We face some challenges with IBM Case Foundation from our customers, particularly with administration and configuration. We face many issues and open tickets with IBM regarding that, especially some integrations with multi-LDAP. They should add more integration modules for IBM Case Foundation because some integrations are not found there, such as different third-party solutions including Liferay or other portals.
The architecture is a bit difficult, but in BAW, they introduced the Business Automation Workflow. It's a bit easier compared to Case Manager. Currently, we use Case Manager, so it's a bit difficult to upgrade and handle, but BAW is comparatively much better and easier to handle. The limitation is only for customization because IBM doesn't support it. In some scenarios, if you want some business processes to be customized, we have already spoken two or three times with IBM representatives that we have to customize some of the features in this business process. They would say that if you want to do this automation at your own end, then okay, fine, go ahead, but we are not supporting all this customization. The only thing is the customization because it's a complete standard application.
There is a need for more open and flexible integration capabilities, allowing seamless collaboration with a broader spectrum of business process management solutions, beyond the confines of IBM's document management offerings.
Head of Infrastructure at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
May 26, 2023
IBM needs to update the user interfaces of all its products to make them more intuitive and accessible to beginners. Compared to Microsoft products, IBM solutions are less user-friendly. IBM programs are hard to master. It's a problem in my region because it's hard to find IT staff who can work with IBM. Another issue I have is that IBM sometimes removes features without explanation. It could be to improve performance, but they should notify us when they're removing these functions. It's always a surprise when we update it, and something is gone.
Once clients go to the cloud and want to roll back to on-premises, they find that to be very difficult. The initial setup can be complex. The cloud version could use more stability.
Senior Solution Architect at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Apr 5, 2022
For the account manager part, I don't know what could be improved. Everything looks fine. However, for the BPM part, they could improve some user experience or user interface features. We always have problems with the user interface. From version 3.5, we're using the workplace for the application. This was an IBM FileNet application that we were customized and adjusted for the customer. However, they had some private web application toolkit for building this application. It was not very open. We didn't use any other open-source features for improving that application. After that, they had an IBM content navigator, which is very customizable yet not very user-friendly - especially for our developer. The other thing that they could improve is that when you change the workflow definition from the BPM, then when all workflows are started with the older definition there where they have to stay with the older definition and don't see the change for the older workflows. You have to wait for new workflows to start. Changes that you made in the BPM part of the FileNet, especially in the process designer, are not visible for the older workflows, and that's the biggest problem we had besides the user interface. The solution can be quite expensive.
Account Technology Specialist & Presales Consultant (Microsoft & IBM) at EBLA
Real User
Oct 14, 2020
90% of the feedback we receive states that the UI is not very user-friendly. The icons and images should be bigger. Initially, I felt a bit lost but after a while, I got used to it — with a bit of practice, you can get used to anything. From my first impression, it just looked like a white page with some small icons. Another thing that is really high in demand here, especially in Qatar, is proper Arabic translation capabilities. Arabic is very high in demand, not just in Qatar but in the Middle East as a whole and Africa. When you translate it into Arabic, the labels and the interface translate pretty poorly — interface only, capability wise, it's fine.
ECM BPM Senior Team Leader at a marketing services firm with 11-50 employees
Real User
Sep 27, 2020
This product is still attached to some things from the past, on the way that it was built, and there are some things that should be improved, but those who work with it know how to work around these difficulties. Once a workflow is launched then it stays static forever, which is a problem because if there is a change in the business then you cannot change the workflow. You either stop the process and relaunch it at the place that it was, or you're going to leave with a process that is running. There are other products like IBM Lombardi or IBM BPM where it's easy, under certain conditions, to change the running workflows to the new business logic.
Senior Solutions Consultant at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Consultant
Dec 19, 2019
My only thought on how the product could be improved would be the addition of some features that could be enhanced like the document viewer but I think the product is very good. I think some enhancements could be included in the next release. The content navigator is very good, and the viewer too. They could include music on the navigator, features like that. They need to concentrate on the document viewer itself which needs to be enhanced to manage the document comparison feature. It would be great if that were included.
IBM Specialist at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Dec 5, 2019
The solution needs more courses based on Dojo programming and Dojo processes. Their Java updates need to be reconsidered. I heard they would be removed, but that hasn't happened yet. They should support BPM language. Comparing the solution with other interfaces, IBM BPM is much better than Case Foundation. They need to make this solution's interface more user-friendly.
Business Solution Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Oct 30, 2019
My understanding is that IBM is actually shutting down the solution. They're moving to something called Digital Business Automation because Case Foundation uses a workflow engine that is relatively outdated. They haven't updated it in seven years. Instead, they're moving to a new line of products. They do the same thing but in a more modern and flexible way. A newer version will need better security, email integration, and scripting. The service as it currently stands is out-of-date and lacks flexibility.
IBM Case Foundation is for organizations that need to harness unstructured information and integrate it with business processes to drive critical business decisions. It enables organizations to create, manage and optimize case-based processes and is designed to decrease development costs while significantly improving process performance. Case Foundation links specific pieces of content with a structured workflow. It's an on ramp for organizations that choose to move from document-centric...
We face some challenges with IBM Case Foundation from our customers, particularly with administration and configuration. We face many issues and open tickets with IBM regarding that, especially some integrations with multi-LDAP. They should add more integration modules for IBM Case Foundation because some integrations are not found there, such as different third-party solutions including Liferay or other portals.
The architecture is a bit difficult, but in BAW, they introduced the Business Automation Workflow. It's a bit easier compared to Case Manager. Currently, we use Case Manager, so it's a bit difficult to upgrade and handle, but BAW is comparatively much better and easier to handle. The limitation is only for customization because IBM doesn't support it. In some scenarios, if you want some business processes to be customized, we have already spoken two or three times with IBM representatives that we have to customize some of the features in this business process. They would say that if you want to do this automation at your own end, then okay, fine, go ahead, but we are not supporting all this customization. The only thing is the customization because it's a complete standard application.
There is a need for more open and flexible integration capabilities, allowing seamless collaboration with a broader spectrum of business process management solutions, beyond the confines of IBM's document management offerings.
IBM needs to update the user interfaces of all its products to make them more intuitive and accessible to beginners. Compared to Microsoft products, IBM solutions are less user-friendly. IBM programs are hard to master. It's a problem in my region because it's hard to find IT staff who can work with IBM. Another issue I have is that IBM sometimes removes features without explanation. It could be to improve performance, but they should notify us when they're removing these functions. It's always a surprise when we update it, and something is gone.
Once clients go to the cloud and want to roll back to on-premises, they find that to be very difficult. The initial setup can be complex. The cloud version could use more stability.
For the account manager part, I don't know what could be improved. Everything looks fine. However, for the BPM part, they could improve some user experience or user interface features. We always have problems with the user interface. From version 3.5, we're using the workplace for the application. This was an IBM FileNet application that we were customized and adjusted for the customer. However, they had some private web application toolkit for building this application. It was not very open. We didn't use any other open-source features for improving that application. After that, they had an IBM content navigator, which is very customizable yet not very user-friendly - especially for our developer. The other thing that they could improve is that when you change the workflow definition from the BPM, then when all workflows are started with the older definition there where they have to stay with the older definition and don't see the change for the older workflows. You have to wait for new workflows to start. Changes that you made in the BPM part of the FileNet, especially in the process designer, are not visible for the older workflows, and that's the biggest problem we had besides the user interface. The solution can be quite expensive.
90% of the feedback we receive states that the UI is not very user-friendly. The icons and images should be bigger. Initially, I felt a bit lost but after a while, I got used to it — with a bit of practice, you can get used to anything. From my first impression, it just looked like a white page with some small icons. Another thing that is really high in demand here, especially in Qatar, is proper Arabic translation capabilities. Arabic is very high in demand, not just in Qatar but in the Middle East as a whole and Africa. When you translate it into Arabic, the labels and the interface translate pretty poorly — interface only, capability wise, it's fine.
This product is still attached to some things from the past, on the way that it was built, and there are some things that should be improved, but those who work with it know how to work around these difficulties. Once a workflow is launched then it stays static forever, which is a problem because if there is a change in the business then you cannot change the workflow. You either stop the process and relaunch it at the place that it was, or you're going to leave with a process that is running. There are other products like IBM Lombardi or IBM BPM where it's easy, under certain conditions, to change the running workflows to the new business logic.
The interface needs to be more user-friendly. In the next release, I would like to see better integration with ERP tools and an improved interface.
My only thought on how the product could be improved would be the addition of some features that could be enhanced like the document viewer but I think the product is very good. I think some enhancements could be included in the next release. The content navigator is very good, and the viewer too. They could include music on the navigator, features like that. They need to concentrate on the document viewer itself which needs to be enhanced to manage the document comparison feature. It would be great if that were included.
The solution needs more courses based on Dojo programming and Dojo processes. Their Java updates need to be reconsidered. I heard they would be removed, but that hasn't happened yet. They should support BPM language. Comparing the solution with other interfaces, IBM BPM is much better than Case Foundation. They need to make this solution's interface more user-friendly.
My understanding is that IBM is actually shutting down the solution. They're moving to something called Digital Business Automation because Case Foundation uses a workflow engine that is relatively outdated. They haven't updated it in seven years. Instead, they're moving to a new line of products. They do the same thing but in a more modern and flexible way. A newer version will need better security, email integration, and scripting. The service as it currently stands is out-of-date and lacks flexibility.