RPA orchestration
I used Yingdao to organize Excel downloads and scheduling-record downloads into separate subflows, with Python for data processing.
Case 01 / Education operations
I automated scheduling tasks with RPA and Python, moved two actions to APIs, and maintained the workflows as the platform changed. I am now consolidating their data around a shared student identity.
The work was not one click. Each lesson required the right people, the right session and the right support group.
Repeated across a large workload, the navigation and checking mattered as much as the final click. My goal was to make this recurring work executable without repeating every screen interaction manually.
A task-level workflow first, then reusable data handling—not just a recording of mouse clicks.
I used Yingdao to organize Excel downloads and scheduling-record downloads into separate subflows, with Python for data processing.
For quota checking, the Python module uses pandas to normalize phone fields, match course/card types, apply quota overrides, count bookings and export over-limit results.
In October 2024, I migrated personnel assignment and teaching-service configuration to API integrations. Student entry in the separate booking system remained a distinct workflow.
After a major ClassIn update in June 2025, I reworked affected integrations. Related work included daily over-limit lesson checks and weekly usage resets.
Implementation example: quota checking combines visual workflow orchestration with structured Python data processing.
RPA first reduced repetitive manual work and improved consistency. As volume increased, its runtime and sensitivity to page loading and network conditions led me to move these two actions to APIs.
I changed the integration method for the repetitive steps, rather than claiming that every related workflow should use an API. The June 2025 update is a concrete example of the maintenance that remained.
The same student-level task: add the advisor and class coordinator, then create the teaching-service group.
2 sec / student
Two short operations instead of repeated page navigation.
Find the student’s session, identify the advisor and coordinator, add both, then configure the service group. Repeat for the next student.
A scripted sequence shortened execution and made repeated handling more consistent in my use. Page loading and network conditions could still interrupt the run.
About one second to add both staff members, plus about one second to create the service group. This removes repeated UI navigation from these two actions.
Approximate per-student processing times, based on my latest recollection of actual use—not a controlled benchmark. Time for supervision and exception handling is separate.
Scheduling automation grew alongside onboarding, lesson monitoring, leave-related work and reminders. The next problem was connecting their data without mixing up people or deleting history.
After identifying the student and the required people, the two API actions replace repeated screen navigation. Timings are estimates from my use.
Identify the lesson, advisor and coordinator.
Add the advisor and coordinator to the lesson.
≈ 1 secondSet up the student’s class-level support space.
≈ 1 secondLesson staffing and teaching-service setup are in place.
The current consolidation links separate source facts to a shared ClassIn UID, with validation and history preserved.
ClassIn, WPS and booking snapshots.
Stable UID bindings and transactional delta writes.
Student profile and linked operational details.
Animated process illustration · no live business data
In the current consolidation work, the design goal is one usable student profile—not one oversized table and not a rewrite of every inherited service.
Memberships, cards, WPS details, lesson participation and observations remain separate facts linked to a common account.
WPS records are linked only when the required identity and uniqueness checks pass. Changed or duplicate phone data does not silently reassign an existing UID.
Snapshot validation, transactional delta writes and explicit ownership keep source facts separate from local settings and processing results.
Read-view checks, repeat-import checks and an actual backup/restore test support the data foundation. They do not prove that notifications or approvals are live.
As of October 2026: the unified data foundation and read views are delivered. UID-based monitoring comparison is next; notification, leave approval, registration and booking cutovers remain separate acceptance steps. Existing services continue to run.
The same delivery mindset, applied to conversations and voice.
The scheduling workflow included adding an advisor to a ClassIn lesson session, configuring teaching services, and enrolling students in a separate booking system. I migrated the first two steps from Yingdao RPA to APIs in October 2024. Student onboarding was outside this two-step migration.
Before: Advisor assignment / teaching-service configuration → Yingdao RPA → ClassIn lesson sessions.
After: The same two actions → API integration → ClassIn lesson sessions.
Simplified task-level illustration, reconstructed for this case. Not a production screenshot, API specification or live demo.
October 2024: Completed the two RPA-to-API scheduling migrations.
June 2025: Adapted ClassIn integrations after a platform update; delivered related lesson-allowance checks and weekly lesson-usage resets.
Two scheduling actions moved to APIs, with operational maintenance continuing afterward. The work connects a defined integration change with ongoing operational maintenance.
Public case based on my work records and project history. Business volumes and operational records are omitted. No quantified time-saving, error-rate reduction or uptime claim is made. Prepared October 2026.