Every job has a routine aspect, and an unpredictable aspect. We have to be careful when we talk about a "job" because over the past 50 years many jobs have been tremendously changed by automation, but they are still there as jobs.
Martin Ford, in his book "The Lights in the Tunnel" tries to make the case that we are running out of jobs. Automation is taking over jobs, and there are no new jobs. How does he attempt to prove this? By looking at list of occupations with at least a million workers categorized by the US Department of Labor. On that list, there are 28 professions. Of those, 27 of them existed in 1930. He uses this as evidence that there are no new jobs, and as a result of automation, humans will have less and less to do, and he suggests the radical idea that the government will have to pay people to "not work" so that there will be enough jobs for the working part of the population. (I am not exaggerating, he actually claims this is the answer.)
I don't view the world this way. If I look at those jobs I see a very different story. Consider "bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks" which makes up 1.4% of the population. In 1930 the main part of this job was actually writing numbers in books. Every transaction would be entered in exactly two places in the books. At the end of every time period (month/year) the columns of numbers would be manually added together, and the results from the two parts of the book compared. If the job is done accurately, the books balance. To say that accountants do this today would be laughable. ERP systems and less sophisticated accounting software do all the writing and calculating. Accountants then spend the bulk of their time on more creative aspects of accounting: how should we structure the business accounts? What is the best way to represent a particular transaction? Where can we get the best return for an investment? What additional detail can we get telling us which parts of our business are doing well, and which are falling behind?
Jobs are not eliminated, but they have been radically transformed in many cases. The routine aspects have been automated, which leaves the worker to spend more time on the creative aspects. This question was about "processes" not jobs, but the same principle applies there. Look at any process: there are aspects of that process that could be automated, and probably will some day be automated. There are other parts that rely on true intelligence, and those parts will continue to done manually. Consider the process to hire a new employee. We can automate the handling of applications and resume, but it comes to making the key decision -- hire or not hire -- people will continue to do that manually. After making that decision, and after the candidate has manually accepted, the process of "on-boarding" can be largely automated.
So I would not say that you can divide processes into those that can and can not be automated, I would instead suggest that more and more powerful automation, will allow processes to be transformed dramatically, but that the creative aspects of the process, the part that takes real intelligence, can not, and will not, be automated. The trick is to be able to identify the difference.
Automation is elevating workers, not eliminating them: