IBM BPM Reviews

WebSphere Enterprise Service Bus – our main focus was to implement integration across a bunch of systems interacting separately with each other. In this context, IBM’s service bus came up to be good candidate for reducing the amount of relations between distributed systems. This feature has proved itself as a more or less easy to be set-up, tuned and customized for the specific company means.

WebSphere Process Server – while dealing with the problem of systems integration there often arises an opportunity to incorporate some company-specific business processes to the service bus. In case when a business process requires responses from a number of systems, requests to a number of systems to get some reference information or even some sort of human workflow to receive approval, etc. – then such processes may be implemented within one solid medium being able to interact with each and every system using specific adapters.

This product was able to decrease the amount of relations between distributed systems and isolate systems, letting them retrieve and send information having only access to ESB.

I've been using it for two to three months for evaluation.

Microsoft BizTalk Server 2010

• Development simplicity
• Transparency from a monitoring perspective

It allowed us to automate some important logistic-related business processes.

• Scalability
• Performance

I've been using Lombardi Teamworks from 2009 until the present. However development of new features stopped in 2011.

There were issues with the blue/green deployment model, specifically old instances of BPM processes that didn’t handle correctly with new revisions of the same processes.

Yes, but they were related to issues with our underlying infrastructure component like application servers or databases.

Yes, unfortunately the event manager component of Lombardi didn’t scale well, so that became our bottleneck.

Customer Service:

9/10

Technical Support:

We didn’t have a BPM before, but now we use Oracle.

It was a mix of a vendor team and in-house team. All members were new to BPM so we started from scratch, but we've managed to develop some best practices.

• The simulator of process execution
• Toolkits and workspace for sharing resources
• Adapters for different technological environments
• SOA infrastructure, embedded ESB
• Backup (export) and restore (import) system (Snapshot)
• Speed and ease of deployment + governance / version management

The scenario was a process of renewal of customer contracts, the improvements were :

• Faster: industrialization of the renewal process with the automation of certain tasks and a clarified organization can handle a case 3 times faster.
• More efficient: the renewal part by weight of non-renegotiated contracts processed instantly and adjustments made possible by monitoring the real-time tasks significantly increase the capacity of quantitative and qualitative processing contracts.
• Less expensive: the time saved as well as automated controls in place to avoid human errors and double entry treatments are examples of significant gains.

The tool needs to offer more configuration options than coding options. Develop the intuitive side to reach some functionalities (help).

I used the solution for about 6 months to develop an application based on health services process.

Yes, especially integration and browser's version compatibility problems. We also had some performance issues due to the lack of technical architecture knowledge.

None

None

Customer Service: GoodTechnical Support: Intermediate

Did not use any other solution

It was complex for some of us (IT but non technical profiles)

We were the vendor team and worked with IBM

N/A (Confidential)

No

Be careful about the technical architecture and migration planning/resources

We use the solution to develop and deliver products. 

IBM BPM needs to have a better and modified interface. 

I have been using IBM BPM for five years. 

I would rate the product's stability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate IBM BPM's scalability an eight out of ten. Our clients have around 2000 users for the solution. 

Technical support is helpful but there is a delay in response. 

Neutral

We have used OpenText before. 

The tool's setup is neither easy nor difficult. I would rate it a five out of ten. However, it is difficult only in the traditional environment. Set up is easy if you move to the cloud and containerize. One person is enough to handle the tool's maintenance. 

We have a team for IBM BPM's installation. 

The solution is expensive since it is an enterprise application. 

I would rate IBM BPM an eight out of ten. 

I primarily use IBM BPM for the life cycle of the automation process.

IBM BPM's best features include document sharing, management document creation, widget and barcode creation, and integration.

I've been using IBM BPM for ten years.

IBM BPM's scalability is very high.

IBM BPM's price could be improved.

I would give IBM BPM a rating of eight out of ten.

I mainly use BPM to automate our internal workflows.

BPM helps us with automation and with assigning and delegating tasks.

The most valuable feature is the ability to customize your rules and put them inside the tool. I also think BPM is easy to do development on.

An area for improvement would be the user interface of the portal itself.

I've been using IBM BPM for around four years.

BMP is scalable both horizontally and vertically.

The configuration is not that easy, and the initial deployment took three months. I'd give my experience with setting up a rating of three out of five.

I used a third-party team to implement.

The pricing is quite high, I would rate it two out of five.

I would rate this solution as seven out of ten.

On-premises

It's mainly focused on the banking use case, specifically the retail banking business.

I find the process design and UI design to be the most valuable features. Because they are common in working with the product.

The options for customization could be improved. More customization using your own code would be beneficial.

I have been working with this solution for 12 years. 

It is a stale solution. I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. It suits our use cases well, so it's adequate.

We have around a thousand end users using this solution. 

The response time is a bit slow. The quality of customer service and support is good on average, but there's room for improvement.

Neutral

It's a simple setup.

We deployed it ourselves. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. There is some room for improvement. 

I would recommend it. It's easy to use and implement.

On-premises