IBM BPM Reviews

We use the solution for business management.

The solution can be deployed both on-prem and cloud.

The solution is a module and we can interface with consent and document management which is important.

The designer feature, compared to other solutions is easy to use.

The solution is an out-of-the-box solution.

The cost of the solution has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

I give the stability an eight out of ten. The solution works especially well with Linux.

I give the scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial setup depends on if the solution is deployed on the cloud or on-prem. The cloud version is easy because we just have to deploy the containers. The on-prem setup requires a lot of work before we can even begin because we need to masterpiece all the layers from the operations system to the database, and the middleware at the front and back end. I give the initial setup an eight out of ten. The deployment takes a full business day.

An experienced person can do the complete deployment on their own however we usually use three people, one for the beginning, middle, and end.

I give the pricing an eight out of ten. The solution is a bit expensive.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

IBM BPM is a good solution but we should always look at our business requirements. The solution is intended for medium and large businesses, so it is not recommended for small businesses.

Our primary use case is moving documents electronically from desk to desk.

The most valuable features come in the bundle, the design process, creating services, creating BPDs, creating coaches, and UI/UX.

I would like to see the user-friendliness improved and the training become free of cost for the solution. I would like to see the front-end support improved because it should be fully integrated and supported.

I have been using IBM BPM for the past three years.

The current system is definitely stable and the database compatibility is very reliable. 

There are over three thousand five hundred users currently implementing IBM BPM and therefore the scalability is excellent.

Technical support is always good.

Positive

The initial setup is definitely complex compared to other market comparatives.

The price is good but could be a little lower.

I would rate IBM BPM an eight on a scale of one to ten.

It is an on-premises solution that helped us automate business processes like onboarding customers, loan management, loan approval, and leave approval.

The features allow you to connect, and things work seamlessly. The coding and the maps are also valuable. I feel good about the features, and its beauty is that anybody can design it.

I have been using this solution for more than 10 years.

IBM BPM is stable, but sometimes there are issues with the server. I am unsure if the issue is due to the VAS server or the BPM, but there was some instability when we went through a few of the final enrollments.

We could not proceed with any scalability due to some business decisions.

I have not contacted IBM Technical Support for IBM BPM. I have only engaged with support through forums and the blocks.

Positive

The setup is straightforward. However, the debugging was not straightforward.

Deployment was also quick and not complicated. I was not part of the deployment team, but I believe we used an integrator for deployment.

In terms of licensing, we have to make it free for the developers so more people can install and use it. It is important to make at least licensing free to try in the cloud, not just for IBM BPM but for any of the IBM products.

This can help companies start to push through solutions and proposals. For example, licensing could be free, providing developers something to try in the cloud. Because there are regular audits in all companies when you install, some companies may see this as harmful. Therefore, a provision to try it free on the cloud can increase the number of skilled PA developers.

I would rate this solution an eight 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 use IBM BPM for marketing. We use a lot of processes on IBM BPM at the bank.

In my Organization, we have a lot of business cases to bring to the BPM Platform. We bring all most workflow like ATM Operation, Loan process for Business Banking and Retail banking.

Some of the features that I like the most are team management and process performance. They are both very useful and very powerful with regard to the workflow.

It's a stable solution and can easily be deployed.

Some of the features are not enough for my business. We need to build custom user management for the many end users affected by BPM.

For IBM BPM, we have half a million users with their own processes in IBM BPM. Currently, we have a lot of processes, and we have a lot of custom groups for the onsite user to look at and run on their groups. When we add a lot of users at the same time to a group, the process admin is not enough for this, and we need to use the custom interface to do it. So, there are some issues with scalability.

The cost is higher in comparison to that of Camunda, for example.

I've been using IBM BPM for a year.

We are currently on-premises but hope to have a cloud version as well. We have a lot of processes that may need to be run on-premises and on the cloud. We hope to use Amazon AWS for the hybrid cloud services.

The stability is good at present.

We have had some issues with scalability. Currently, we have a lot of processes, and we have a lot of custom groups for the onsite user to look at and run on their groups. When we add a lot of users at the same time to a group, the process admin is not enough for this, and we need to use the custom interface to do it.

We currently have about 5000 users and may increase to 6000 to 7000 users next year. The users are member staff and managers.

The customer support has been fine with IBM.

We have used LinuxONE, but we have a lot of solutions related to IBM. We chose IBM BPM for the sake of consistency.

We didn't have any big issues with the network deployment.

We needed two people for the deployment.

We have in-house and also use some vendors for development. If the rate is level 1 to 10 I think I will rate for 6. 

I already compared some solutions related to business process management, and I saw that the cost of IBM BPM is more expensive compared with that of Camunda, for example.

We also pay for support.

Before choosing This solution We already create a business case to compare some Enterprise Solution. Have Page, Cammuda, IBM BPM

If you follow good business processes, I think that IBM BPM on-premises is a good choice. It's a good solution, and I would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

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. 

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.