Appian Reviews

It is mostly for our API, BPM, workflows, web services, and enterprise integration.

We have been focusing on building all of our digital and mobile applications with a lot of earlier code, as the platforms were legacy. We had to write code from scratch, because it was not possible to use the existing code. For most of our digital applications, like payment systems or digital payments, the use case was for our mobile apps.

The agile manner that we require to create our workflows. This is probably the most critical part of our solution and the time it takes to start processing the solution. This is also quite fast. It is important for us to develop the solution in an agile manner.

Newer features, especially in terms scalability. It has to become more scalable than what it is today. It is not a issue today. However, going forward, due to the growth in the number of users and the workloads, it will have to be more scalable.

It needs better integration with our existing application ecosystem.

I would like more connectors for calls and integration features. Typically in enterprise banks, we have 200 to 300 plus applications. Training and documentation on how to integrate this would help.

We would like to see more reduced latency. We would like to make sure that the scale-out factor will be much more as workloads come in. The scale-out should be improved as we grapple with more workloads and users.

We feel the latency could further be reduced, but the access time for the throughput time or the general access time could be further reduced. 

We do not see any issues with overall scalability right now.

The tech support is quite good. Maybe it is not as good as large enterprise vendors, especially when it comes to more technical troubleshooting. Overall, the response is okay, since most problems are solved. Though, if there are major issues, then break times possibly increase. If they could focus on that, it would be helpful.

We have been using tools from IBM, Oracle, CA (formerly known as Computer Associates), so mostly these enterprise tools at the same time are very complex and not very agile. The learning curve is much more than we found with the learning curve for Appian, so it is a trade-off between the agility of using a tool versus the complexity. To a large extent, more functions can be serviced through the tools previously mentioned from a enterprise perspective. However, most of the functions that we have are requirements for our services that we run through Appian, therefore we see this coverage as okay

It was between straightforward and complex. There were a few issues in terms of configurations, but overall, getting the system started was quite fast. There were a few configuration parameters that we had to change, for which, it took us a couple of days more than expected. The way to start this tool is quite quick, so we did not face any issues with it.

Product pricing compared to some of the earlier vendors, like IBM, CA, and Oracle, is quite well-priced. Although, we do feel that as we increase the number of users and the workload increases, we will have to spend more. 

We will have to have a dialogue or negotiate a price for future use. To start with, it is a reasonable price. As we go ahead, we will have to make sure the costs are inline with our expectations as we grow our user base and workloads.

In terms of licensing, instead of user-based, you should go more on a workload basis. It could be helpful, since we feel that we will be growing the workload part of it more than the user part of it. I think they give us a good price on workload characteristics and it would be a better option.

We already had IBM. We evaluated Oracle and CA. We found this product to be good price-wise as well as quick implementation-wise. From IBM, at that time, we evaluated WebSphere, APM Manager, and Workflow Manager. So, it was centered around their WebSphere, Lombardi product. 

How to integrate with their application ecosystem is probably a priority. Once you get a product like this, it is important to have that integration upfront rather than later on to work on. Otherwise, you will grapple with a very complex application ecosystem for large enterprises. These features must be provided for, understood, and the expectations of the enterprise integration bus, service, or whatever you do should be well covered by the solution, so you do not face problems down the road.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: We make sure it is a recognized and credible name/vendor. We typically look at the top four or five vendors on independent research ratings, then we form a committee so we do not take personal decisions. We have a committee, we arrive at a consensus, then we put up our selection criteria. This revolves around the technical aspects, the credibility of the vendor, the coverage of the vendor, and the cost as well as where do we see the future roadmap of the vendor.

It reduces development time in half making us more efficient.

• It is fast and efficient.
• Mobile

All enterprises focus on these features in their work.

• Apps development
• BPM

It would be nice if you could create your own customized apps when the business needed them.

No issues.

No issues.

I would rate technical support as an eight out of 10.

I previously used .NET Framework. I switched because I think Appian is better for enterprise.

Appian is easy to set up, but JBoss is complex. JBoss is the application server for running Appian.

There are two solutions depending on your situation: an on-premise solution and a cloud solution.

Oracle BPM. Appian was better.

It is more efficient and reduces time. There is no need to worry about vulnerabilities in the system, because Appian built a secure system.

SAIL (Self-Assembling Interface Layer), a scripting language provided by Appian. It is the equivalent of JS and CSS. It allows creation of complex UIs which are also responsive. With SAIL, we have a single language for both the UI logic and its appearance. UI components can be built as reusable components and used in multiple UI interfaces.

Process Modeling enables creation of business process workflows. You can create complex business workflows in a visual manner, and it is also easy to debug/monitor.

Offline capabilities and responsive capabilities could be better. The mobility features of Appian platform are still evolving.

Native mobile capabilities or hybrid mobile app capabilities are very limited. Things like offline sync, offline storage, access to smartphone device features, etc. are not supported by the Appian platform yet.

Excellent.

It is Java based, can be deployed in JBoss or WebSphere container.

I would rate it eight out of 10. It certainly is the best for enterprise application development.

Appian is a very low code platform. It's very easy to learn and use. It provides a lot of built-in functionality to address common business use cases, like user and task management, record and data management, and robust reporting on both business and process data.

Appian has greatly improved how quickly we are able to build and deploy technology solutions for our business partners. We're delivering a lot more than we used to and at a lower cost. It has proved especially useful for building regulatory applications, which are usually very time-sensitive and have to be delivered very quickly with hard deadlines.

The main challenge with Appian has been our inability to customize the user interface. It has it's own built-in UI components and doesn't provide much flexibility to customize or extend those components. This is becoming less of a problem in newer releases of the product as they continue to enhance their UI capabilities and introduce new slick features, such as sites, billboards and embedded interfaces.

More than four years experience spanning development, deployment, and administration for versions 7.4 through 17.3.

No, we have not encountered any significant stability issues with Appian. The product is very stable across all its different versions.

We have been able to easily scale Appian to meet our needs and haven't hit an upper threshold yet. We've encountered performances issues now and then, but we have always managed to resolve them through code, configuration changes, or additional hardware.

Appian technical support is generally good, especially for high severity issues. They are usually able to quickly bring in experts who can be very helpful in quickly narrowing down issues and driving resolution.

We wanted to consolidate multiple existing legacy desktop applications into one unified web-based platform and Appian was one of the best options available.

Pretty straightforward, since we had people with the necessary foundational system administration background, and Appian was very engaged early on to help us get up and running.

I don't have enough exposure to pricing and licensing.

Oracle BPM, Pega, and D+H.

Excellent BPM tool: The best among all the ones I've tried.

To get the most out of the product, put the right team in place first. Follow the Appian recommended setup/development/initial rollout best practices and do things right the first time.

Being able to model requirements in BPMN 2.0, get agreement from business and IT, and then have Appian BPMN 2.0 compliant engine execute the diagram. This has created executable requirements and speeds up the SDLC process greatly.

• Transparency of process flows, including number of instances of the process in-flight
• Identification of bottlenecks,
• Average time to completion of tasks and process, etc.

The employee onboarding process went from a mass email saying who is arriving for their first day, and just hoping all the things necessary got set up: phone, computer, badge, desk, login accounts, role specific access and accounts, etc. The Appian platform took from a blind mass email to full transparency with reporting, and greatly improved efficiency and effectiveness, as well as making continuous improvement possible.

Form creation and SAIL proprietary language still basically require programming. The claim a BA type can do everything is hogwash. They should be honest and say a developer is needed for web service integrations, etc. and complex forms; and a BA type can do the rest - requirements, architecture (collaborating with architects), design, process model, testing, deployment, and support. That is incredible powerful, but to say a developer is never needed is a lie.

Two years.

Very few.

No.

Poor. Very helpful at times and willing to go above and beyond, but very expensive, so overall poor.

Yes. IBM, Oracle, and Activiti open source. A different organization I was with selected Appian.

Complex: Data strategy and authorization to push data to the cloud was a big hurdle. How organizational data is going to be pushed to Appian, updated by Appian, and pushed back to the organization with or without approval steps needs to be planned and executed strategically.

It is expensive, but powerful. I would recommend comparing against cheaper licensing products and open source.

No.

Have 20% of a programmer as a resource, plan the round trip data integration, and get all approvals needed.

• Low code development: Code can be developed pretty quickly which leads to less turnaround time for automation of business processes.
• Ease of use: Any normal developer can pick up the development techniques pretty quickly.
• Regular updates: There are regular updates, as per market and as per client's requirements.
• Professional support: If you are stuck somewhere during the entire project lifecycle, the support team is ready anytime, so that timelines are met properly.

This product has helped in automating a lot of flows in a lot less time, which has actually reduced manual errors and enhanced quality assurance.

Architecture of product and scalabiility issues.

For three years, from version 7.8 to 17.2.

Not much, but sometimes very minor issues on tier 0, 1 applications.

Not much, but again if high usage is not anticipated while gathering the requirements, the tool becomes slow sometimes, which is not good for tier 0 applications.

10 out of 10.

No, I didn't use any.

It's straightforward, like any other normal tool installation or deployment.

I have no idea about this, as my senior management has been dealing with this.

Not before; but after I evaluated Pega.

It's good to implement this product for automation.

The most valuable features of Appian are:

1. Rapid development with low-code makes it easier to quickly get apps implemented and the time to break-even and ROI is much faster.
2. Easy to build case management, with Records and Related Actions facilitates case or document-based applications instead of, or along with, process-based applications, opening up whole new types of applications for Appian development.
3. Built from the ground up with a cohesive architecture to be the leading social, collaborative, most usable BPM platform. This makes the product feel integrated and intuitive to use, rather than having to seemingly (or actually, in the case of some competitors) go to a separate product to do certain things. In the end, it shortens implementation time and opens up the product to less technical designers because it's easy to use.

Most notably, it allows us to quickly automate processes and case management work, often cutting the manual time required in half or more. End to end time is also noticeably improved, as is the user experience of the people using the new applications.

The biggest areas of improvement would be in facilitating team development, DevOps, and integration with typical tools used in enterprise development (Jenkins, Subversion, etc.)

More than four years.

Stability problems are usually only experienced when architecture and development are done by people who don't know the tool and its best practices very well.

Scalability problems are usually only experienced when architecture and development are done by people who don't know the tool and its best practices very well.

Technical support is usually pretty good for the easier problems.

Really complex issues tend to take too long to resolve, but many times that's only because there isn't the experienced person to take it from providing information to actually closing out the fix. If a problem results in a development fix, that is typically pretty quick, too.

I personally used Lombardi and IBM BPM prior to Appian.

The main reasons for switching were:

1. Too many off-shore consultants taking all the consulting work, developing shoddy apps while driving down the rates, and generally giving BPM and the product a bad name.
2. IBM steadily providing release after release that introduced more bugs and making the tool itself less usable.
3. Appian was clearly becoming the better product and their market share was on the hockey stick slope up, whereas IBM's was falling quickly.

I don't typically get involved in the server setup, but my understanding is that it's relatively easy, especially compared to IBM's.

I'd advise to not just look at the cost, but the overall value of BPM and of Appian specifically.

BPM done right is a huge value proposition for almost any company, and with Appian's low code rapid development model, the ROI can be huge, while the break-even point should be accelerated tremendously.

This assumes that you use qualified and knowledgeable resources to do the work, and they don't come cheap either, but in the end, they are less expensive and provide more value than cheaper resources who are not qualified.

See above regarding Lombardi/IBM BPM. They are the other market leader, but while Appian is trending upwards, IBM is on its way down.

See above under the pricing/licensing advice, but I can't emphasize enough to make sure you get quality resources who really know the product well. They will understand how to best use Appian to drive the huge ROI that should come from a successful implementation. I also recommend that all technical resources, from the Architect/Team Lead down to the most junior, have a business focus along with their technical knowledge. Only by understanding how the business wants to use the technology can they make good on the promise of BPM and Appian

Robust forms builder that allows a developer to build once and the deploy to all browser & native iOS and Android apps automatically.

The UI of the application has been completely overhauled within the past couple years, but the tools for developing the new interface have not yet been updated.

4 years

Excellent. Smaller companies like Appian tend to value customer service as a competitive advantage.

Excellent.