IBM BPM Reviews

We use the product for workflow management and automation. It is integrated into different systems like RPA. 

We have automated processes with IBM BPM and DocuSign. Its valuable features include low-code, timer, etc. It makes it simple to implement the products. We generate reports using the solution. 

We had hoped that the product would provide us with plug-ins like Salesforce. Its development environment needs to improve. We expect to see elastic features like containerization. We don't just need an on-prem virtual machine. 

I have been working with the product for 12 years. 

I rate the tool's stability seven to eight out of ten. 

The solution is scalable. IBM BPM has more than 1000 users in my company. 

The tool's support is fast. 

IBM BPM's deployment is not complex; I rate it a six out of ten. It takes a day to complete. One admin helps to maintain the product. Our server count is between 25 and 30. 

I rate the product a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution to manage our business process.

Automation is the most valuable feature of IBM BPM. The AI helps tightly integrate the solution. We don't have other solutions with that kind of architecture, where we can click a few integrations and have a process orchestration framework.

The solution can improve integration with SAP, CRM, and Salesforce, which is not capital-intensive. We are currently working well with static solutions.

We looked into the digital framework and decided to email all my thoughts to IBM. I asked what the capability was and if they had a feature-suggesting process that could be deployed in-house, mainly through out-of-the-box features. We discussed the possibility of integrating one other key feature and the ability to notify users and do centralized tooling. This would improve the performance perspective for the end user.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The solution is stable. IBM BPM is more stable from a Gartner class perspective, as Gartner members have done an assessment and determined that IBM BPM is the leader, and the discovery phases and run that we come up with in the IBM process orchestration tool make it the best solution.

The solution is scalable. We conducted performance testing and benchmarking of the solution. We implemented the solution as far as it is scalable and tailored to customer requirements. Currently, the system is handling one million transactions without any downtime.

Technical support is excellent. We have different levels of support depending on where we log in. Critical issues must be resolved within 24 hours, medium issues within 36 hours, and low-priority issues within 48 hours. IBM will now globalize its support staff to provide us with assistance.

I previously used the Pega BPM. Pega BPM had a built-in feature that was for the process, but it was not scalable and had performance issues. Therefore, we followed industry best practices and took out that layer, and built a customization process orchestration tool. IBM BPM is the more valuable solution because of its support of Blue-Green deployments, which will be highly beneficial as it allows for installation without downtime.

The initial setup is complex, but once we have a mature framework in place, it has been working well. When deployed properly and as expected, customers are happy to use the solution. However, there is still a lot of configuration and installation taking time. IBM BPM provides a cloud-fast model, where it is possible to integrate automation of the process and where manual interaction is only necessary if automation is not available. We have implemented an ultimate installation that includes both capabilities, but some features were not enabled in the process access station. For example, I could not open KFC documents, they all uploaded, and saved the data, but could not do a profile page without manual interaction. IBM is still working on a permanent solution for this.

The deployment time depends on the requirements, which can be critical, low, or medium-high. If the requirements are critical, it will take six to eight months. For medium requirements, it will take five months, and for low requirements, it will take only one month. Eight people were part of the deployment team.

The implementation was completed in-house.

IBM BPM is expensive, so most large companies opt for IBM based on their licensing options. They have user-level and server-level access and can choose to renew their license in either an Opex or CapEx model. We have an annual license.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

I recommend IBM BPM. The solution is very good at repairing itself and I am very pleased to work with it. I have also validated other BPMs, but IBM BPM is the best due to the features it provides when operating with a lot of digital frameworks through BPM process automation.

We have taken the BPM route in BAW.

I don't know whether we started using all the features or not. There are many.

So far, it works well and we are satisfied with the product. 

It's got a good look and feel as compared to whether it is in a Case Manager or Case Foundation, which was there earlier.

It's simple to set up.

The solution is stable.

Technical support is good.

I can only speak from an end-user perspective. I don't know, from the development perspective, what would be improved. From a general improvement perspective, it's probably a little too early to judge as the implementation is still going on.

The pricing is a little bit high. It's gone up in cost.

The response time needs to be better. Every time when you click a link or a button or something, the response could be faster - although, I know it also depends on the network connectivity. However, I've noticed even when we are working on the office network with very good network connectivity, we still feel, a slowness. It could have responded much better or faster.

We've been using the solution for seven months. 

The stability has been good. We haven't dealt with bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

We are in the implementation phase. We have done the basic things which are in place and now we are doing the enhancements. As we are doing the enhancements now, there might be various feasibility checks and so on. Then we would come to know whether the product is feasible to take care of our requirements. Only then, I would be able to comment on scalability.

From IBM, we get good support. There are no issues with that. We are satisfied with the level of support we get. 

We used to use IBM's Case Foundation before. From there, we have now moved to the BPM route.

The initial setup was pretty easy. There were not any complications involved in that.

We found the product to be on the higher side. We recently purchased it last year, and, when you purchase the whole product, about ten years back, that was a very reasonable amount. However, now, this time, we see that the amount could have been better - although we still went ahead and bought it. That said, it could have been better.

We pay for the solution annually.

We're a user and a customer. 

We're using something around version 20. I'm not sure of the exact version number.

From a system perspective, once we have something and we keep doing hundreds of enhancements on it, that's where sometimes the user experience might go for a hit in terms of ease. That said, if you are a new user and you have the requirements correctly captured, then starting might be easier. Yes. The tool will start functioning from day one, onwards, in a much better way. 

I'd rate it at a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is moving documents electronically from desk to desk.

The most valuable features come in the bundle, the design process, creating services, creating BPDs, creating coaches, and UI/UX.

I would like to see the user-friendliness improved and the training become free of cost for the solution. I would like to see the front-end support improved because it should be fully integrated and supported.

I have been using IBM BPM for the past three years.

The current system is definitely stable and the database compatibility is very reliable. 

There are over three thousand five hundred users currently implementing IBM BPM and therefore the scalability is excellent.

Technical support is always good.

Positive

The initial setup is definitely complex compared to other market comparatives.

The price is good but could be a little lower.

I would rate IBM BPM an eight on a scale of one to ten.

We use IBM BPM for banking transactions. 

The tool's workflow function is very strong. 

IBM BPM should become cloud-native. It should also add a cloud deployment feature. 

I have been using the product for ten years. 

I rate IBM BPM's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has 1000 users. 

IBM BPM's support is good. 

The tool's deployment is complex. 

Integrators helped us with deployment. 

I rate the tool's pricing a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution for business management.

The solution can be deployed both on-prem and cloud.

The solution is a module and we can interface with consent and document management which is important.

The designer feature, compared to other solutions is easy to use.

The solution is an out-of-the-box solution.

The cost of the solution has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

I give the stability an eight out of ten. The solution works especially well with Linux.

I give the scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial setup depends on if the solution is deployed on the cloud or on-prem. The cloud version is easy because we just have to deploy the containers. The on-prem setup requires a lot of work before we can even begin because we need to masterpiece all the layers from the operations system to the database, and the middleware at the front and back end. I give the initial setup an eight out of ten. The deployment takes a full business day.

An experienced person can do the complete deployment on their own however we usually use three people, one for the beginning, middle, and end.

I give the pricing an eight out of ten. The solution is a bit expensive.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

IBM BPM is a good solution but we should always look at our business requirements. The solution is intended for medium and large businesses, so it is not recommended for small businesses.

It is an on-premises solution that helped us automate business processes like onboarding customers, loan management, loan approval, and leave approval.

The features allow you to connect, and things work seamlessly. The coding and the maps are also valuable. I feel good about the features, and its beauty is that anybody can design it.

I have been using this solution for more than 10 years.

IBM BPM is stable, but sometimes there are issues with the server. I am unsure if the issue is due to the VAS server or the BPM, but there was some instability when we went through a few of the final enrollments.

We could not proceed with any scalability due to some business decisions.

I have not contacted IBM Technical Support for IBM BPM. I have only engaged with support through forums and the blocks.

Positive

The setup is straightforward. However, the debugging was not straightforward.

Deployment was also quick and not complicated. I was not part of the deployment team, but I believe we used an integrator for deployment.

In terms of licensing, we have to make it free for the developers so more people can install and use it. It is important to make at least licensing free to try in the cloud, not just for IBM BPM but for any of the IBM products.

This can help companies start to push through solutions and proposals. For example, licensing could be free, providing developers something to try in the cloud. Because there are regular audits in all companies when you install, some companies may see this as harmful. Therefore, a provision to try it free on the cloud can increase the number of skilled PA developers.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

A banking client is using IBM jBPM for Customer Due Diligence, and they are having user screens developed in Brazos. I think they are treating it like headless BPM, but it is not actually headless BPM. So, some of the screens and the navigation are from the old jBPM technology itself, and they have some of the customizations on top of that by using Brazos screens.

Initially, when it was developed eight or nine years back, it was really good because of the features and usability.

Setting it up is fairly easy. If somebody has knowledge of the system, he or she will be able to do it fairly quickly.

From the testing perspective and minor enhancements perspective, customization is something that is a little tedious as compared to new tools. In addition, various open-source tools that are available are not working with IBM BPM.

Some of the flows that are developed are end-to-end flows rather than modular flows. With a complex system, such as Customer Due Diligence, there are a lot of reviewers and profiles, and people need to log in and use the same flow again and again, which makes the maintenance of the tool difficult.

The security and testing side of things can be improved. If something can be done to make the latest tools and technologies available for doing the testing from the performance side and security side, it would add a lot of value. Currently, it is very difficult to put all of those tools on top of the closed infrastructure of IBM. Some of the new tools, such as Camunda, have solved this a little bit with the security scan that needs to be done in the DevSecOps pipeline that we are using nowadays.

IBM is known for stability and reliability.

From a scalability perspective, it is already being used as a very complex system, and it is working okay. The new solutions, such as Camunda, say that they are good from the scalability perspective, but it has not yet been proven, especially in the financial world. That's the reason we're rating Red Hat and IBM higher in this regard.

Initially, there was a lot of to-and-fro communication with the IBM team. Without them, it was not possible at all. Their support was good. 

Because it is very IBM-centric in terms of technology, getting the right people is very difficult. That's the reason why people go to the support team more for getting answers. This is something that is good in other offerings available in the market where the customization can be done very easily, resulting in fewer calls going to the support team. 

Their support is very good. People are good, and everything is good, but in this modern world, there should not be a need to go to the support most of the time.

Its deployment was good and easy, but the problem was that we were not able to get the people with the right skills. It is not like Java technology for which you get a lot of people with skills. It requires very specific skills, which was another challenge that the client was facing. That's why they asked us. 

We don't own the entire application. We have just done a small part of it. They are now looking at what needs to be done and how they can modernize it.

Licensing is managed by the client, but we know it is yearly.

Camunda is relatively cheaper. There is not much difference in pricing of IBM and PEGA. For large licensing, there are discounts as well.

We are currently checking out various BPM solutions and seeing how IBM BPM stands with respect to other BPM tools that are available. Red Hat is now IBM, and we found the Red Hat BPM to be a little bit more open source. So, the problem the client is getting may get resolved by Red Hat BPM. Our recommendation is Red Hat BPM and not Camunda, which is an okay solution, but it is a new kid in the market. From the robustness perspective, we are leaning towards Red Hat BPM, but the client has not taken a decision yet.

There are two types of BPM products available. One is the platform solution, and the other one is a little bit open-source kind of solution. Camunda is kind of open-source.

If you are looking for a good solution where you don't need to do multiple enhancements and there is a good troubleshooting and support team, you can definitely go ahead with this solution. If you are looking for a lot of customization after implementing a BPM suite, then I would recommend Red Hat BPM over IBM BPM. For example, in the financial industry, we have critical processes that keep on changing because of regulatory changes. For such cases, Red Hat BPM is more suitable.

I would rate IBM BPM a seven out of 10.