ARIS BPA Reviews

We use BPMN for process design. We check our processes. There is the start event, then there are the tasks and steps as well as risks on the steps and controls. In the end, there is a result event of the process. There is a hierarchy model through the processes themselves to locate, classify, and build a whole tree off of the complete process design. So, we try to get the complete process model in all the layers. It is not only about flow diagrams. You also need the hierarchy system in the process design to get an idea of which business area it is, which products we handle there, etc. This is to get some kind of a systematic approach to a wide area of the complete company, e.g., which services are delivered from whom and how it is organized.

We separated the fields. We had some kind of internal control system, which was one use case for us. We had risk management and how to get a picture up of the actual risk evaluation. We had the policy management separated. We started process management. This is all integrated on the technical side and the tools' side. We tried to get the different solutions out of the one system to see them as different solutions with different responsible people with different roles behind them. 

It fits all together, so there are no completely loose ends, where there is one philosophy and one architecture behind it. We managed to get it a little bit separated, but it has good connection process management, internal control systems, and a risk system. It is very well-integrated.

We are using Connect and ARCM. ARCM is the ARIS governance, risk, and compliance module to do workflow-orientated stuff, e.g., how much is your risk.

Another use case is value chain processes. These are in a hierarchy built up through the company and our business use cases since we have export and capital market services. At the bottom, we decided to use only a business process model notation (BPMN), which made it possible for us to integrate on this flow chart. This integrates risks and controls directly on a flow chart, making it easier for non-super process experts to get an idea of the steps, controls, and risk as well as how this all fits together to get a good overview at the starting point when working with these processes.

In normal, day-to-day business, when a process is drawn, our expert team can review the processes, risks, and controls. They can do that completely themselves on a technical level. There is a review step from the process expert to her/his boss, then it is approved and published. After that, we use the risk evaluation and control execution using ARCM Risk and Compliance Manager, where they can do everything with the risk, e.g., how much is our risk? How much is the risk now? They evaluate that and do a controlled execution. We use the ARIS APG programming to get the approval and publication processes. 

Now, we have a fully automatic-supported risk evaluation each quarter. I only need to take the results and put them together for the board's report. That is a big improvement. 

The implementation of the completely decentralized process management, meaning that business departments can simply document their processes and flowcharts to improve their businesses, is now in one system. They have a list of business applications that are used within the process documentation, where there is one list of organizational departments interacting within this process. It has everything that we normally would want to have if we use an integrated process management system that works fine. Therefore, we have possibilities that we did not have before. 

If you ever tried to draw a picture in a browser app or with a cloud service, it is normally a painful death. ARIS works perfectly on diagrams in the browser, so I was excited. I like it because there have been so many bad experiences in the past with drawing or doing something in a browser. Normally, it's always painful because it's coded badly. With ARIS, it is really well-implemented. It's simple. 

We only get emails if something went wrong or the semantic checks are integrated, which means you can't publish it. If there is the smallest mistake in it, then you can't publish it at all. It is only allowed to get the symbols which are permitted. Therefore, everything is perfect on the technical side, and on the control side, no mistakes are published. You can check the deep semantic process. For example, if it does not make sense, but it is formally correct. If it's correct on the technical side, but it does not make sense when you have to read it. That is the human interaction that you need. However, what is technically possible is implemented to get good results.

I had this decentralization mission where I had some friendly fights with the consultants of Software AG. My opinion was the business department should be able to publish their processes and do all their evaluation stuff in ARCM themselves. It has to be a one stop shop. I want a one stop shop to go from ARIS BPM to ARIS ARCM, because having everything go through that would be an improvement due to the inputs that we made with Software AG. They will make it possible that the trigger sent from BPM to ARCM will start their object generation. Although, they did something in SR 16 for our business needs, and that was great.

The process needs to be straight-through. This means, if the process experts say, "Okay, I'm finished. I sent the process to my boss," and the boss says, "Okay, it's great. The documentation is right," and they can give approval. Then, the process experts can click on it, and five minutes later, they will get the risk for the evaluation. After that, the process expert says, "Okay, it has this and those risks. We could lose this amount." So, they send it again for approval back to the boss. The boss reviews whether the risk evaluation is right, then it is approved. Finally, it is finished in one hour (in a best case scenario). The yearly process documentation can then be completed without the action of any central process management board. 

We have been using it since Autumn 2020, which is about a full year now.

It is a stable product. 

We did one upgrade throughout the project. Now, we want to wait until the end of the year for SR16.

There is almost zero maintenance to maintain its design from a central process management or risk management team standpoint. Decentralized business departments can do their jobs all by themselves. Sometimes, there are questions, like, "Can you help me? I'm lost. What am I doing here?" For example, if you have new bosses in new jobs, then they do not know what to do. 

In 2020, we did a lot of presentations, videos, and training. They had to do these on the training systems to evaluate risks and processes. We knew if they did not do it themselves, then they would learn nothing. If they did it themselves, then it was possible to learn to work with new tools. So, the normal maintenance should be really low. 

We have a concurrent license system. We have about 80 persons in-house decentralized in all the business departments who received their training. We have a lot of information, material, and how-to videos to ultimately support them so they can do the processes themselves. It is completely decentralized. Once finished, they can send it to their boss to approve it, then it is published. We have a central expert team in process management, who cares about how ARIS should be used.

Because we use it within a concurrent license system, everyone within the group can read the publications of errors and do risk evaluation at the same time. We now have 15 to 30 people (out of 500) who can use it at the same time. 

The help desk of Software AG is great. We had some problems. This happens in projects, where you do something stupid, then it does not fit together. The data is not useful. You try to do some test cases and put something in the system to determine how it works. The support was always really professional. The software developers and help desk did a really good job. I am really a fan of Software AG because they are a very competent business partner.

Positive

Before, we used Casewise from London for centralized process management. That was our old tool, which wasn't bad, but it was only for three heads in the central team. It limited us completely. Then, they were bought by erwin in New York, and erwin is on the data governance side. Casewise was now a small part of a big company and wasn't being developed or improved as ARIS is. Therefore, it was quickly clear to us that we would go with ARIS.

We started with the idea at our company in February 2019. We got in contact with Software AG around June 2019 to do some kind of proof of concept, learn about the design, the idea, and philosophy, e.g., how to solve such problems and how to get process management within a fully integrated tool. 

Before, we had Excel lists and some types of Visio diagrams, which were put together based on the process description. That wasn't okay. We always had to do it on a central basis, take the documentation, work it through and give it back.

This solution was really an improvement on the efficiency of our process management, documentation for end-to-end development, business processes, and business departments, who complete freedom and empowerment to do it themselves. That was a big improvement.

Luckily, we had Software AG implement the ARIS Connect platform, the web-based platform, with this broad possibility to use it in a concurrent way. In 2017, that was what we wanted. We wanted the system to be used by the business experts and leaders in the business units in a decentralized manner. 

When you start the solution, you eliminate every useless variant that you do not need, then it is really simple. At the starting point, you need to learn how the philosophy of the solution works. You need to deal with the solution as if you are taking a normal car through the woods. You can't normally. You have to think, "Okay, what is it built for? How is this model designed?" You then need to get in contact with the design and philosophy. After that, you can do a good job. It is a big mistake to say, "No, they have to code everything around our old company stuff because we always did it that way. So, we need to stay with the old way." Then, you are lost and will never have any kind of success. 

At the start of the project, we set up some testing and development implementation. It took us one to two weeks for our IT and Software AG's IT to get it up and running. Before we were productive, we had to edit the publication database as well as all the backups, restore processes, and all that stuff in a production environment. We also had to put brain power in it. That was for part one and two of the processes (installation and implementation), which both took one to two weeks. That was net five to 10 consultant days or IT expert days to get up this step in performance and excellence. The implementation was about two days. 

We put a lot of brain power and personnel power into the project. We also had consultants who supported us very well through the coronavirus pandemic. Therefore, we had the chance to implement it quickly.

Go with a consultant. In every solution, e.g., ARIS, there are a lot of consultants with experience over the years. Many companies bring in their experience to provide general solutions for general problems, since these problems are not individual to a company.

From the mid-2019 to Autumn of 2020, we always had support consultant days remotely or a consultant who visited us to develop the method as well as do all the processes and risk management stuff, which have to be customized.

We only worked with Software AG, who integrated the consultants, e.g., IDS software developers. They brought them to us because we needed to implement some improvements on the ARIS ARCM governance, risk, and compliance model. We did their multi-object handling, which means you can approve 20 risks with one click. So, it marks all the risks on the list as okay, pulls them through, and then they are finished, which we loved. There were also some user interface optimizations for mass objects. 

We have seen ROI. The quality has improved enormously. You do not always get faster because if you want to improve quality, then you have to sit in, think about and work with it. Therefore, you need a good tool. 

The management board really likes it because it is well-adopted by employees with no problems using it.

On our evaluation list, we also looked at Signavio Process Manager, but there were so many differences. They were millions of miles between ARIS and Signavio Process Manager. Therefore, we did not think about which tool to take. It was completely clear that we should get ARIS because it was the best solution for us.

The process could be so simple. The question for the business units is always, "Okay, let's think about this." If the process is what we brought into ARIS, then how can we make it better? They shall use their brain and time to improve and think about their business. ARIS is only a tool. They should not be focused on, "Oh, how can I work with this tool? I'm so confused." Everything should not go into the tool. They should use their brain and energy to think about their business. 

We are still developing our process management method. We are still using it, but we are also improving it to get it more integrated, have more detail, and have process management be more connected with our internal control system. 

It was hard to do process management on a yearly cycle on an annual basis. It was helpful for us to have ARIS as a tool for this, but we also learned that it is a really complex job to do process management through the year on such a high quality level. You have to think about a lot of questions. These are all processes approved every year. All the stuff seen is, "Okay, I have to do that, and I have to do that. I have to check that they looked it through for the first half of the year. Then, they have to do the rest in the second half of the year." All this gets operationalized. With this tool, we now had process lists that we could deal with. 

You need a clear aim to reach for and it should not be too big. You should separate it in some way. If you want to do more than one thing, then handle it as if you want to reach for aim one, two, and three. This makes it easier than doing big bang projects where you never get to an end. 

Separate your aims and focus on them. For example, we started with different starting times. In September 2020, we started risk management. In November, we then started with the internal control systems. Step by step, we are now pulling our process management up. We are still improving on the methods. 

This solution has been my baby the last three years, so I would rate it as 10 (out of 10) because I gave everything to make it the best.

ARIS was used to capture current business processes in ARIS EPC through a series of workshops. Level 1-3 VACD, Level 4 EPC (Event-driven Process Chain) and FAD (Function Allocation Diagram), Activities, Roles, Metrics, Risk and Control, RACI, etc.

It was used to operationalize new business processes and also in preparation for a case management system migration to Salesforce. The management, team leader, and staff were trained to read the EPC process model and taught how to navigate ARIS in the production environment. 

The selection criteria for ARIS as the preferred BPM was questionable in my opinion.

The main reason it was chosen is that it was on the government "approved" product list.

The solution was too complex/advanced for the organization's requirements and a big team was hired to manage the administration of ARIS and maintain it.

The choice to model the business process in EPC instead of BPMN was made by the organization and no fault of ARIS; ARIS is most certainly capable of modeling in BPMN. There's a lot of time and effort spent to help staff get their head around how to read an EPC in ARIS.

The EPC modeling is very detailed, the semantic check is helpful, and auto-layout simplifies the formatting.

The process interface is valuable for identifying the upstream and downstream processes.

The approval process for the ARIS EPC from the design, staging, and production environment is pretty good. You can obtain feedback on the process model; however, this functionality seems a bit limited by today's standard as some other BPM allows you to comment on the objects within the process model, which makes gathering feedback and making changes easier.

ARIS EPC & FAD features and functionality does not feel like they are not designed for business users. Instead, it feels like they are geared for Process Modelers and Technology users who are focused on System Interface, User Interface, Risk and Control, etc.

Trying to read an EPC in a screen Top-Down while dragging the screen is next to impossible. 

The model graphics can be exported in PDF, but the model is too small to read.

In my experience, once the organization creates the process model in ARIS EPC, it will take approximately two years before most organizations ditch any effort to update it. It takes more effort to maintain it than the value that an organization gets out of it.

The requirements for events after the rules, whilst accurate, simply take up too much space and makes the process model difficult to read.

Connecting the upstream and downstream process interface is a pain.

The auto-layout is a great feature but does not work as expected all of the time, as lines appear to overlap and can be confusing to read unless you click on the line to highlight it.

We have been using ARIS BPM for two years.

It's pretty stable, at 95% in my experience. There was the odd occasion when the system was down and it took 48 hours to resolve the issue.

More licenses can be added as the demand grows, it just costs more.

Visio was used initially prior to ARIS. Visio lacked the BPM functionality.

It was implemented through an ARIS vendor and the level of expertise was good.

I would suggest trying at least three vendors and obtain written quotes.

The setup cost and pricing depend on the license (Modeler, Viewer, Administrator).

ARIS was the only government "approved" software that the organization was "allowed" to purchase. This was a questionable decision.

My advice is to try different BPM providers and download the demo for 30/90 days to see if it meets your organization's needs. A basic tool means that you will outgrow it quickly, whereas top-end solutions may be too costly and difficult to implement.

ARIS BPA was underutilized because they used the ARIS modeling paradigm, including value-added chains, EPCs, and functional allocation diagrams.

ARIS BPA is coming up with a centralized repository of local business processes that could be referenced for design work and operations.

The most valuable features of ARIS BPA are the centralized repository and the automatic rendering of diagrams.

ARIS BPA’s usability could be improved.

I have been using ARIS BPA for almost three years.

I rate ARIS BPA a nine out of ten for stability.

ARIS BPA’s initial setup was straightforward.

ARIS BPA is too costly from a licensing perspective. It is also too costly to maintain, configure, and integrate.

I am using the latest version of ARIS BPA. Do your due diligence to ensure that this is the product you need from a feature and cost perspective.

Overall, I rate ARIS BPA a seven out of ten.

Our customers have generators on their facilities, and we manage those generators to provide services to the grid and reduce their costs. It involves peak shaving and that sort of stuff. We use ARIS BPM to essentially automate the communication to the grid and the generator and then update all of the account information regarding those transactions.

The ease of use is the most valuable. I have tried a number of BPMN packages, and I find the user interface of ARIS BPM easier and more intuitive than others. If your team is knowledgeable on BPMN, it is really pretty easy to figure out on your own because it adheres to the standards extremely well. I have tried Bizagi, BizFlow, and a variety of such solutions, and I just liked ARIS BPM better.

I use it strictly for developing the business process model. I don't use it for the actual automation. I do that with Vtenext. I have standardized on Vtenext, and I don't use ARIS BPM anymore. The Vtenext UI is just as good, and it is much more tightly coupled to the underlying object model. I can get more done in one session with Vtenext rather than first going to ARIS BPM, then importing, and having to edit it for tight coupling.

I have been using ARIS BPM off and on for six months.

I would not comment on this because we use it primarily just for the business process modeling and not the automation. So, I really can't comment on scaling. We have four users who are using this solution.

We never contacted them. Its user interface is good and pretty intuitive. 

The initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented it through an in-house team.

I would recommend ARIS BPM depending upon the use case. I would generally recommend Vtenext first. I found Vtenext on GitHub as I was looking through and trying out lots of BPMN and BPA stuff. I used their product, and it is a really good product. We've now partnered with them.

I would rate ARIS BPM an eight out of ten.

The process modeling capabilities are what we use this for primarily.  

ARIS is probably the most mature product I know of in terms of modeling an enterprise architecture so that it has context. When you need to make changes to processes, there is a view where you can actually see what other processes within different use cases or different functional areas use the same process and what those changes can affect. Workflows can be used across different business areas and that gives a really good, holistic view of what modifications end up affecting.  

Some of the interactions with different versions of browsers caused a little bit of angst because there are certain corporate SOEs (Standard Operating Environments), which do not lend themselves well to representation in the latest version of ARIS. The product is sort of one version behind with current trends, typically.  

I have definitely seen better UIs, but the crux of why we use the ARIS process modeler is because we have everything all one suite. When you talk about enterprise architecture, application architecture, process architecture, or whatever else you want to model and monitor, these processes are all in the same place. You can make cross-references or create links between processes, you can link part of a model to an application, you can link to a capability view, et cetera. As an enterprise architecture tool, there is probably very little they can improve on at least compared to other modelers.  

Because you keep on working with different versions of a model, the only way to maintain a record is to take a snapshot. Certain things are still in design or still in the conceptualization stage. Other things have already gone into production. At a glance, it is quite hard to work out which processes are at a particular stage. The overview is very flat. Having some form of a hierarchy in terms of approvals or a sort of ranking would be good. This could show whether a process has been deployed or not, or if it is still just a conceptual model. Some sort of formal approval process that defines a released version of your models could be incorporated into the workflow approval process to help visualize what stage a process is in.  

I have probably been using ARIS (Architecture of Integrated Information Systems) BPM (Business Process Management)for about four years now. I used ARIS BPM before coming to this company, but quite a while ago. That was about a year ago, and that was version 10 or 11 or something in that range.  

Stability is very much dependent on the network. If the network is not so good, then you might experience some stability issues. It would be good if you had an offline version or some means of caching development. I am not sure whether that is in the ARIS roadmap. 

All BAs (Business Analyst) use ARIS, especially for process modeling. We have a team of probably 50 people who use ARIS modeler to see the process flows, but there are different roles. I am an architect so I can see everything. BAs can only view or read, they can not contribute to the capability models. The roles help scale out so the right people get the appropriate access without causing development issues.  

We have our own administrators here who maintain the product.  

The initial setup and installation are very straightforward. The administration is a bit clunky because of the way it is set up as a Software-as-a-Service. There was not really a Single Sign-On capability for the tool. You have to maintain your login separately and that is a little archaic.  

Because it was already running, there was not really a deployment to get me going with the product. It was just a matter of adding me as a user.  

I definitely recommend the product to users seeking this kind of solution, especially for the architecture practice. If you want to have a knowledge base or a repository for architects it is very good for an overview of the enterprise architecture. Normally in a new business venture — that being a business case, a new software offering, or a new capability — the new process needs to be introduced to an existing architecture. Companies will already have a mature backend with legacy applications and integrations. It is good to keep a repository of the development to make sure that the history of that evolution stays within the company's knowledge base for later reference.  

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate the ARIS BPM solution overall as a product as probably an eight-out-of-ten. It is not rated higher because the user interface is not as modern as other modeling tools like Bizagi, which looks nice. With ARIS you are quite limited when it comes to the look and feel.  

That issue with look-and-feel becomes more important when you try to present something to executives. When it looks like your ten-year-old has done something to present in grammar school, it is not the right thing to be showing at a high-level meeting. The content is all there, but it just looks like it is just scraped together rather than properly designed.  

We use it for enhancing systems. 

The solution is user-friendly and easy to use. 

They should make improvements as per customer requirements. 

I have been working with Aris BPA for three years.

It is a highly stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution. One hundred users are using the solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. It does not require much maintenance. 

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use the product for modeling business scenarios and processes. It helps in designing BPMN and functions.

ARIS BPA is customizable as per specific business requirements. It is flexible to structure and arrange essential components in business models.

The platform’s most valuable feature is object reusability. It has occurrence copies, which help us reuse any object in any model.

The product is difficult to use for someone without prior knowledge of working with it. It requires a certain level of administration training.

We have been using ARIS BPA for three years.

It is a stable product and quick to use.

We have 30 to 40 ARIS BPA users in our organization. It was highly scalable the last time I checked it with the technical advisor.

We have deployed the product on the cloud.

I rate ARIS BPA an eight out of ten. I advise others to appoint an executive with specific knowledge about the product.

The tool defines the processes. It's the documentation of everything. 

The solution's processes are huge and it is not easy to get an overview of how things work. It needs to improve the interface. I would like to see the product include a better overview of processes and improve search. 

I have been working with the product for three years. 

The product is stable. 

The tool is scalable. 

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I would recommend the product to only enterprise companies because of the pricing.