IBM BPM Reviews

We use IBM BPM for brokerage operations transactions, and workflow and process automation for those transactions. We use it for straight workflow and process automation. We have some straight through processing (STP), but most of it is human intervention. Therefore, we will start a process, which will start by requiring some sort of human intervention step, like a review or approval, then it will post to a system of record afterwards.

It has performed very well. We have had it for almost eight years. We will be hitting over a million transactions a day by the end of the year, so it is pretty successful.

• Easy to use
• Easy to develop
• It is transparent to business users because it is mostly picture based modelling.
• Easy for people to understand what the application is doing.

Turnaround time: It is easy to take a requirement, put it in the code, and deploy it. 

We have used a lot of out-of-the-box reporting on the process performance metrics. We have been able to make suggested changes to staff for this role or streamlining by eliminate some activities where people were not requiring a lot of work in the first place.

Some performance stuff around tasks and indexing. We know that there are changes coming in this space.

A lot of the management stuff: It is a rather thick stack because you have to have WebSphere skills, IBM BPM skills, and an understanding of how the product runs on WebSphere. A lot of this will start to get a lot easier as they put it in containers, which will allow the platform to manage itself in some regards.

Performance in the development environment space. I know that they have been taking it off the desktop version and putting on the web, and it is not 100% yet.

A lot of the features of the product are old. It would be nice to see those updated. They are on the roadmap. Hopefully, they will get around to them at some point.

It wavers. We have some opportunities for improvement in this space, especially as we approach our target volume of a million transactions a day. It is tough, because it is not necessarily the product. It is more around the platform and infrastructure to support it, so the connectivity to the database, web sessions, and reverse proxies in front of that. Therefore, the whole environment plays into how the application performs.

It has been okay so far, knock on wood. We are in the middle of refreshing our topology right now. We are trying to figure out if there are potential advantages that we have not been able to look at before by orchestrating how we cluster and divide the deployment environment, so we will see what happens.

We started with some processes that were about five or six a day to our target processes, which will be about hundred of thousands a day. The big effort now is to taking models from MQ Workflow and putting those into BPM. Obviously, MQ Workflow has been decommissioned and is end-of-life (EOL) later this year. We had 45 or so applications on MQ Workflow and we have been moving those over to BPM. That has been most of the work right now. 

We log PMRs constantly and the technical support has been great about providing Level 3 support. We have had some direct interaction with Level 3 personnel who provide easy, quick answers that we did not know, then we can implement those changes right away. We have definitely been happy with their response time.

We did not have a BPM solution previously. 

The initial setup was very complex. This was back on IBM BPM 7.5, so they had just converted from calling it Lombardi to IBM BPM. It was new infrastructure for us. We had some security and infrastructure constraints unique to the product that we had to work in. We did not previously have a huge WebSphere or Linux presence. We had some custom code at the beginning, but we have mainly moved away from that, and are pretty much out-of-the-box IBM BPM at this point.

We used IBM WebSphere software services for the initial setup because it was a new platform for them. They had just acquired it from Lombardi and were excited about having a role model for themselves for setup. Also, it was brand new for us, so any help we could receive was appreciated.

We have definitely seen ROI. When we first kicked it off, we said it had to pay for itself within three years, and it did. That is one of the reasons we have been able to keep the platform around.

We evaluated two other BPM platforms and did a PoC with one of them. Then we decided on Lombardi, and they were bought. After that, we decided on IBM BPM.

We did a PoC with Pega and looked at Appian, but settled on IBM BPM.

We chose IBM BPM because of the management that comes with the product: The performance stuff out-of-the-box around how efficient is the process and how efficient are the people involved (or how inefficient). The ability to view these metrics out-of-the-box without having to do a lot of work on top of that. Everything is coupled together and comes as one solution.

It is more than just a new development tool for IT. You need a capability within IT to support it, run it on the right platform, and have the right developers to develop within it. It is somewhat of a unique skill set. It is not Java development nor web development, it is a hybrid of both. Most importantly, you need business partners who are process-oriented. Anyone can put processes in a line and call it a workflow, but if you have process engineers who can find eligible processes for management, this is really important. Your business partners should be willing to define metrics in the process and work on changing the process. Therefore, it is not a new development tool, but a whole methodology around managing business processes in the IT and the business side. It is a little more of an endeavor than just buying the product and saying, "I use IBM BPM now."

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: Originally, it was ease of development and the model-based development environment. It was entirely drag and drop plus pictures, so business people could comprehend.

Ajax services are most important to me, but currently we've moved them more into status closed. This is because we are using the HL7 version of iBPM. Thus, the one thing that I love about them is that they make it easier to integrate with other systems, especially with the use of smaller files.

It's ability to hand over processes. There are stages of the process from one user to another, and also the ability of keeping a session. Because I'm in a financial institution, where you are originating an account for a customer and could possibly frustrate a customer. You have to keep the account's permissions process simple.

Previously, you find that 115 in the system would be for onboarding, and that was how to engage the customer's profile. Then, you have to engage with multiple other systems to actually pay that account.

The nice thing about the BPM is that it is able to hold all of those sessions to say, "Okay, this is one, two, three, then I take this process and hand it over to another system, which will also do some work, then once they are done they come back and then I pass on the information to another system."

So, the integration that the different systems use, it's what has been most valuable.

When you have to integrate files for enterprise applications. We call them ESIs. This requires a lot of work, because you have to first create the EF file and integration designer, which takes quite some time, before you can be able to consume a website.

I've been using it for two years now.

Yes, we did actually. When we were initially installing 8.5.7, it deleted the server. We encountered a lot of issues when we had to migrate processes in the old version to the new version. This was happened recently, because we only started with the 8.5.7 server this year around June.

It is quite a scalable product. On one of our projects, we are running something like 50,000 processes a day. We're able to actually handle that efficiently without a lot of hassle.

It doesn't require installation. The user doesn't have to install anything on their system. It's all in the update. So, that makes it easy to scale.

I'd have to say 10 out of 10. Because I have never called their tech support, but they always make sure they attend to whatever problems we face. Not sure that's why they attend to us only, quickly, or maybe just how their tech support team works, but from my experience, I would give them a 10 out of 10.

It wasn't complex. Putting an app on is quite easy.

No, they were the only option at that time. Also, in terms of keeping up with the industry, they're always bringing new updates and you get updates every two months. That was actually a major factor.

My advice for them would be to use the product for what it's intended for, and to not try to make it do anything rather than what it is intended for. Because there you will come across problems which you might not find the right software. Also, find people who are skilled in the product. Most of the time, when you come across problems, they were not caused by the product, but caused by the people using the product who are not very skilled in terms of using it.

We primarily use the solution to develop some internal applications and as a business process modeler. It is a way to prototype and start developing applications.

The solution provides an easy way to develop. It's simple to use. 

The solution is stable. 

I would like them to make the tool more user-friendly in order to make the development process even simpler. They use an outdated programming language. 

I'd like the tool to be more flexible. It should be modernized a bit. It looks outdated. 

The initial setup can be challenging. 

I've been using the solution for five years. 

The stability is pretty good. I'd rate it seven out of ten in terms of reliability. 

The solution isn't exactly scalable. I'd rate it two out of ten overall. 

Technical support is okay. 

Neutral

I am also starting to use Cloud Pak.

The initial setup is challenging. However, once it is done, it's done. It's not hard in the sense that you don't have a lot of other things to do. 

Right now, we are integrating from Cloud Pak. The cloud makes it easy to handle, and we have the help of IBM engineers. Once again, you do it once, and it is done. After that, you are just using it.

I'd rate the initial setup a two out of ten in terms of ease of use. That's in terms of IBM in general, as we have a lot of IBM products. This product has a generally much easier process, however, IBM is hard. 

We did not use a third-party consultant. We worked with IBM engineers. We talked directly to them and were able to set everything up. 

The solution is expensive. The company may not be of the opinion it is expensive, however, it is expensive when I look at the total cost. I'd rate it eight out of ten in terms of how expensive it is.

We are IBM partners. 

I'd rate the product as a whole six out of ten. It is okay in general. 

The most valuable feature of IBM BPM is the low code design, and ease of maintenance. Additionally, the integration is good and easy to do.

IBM BPM can improve the dashboards and reports. It only has two dashboards, and reporting is very difficult to build.

I have been using IBM BPM for approximately five years.

IBM BPM is a stable solution.

The scalability of IBM BPM is good. It's easy to add features and applications to the platform.

I have approximately 10 customers, with each having an average of approximately 300 users.

The support for IBM BPM is good.

I have not used other solutions in this category.

The initial setup of IBM BPM is easy to do. The implementation time depends on the business that the solution is being put into. It typically takes six months to one year to complete the process. For a deployment that is easy, the process could take only a few hours.

We have two to three administrators that support IBM BPM.

My advice to others is this is a good solution and they can find a lot of advantages. I recommend this solution to many users.

I rate IBM BPM an eight out of ten.

• The functionality to design UI to be responsive and can run on multiple devices. 
• Exposing of the process components as REST API: This enables consumers to easily integrate and get information on processes and their data.

Helps automate processes, also it easily manages and tracks the business processes. It has the ability to have a view of the performance on each process so you can identify the possibility of optimisation.

Integration with web services, especially in the standard version of the product.

More than three years.

Yes, on the Process Center (development environment), especially when you have too many developers working on it. Then, it becomes unstable.

Not at the moment. It is quite easily scalable.

Two things are valuable:

• The system integration layer is valuable because this enables an organization to create a single point where all the key organizational master data is held in different IT applications across different functions, that can be accessed and updated.
• Process orchestration allows an organization to model and execute its business processes across functions rather than operating in functional silos; this works hand-in-hand with the system integration layer.

On top of this, the business rule engine and common user interface allow centralization of any of the organizational parameters and a common corporate interface.

It enabled the development of a new safety critical equipment testing database and the integration of this with the inventory management system and the asset management system. As more systems are integrated, this solution enables a spider web (network) of the business processes so as to develop over time, creating greater levels of efficiency and effectiveness.

The product has developed considerably since I have used it. At that time, the use of system integration alongside the business process orchestration was cutting edge. Now, there are many more mature offerings including IBM BPM. I believe that the integration work was more difficult than anticipated at the time. Also, the product was orientated towards using other IBM technologies such as their IBM Db2 database technology; the solution didn’t play well with the Microsoft SQL Server and there was a stand-off between the two vendors blaming each other for performance issues.

I have mainly used IBM Blueworks Live (as an analyst) and worked with BPM developers who have used the BPMS solution to implement designs, i.e., for about a year.

There were performance issues with the solution, which were related to the IBM – Microsoft interaction (as described above). The browser-based solution does not work well at facilities that do not have reasonably fast networks. This would not be an issue now as easily available data bandwidth has increased dramatically since then.

The solution was probably overkill for the initial application, so I did not experience any scalability issues.

IBM put together a package which included the onsite consultants who were very effective. Apart from the IBM – Microsoft issue, the support was good. I expect that IBM BPM can play with the other server and database technologies much more effectively now.

This was a new venture into the Business Process Management.

The setup was quite complex because the solution was cutting-edge at that time and IBM invested considerably in the implementation, likely at a loss to themselves.

I don’t have information about the IBM BPM licensing but the process discovery tool, i.e., IBM Blueworks Live has three levels of licenses: Editor, Contributor, and Viewer (there is also a Community Member license but I don’t know what that is for). The Editor licenses are for around £80 per user per month. The Collaborator licenses are very valuable for increasing BPM maturity by enabling the stakeholders (particularly the process managers) to collaborate on the process capture and design. Blueworks does not allow a free HTML publishing option, but instead, a Viewer license is required which is relatively inexpensive but has to be bought in packages of 500 licenses. However, it may be cheaper for organizations to pay for the Viewer licenses that are immediately up and running in the cloud, rather than paying for someone to administer publishing to an intranet.

I believe that a Hitachi product was evaluated as part of the tender.

Start with the IBM Blueworks Live to get your house in order first. This is an inexpensive way of introducing BPM governance to an organization and it naturally leads to a BPMS deployment when the stakeholders recognize that the process models that are presented can be automated and the underlying data integrated across the organization.

We use IBM BPM for banking purposes and other banking service-related queries.

IBM BPM is easy when it comes to creating processes. 

It has an elaborated way to explore the IBM BPM processes.

Anyone can easily learn how to use IBM BPM, within a period of a month or two.

The integration could be improved.

I have been using IBM BPM for six months.

We are using the latest version, which is V8. 

It is based on the local server.

IBM BPM is a stable product.

IBM BPM is a scalable solution.

We have 100 users in our organization.

We have not contacted technical support.

We have recently changed to Camunda BPM.

It is easy to install. It only took 10 to 15 minutes to complete the installation.

The guides are available on social websites.

IBM BPM is one of the several BPM tools that we are working with. Currently, our technical team is working on 50 to 70.

We were able to complete the installation ourselves.

This is a tool that I would strongly recommend to others.

I would rate IBM BPM a nine out of ten.

We're primarily using the solution for workflows, mostly. We are a telco-based company, however, most of our use cases are kind of in a workflow format. We're trying to workflow things across other systems.

The installation was straightforward.

For us, we had the challenge whereby the training was not done properly through a sales partner. The BPM has a partner to deliver, and with our local partner, the training was not properly done, so we were not very comfortable. We never got to a comfort level with the product. We ended up not using it that much. There were missing modules within it. For example, the document management part was missing and we failed to integrate it into our SharePoint. In the end, there was no uptake for the processes that we had put in through it.

The solution as a whole should be simplified due to the fact that it has so many paths. It's difficult for a customer, when you are onboarding this system, to understand all the parts that you have to put together. 

What you buy depends on what you know about it. For example, if it's supposed to then have BlueX and a separate document management platform like FileNet, and a process server and a processing center, decision center, you kind of have to put these things together. And yet, you don't know them due to the fact that you are not an IBM expert. It's not like you can say, "Look, I want in a BPM solution." And then it just comes with everything together.

They should incorporate an API gateway functionality within it to simplify integrations. One of the key issues with IBM, BPM is the integration part. It is not very flexible with integration. For an automation platform, you really need easy integration. If I am going into SharePoint, if I'm going into ERP, those are some of the key things that you have to integrate into. We were doing point-to-point integrations. Within the system, the API gateway and the integration management should be part of the solution.

I've probably been using the solution for two years at this point.

The stability was likely okay. For us, we had issues, however, I don't think it's the platform, which caused the problem. It was likely the expertise in terms of the actual deployment.

The company licensed at the PVU level and the scalability is a bit complex. You can't really tie it to the processes that you are putting in. You always have to monitor at a system or hardware level, the impact that you're putting on it - the more you customize and add things on it. It's a bit difficult to know when to scale up or down.

Originally, we wanted it to be used by at least 1,000 plus users, with the potential, depending on the process that you've put in, of more. We would've wanted to end up hosting process automation for processes to be used across 5,000 plus users, potentially. Unfortunately, we didn't get the adoption rate we were looking for.

Technical support was okay. We didn't really have any issues with their level of assistance.

We didn't previously use a different solution. It was mostly just acquired Shadow IT.

While the installation of the solution itself was straightforward, the customization wasn't straightforward for us. It was too complex, and the training we received did not help us understand the solution. We needed to be experts and we weren't.

We used a consultant to assist us with the process. We did not handle the entire process in-house.

The licensing is a bit expensive for a main process automation platform. Maybe it's because of our background, however, we found it to be a bit pricey.

We were just end-users and customers of IBM.

It's hard to rate the solution as we didn't really get to use it. I would likely rate it at a seven out of ten - if it was installed correctly.

If I learned anything from the experience, it's the importance of proper training. A company really should get proper IBM training to understand the product first, before committing to purchasing and implementing it.