We are using the product as an OAM that we have included in our software product. We are offering a private cloud solution and we sell it and deploy it to our customers.
We are using it to create a low-code solution for strategic planning and performance management in order to automate the management processes such as planning, performance management, governance processes, and business process management as a whole.
We are using the BPMN engine of Camunda; we are not using the user interface. We are using just the engine, the back end of this. For us, it is working quite well.
The stability of the solution is quite good.
Technical support is good for getting alerts about bugs.
The form builder that will be utilized in the system and the data monitor both need improvement at this time. I want to exchange the data between the activity and UI basis. Currently, they are using a JSON file, which needs to be improved. We need something that can be used as a user interface and the user can make the data binding and exchange data between the activities.
This is what we did ourselves. We had the engine itself and we created a data monitor and formed it on top of it. This is what is missing in the system.
The initial setup can be complex for business users.
There occasionally be some bugs in the solution.
The solution needs to offer more languages such as Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, et cetera.
The system is stable. This is why we selected it. Based on other products, we've found the most appropriate results coming out from the Camunda BPM engine. It's very good.
There are occasionally a few bugs, however, we are quite capable of dealing with them.
Since we are using Camunda as a core solution, a core engine of our system, we are going to continue using it. I'm not willing to change it down the line. There's no plan for us to change it and we are not thinking about changing it. It has all functionalities and we are using about 50% of the engine itself in terms of its capability. We will continue to invest in utilizing all Camunda functionalities in the BPM engine.
In terms of technical support, we are using basic technical support as we are a technical organization. We are a software house. Our team is professional and they have experience in Java and private cloud technology. They are able to fix any issue.
That said, there are certain bugs in Camunda. They are publishing information about them from time to time. We study the tool very carefully. Support from Camunda doesn't mean too much to us actually, as, in our organization, we have about 380 employees, and the majority of them are Java developers. We take the basic support to track the bugs only.
I also have some experience using Visio as business process management and ARIS as well as Bizagi.
We are partners of Software AG webMethods as an automation tool. We are using Mendix and OutSystems as a low-code solution. ARIS, webMethods, Mendix, and OutSystems are what we mainly use.
You cannot compare Camunda with ARIS since ARIS is only for our documentation, business process documentation. You cannot compare it with Camunda. It is a totally different scope. However, in comparison between Mendix, OutSystems, and webMethods, they are very expensive tools and ultimately provide the same functionality, yet they are not using a pure BPMN XML. Maybe transferring the workflow between those systems doesn't work. That said, the consistency between, for example, Bonitasoft and Camunda and Bizagi is a matter of import and export. Between other systems such as webMethods and OutSystems and Mendix, for example, in webMethods, they are only still using an enhanced BPM engine mainly, meaning that they are not using the pure or the standard BPM notation. The same applies to Mendix and OutSystems.
The initial setup, for business users, is complex. If you compare it with cloud systems and Mendix, it is complicated. It has a very strong and very rigid back-end BPM engine and it's more trustworthy if XML files have been generated from Camunda. The quality of the XML file being generated from Camunda, the XML files of BPMN, is more trustworthy than other systems. That's why we selected it. This is the main reason that we selected it.
With the Camunda installer, the deployment of just the solution is pretty fast.
However, the automation process with the current functionality, meaning with the missing functionality of data monitor and data binding and with the lack of proper UI representation, it took us a year to develop those components to have a low-code solution on top of it.
Now, with our low-code solution on top, it will take us one to two days to have a visible process automated.
We are an integrator and we are consultants in business process management, and we are developing a tool on top of it. Therefore, we help our clients to implement. However, when we originally installed Camunda, we handled the process ourselves. The way we do things now, we try to make it easier for clients.
We are using a developer license. I can't speak to exactly how much we are paying, or exactly what license type that we are using. I'm not the technical lead or the solution delivery team. Therefore, I can't answer this question.
We did a lot of POCs on available products in the market, such as Bonitasoft, Camunda, Bizagi, so on. However, based on that POCs, we found that the best way to go forward in our solution in terms of the functionality and the accuracy of the XML files. If they could be generated by Camunda it can be more useful for us to adopt in our solution.
We are users of the solution.
We are the latest version due to the fact that we are developing our own product based on Camunda. We are developing a solution based on Camunda. We are a heavy user of Camunda.
Camunda is not so popular in the market due to the UI (meaning the form builder, the way of developing the forms which would be attached to the process), and the data monitor (how to exchange the data between the activities).
A company would need to create an integration framework between Camunda and other systems. If they sold their offering with the UI and data monitor it would be the biggest automation tool ever.
For us, with our experience with using the tool, you need a good developer to be able to use the system effectively. Other than that there are no issues. For an organization that wants to adopt Camunda, they need to have the proper resources, and the proper training to use the system.
I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. There's a bug inside the BPMN monitor that knocks a few points off the rating. If the system is not saved, it will crash.
Our primary use case for Bizagi is about full automation. It's about the discovering process, modeling business processes, and training the people. It's at a very low stage of maturity. It's very early, it's in the beginning of this.
In our business space we are just researching, so everything is local.
To start with, the feature for training people is very interesting. Even if they had Bizagi in the office, you still have some tools that are just in the cloud, so you don't need to install things like IDOR, which is a series of tools for process utilization, what they call IU and IO. So, the feature for knowledge, discovery process, and drawing frameworks is very easy. It's the easiest at this moment. Even before we moved to process automation.
They have three or four tools for the entire SQL. They have mobility and process aging. This is good. But for the small business, this is very bad because it is still fragmented. The licensing policy should be more flexible and small company oriented. In micro-small companies, there should only be one or two. That's not the problem. Maybe it is too flexible, there are so many pieces that you need to put together.
When you have a small business, it can be a little complicated, not so easy.
I would like to see an intelligent architect included in the next release of Bizagi. There is a working process with intelligent process management right now, but that doesn't mean artificial intelligence.
I have been using Bizagi for five years.
So far its stability is good. It's not presenting a challenge. At the moment we are doing little experiments and so far it's not a problem.
Bizagi's scalability is good, but there are questions about how they will price it based on number of users. You don't know what it will cost with the number of users. It varies.
Their technical support is good. They have a lot of knowledge in whatever language. We are in Brazil and they have a machine that reads Portuguese. So that is a good thing.
I previously used the Bonitasoft tool, which is a business cross-management tool. Bonita is harder, but you can demand more from its technicians people.
We are now in the process of researching about other tools and changing to new tools. We are looking for a rather simple solution for end users with the same value chain for automation process management. We are evaluating WSO2.
Bizagi is simple. It's simple to learn. Bonita is more complex. Bonita is a tool of architecture. Bizagi is also an architecture tool and it is a business cross-management tool. They are a business cross-management system.
Bonita as a tool has an ecosystem within a better-end tool and other tools, so it's harder. It's harder than Bizagi and it's simpler than WSO2.
The complexity of the initial set up depends on the competencies of the people.
We do development in the healthcare industry, so there is a complexity with the decisions of who sees it first. There are a lot of holes in competencies.
At this stage it is just us implementing. In the next phase, we must do a selection for a contract for a specialist in each tool.
I would recommend people to test other tools. You need to compare these tools to Bizagi.
On a scale of one to ten, I would give Bizagi an eight because it's simple. It's simple to implement. It's not perfect because of the cost aspect.
We use it for modeling and for making strategy.
Sparx offers good flexibility.
The documentation could be better. Where I work, we speak French and we don't speak English, so we don't have anything in French. It's perfect in English, but we need something in French.
I have been using Sparx for 11 years.
Stability is not perfect. When you are working with your notebook after 10 minutes that you don't touch your keyboard we see some stability problems with the system. It blocks it. They have to improve this.
We have 100 tests. We have one company that represents Sparx here in Canada. They work with us and also give us technical support.
It's easy to scale because we integrated with Jira. It was very quick to start our work. It's very easy. It's good.
Their support is perfect. They are quick and courteous.
We use Bonita, Lucidchart and erwin.
We had three months to compare and after that, we concluded that Bonita was very difficult to use for beginners. You have to have the experience, it's not easy for someone starting their career.
Sparx is more complex but in terms of functionality, it is easier to use.
The initial setup is okay.
My advice would be to do a lot of training beforehand. We have invested a lot of money in terms of training because we didn't do it before, so it's a little bit difficult.
In the next release, I would like to see more integration with other tools like Microsoft Azure. That's really important to us.
I would rate it a nine out of ten.
