IBM BPM Reviews

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.

The workflow design is the solution's most effective feature.

I suggest establishing a developer forum for better communication and issue resolution. Also, the administration panel could be improved for task management.

I have been working with IBM BPM for the last five years.

I rate the platform's stability a seven. 

We have around 200 IBM users in our organization. I rate the platform's scalability an eight. 

The initial setup process is easy. Although it took time to establish, we have automated many processes.

Following the SDLC can prolong the timeline, but utilizing a DevOps environment can speed up the deployment.

We design independent workflows using Business Process Diagrams (BPD). We identify different roles and entities in various departments and create dummy workflows to visualize these entities and processes.

A dedicated enterprise integration department uses IBM SOA services. We design various services for enterprise applications, including integration with content management systems like IBM FileNet.

Overall, I rate IBM BPM a nine out of ten. 

They could provide case studies to investigate and understand the functionality of business processes before development. Additionally, UI needs enhancement in terms of control features.

We have been using IBM BPM for seven years.

I rate the platform’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability a seven out of ten.

The technical support team could improve the response time.

Neutral

IBM BPM is easy to deploy. We used the CI/CD method for the product implementation. It enabled automated processes.

The product is expensive considering the hardware and software costs.

We are exploring Camunda at the moment. It is inexpensive and easy to deploy on the cloud compared to IBM BPM.

We leverage IBM BPM to streamline various business processes, primarily focusing on ticket management, loan processing for both business and retail banking, and handling processes related to remittance.

The platform helps us optimize the loan approval process for a local bank. Previously, it required manual work. Now, we can use API features for document scanning.

The feature for workflow management has made a significant impact on efficiency. Additionally, the integration of an Operational Decision Manager (ODM) helps us manage risk and scorecard modeling, particularly in retail banking.

The visibility into processes and performance metrics has significantly benefited our organization. With a clear view of processes through Line of Sight (LOS) and powerful analytics, we've been able to optimize and automate various steps, including the cleanup of automation-generated spam processes.

The integration capabilities have been beneficial for us, particularly with the use of IBM Integration Bus (IIB) and SysTrack for system integration. We can design a robust data-driven model for processes like Nessus for vulnerability scanning.

With features like CollabPress integrated into the cloud-based platform, team members can easily collaborate, share insights, and address tasks in real time.

I rate it a seven out of ten.

The use cases include security and network processing for internal purposes.

It streamlines processes, benefits other projects, and integrates with other solutions.

I appreciate its high user capacity and standard compliance. It's also helpful for multi-project deployments, design assessments, and general deployment processes.

Integration is a big plus for me.

There is room for improvement in the stability. 

I have been using it for ten years. I work with the latest version. 

Overall, I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. We have below 100 end users in our company. 

The customer service and support are good. They are responsive. 

The configuration and installation are easy. The deployment took around one to two days. 

The deployment began with an assessment, followed by requirement confirmation and sign-off by various stakeholders. We deployed it on the cloud and managed the process internally.

We only needed two people for the deployment. 

We have a yearly licensing model. It is not expensive. There are no addition costs to the standard license. 

Overall, I would rate the product an eight out of ten. I would recommend using this solution. 

It is easy to use, good price, is easy for developers, easy to install and configure.

Our clients use IBM BPM for loan origination and for opening accounts.

The most valuable features include the workflow, ease of use, and the ease of configuration. 

The analysis reports could be much better.

I've been using this solution for a year and a half.

IBM BPM's stability has been good so far.

The solution is scalable because the licensing cost is per the number of cores. Our clients are medium-sized companies.

I would rate IBM BPM's technical support at ten on a scale from one to ten.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward and easy. I would give it a nine out of ten.

The deployment can take one to two months depending on the company. We have a deployment team of four people including an engineer, an architect, a technical support person, and a project manager. For maintenance of the solution, we have two staff members.

Price wise, IBM BPM is cheaper than other similar solutions and has excellent pricing.

If you're considering IBM BPM, my advice would be to understand your environment so that you know your exact requirements and can get the most benefit from the solution.

I would recommend IBM BPM and rate it at ten on a scale from one to ten.

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.

IBM BPM is used for integrations. We are an enterprise application integration team. We integrate most of the companies' integrations and business process modeling.

Our organization has improved by using IBM BPM because our development time has reduced and connectivity improved.

We have had to use Mule as an alternative integration tool because it is more flexible than IBM BPM.

In a future release, the solution should add more APIs. That's why we moved to  Mule. It should not be a drastic change. What we found out is in the new release, of IBM, it has completely changed. I would like my old features to run on the new server so that I don't have to migrate some of the APIs.

I have been using IBM BPM for approximately 15 years.

IBM BPM is a stable solution.

The solution is scalable.

I have used the support from IBM BPM.

I rate the support from IBM BPM a three out of five.

I have used Mule previously.

The initial setup of IBM BPM is complex. 

In the initial stages, we have used consultants for the implementation, but as we have had some experience we are using them less.

Stability is one of the most important features of this solution.

I rate IBM BPM a seven out of ten.

We have encountered different use cases with our clients. For example, in the financial, oil field, and automotive areas, we have used the solution for onboarding applications.

IBM BPM is equipped with all the functionalities which are needed for building BPM enterprise-level applications. The integration is very good by using the restore service. The UI has improved and it is now a lot better.

There needs to be better documentation for IBM BPM in a central place. There is not any standard documentation for each component available and has been a barrier for developers.

I have been using this solution for approximately nine years.

The IBM engine is very powerful, it is highly stable.

IBM BPM has been scalable our my experience.

The support needs to improve.

The initial setup was complex and can be made simpler by starting with better documentation.

I have evaluated Pega and Appian which have come to be major competitors for IBM in the market. IBM BPM site is lacking documentation and that is why customers are going to other solutions.

I would advise those wanting to use IBM BPM to have very experienced consultants at the time of implementation because it is essential to have the infrastructure properly configured. The solution is available on-premise and on the cloud, it is important to follow best practices with the developers, if they are ignored, then the infrastructure and applications will be in trouble. It is important to have good supervision from an architect, without one, IBM BPM will not be as useful as it could be.

I rate IBM BPM a six out of ten.