, and how do we roll it out and support it,” ambiguity will keep slowing progress and blocking real adoption.