We performed a comparison between IBM BPM and IBM Case Foundation based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Process Management (BPM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Enabled us to convert most of the paper-based work into an automated workflow process, and some of them were converted into straight-through processing, with no human interaction involved whatsoever."
"Scalability is good. In the time that I have been there, we have added more JVMs to help with the increased workload, so it does scale."
"It is transparent to business users because it is mostly picture based modelling."
"This solution has always been lacking in the user interface (UI), it needed to be improved a lot. However, from the acquisition of Spark UI, the UI is much better. Overall the solution is robust and has the ability to integrate with any product for complex workflows."
"The solution is stable."
"By automating several tasks, we have already reduced a lot of work for the business."
"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."
"The most valuable features come in the bundle, the design process, creating services, creating BPDs, creating coaches, and UI/UX."
"The solution is scalable."
"Case Foundation provides a strong security boost."
"The most valuable features are those involving decision making, analysis, and anything related to event documents because those processes are related to content as well."
"The most valuable feature is its stability, which is why we are using it."
"It is easy to set up workflows that notify the user depending on certain events."
"The most valuable feature is the content manager part of the file as it is very stable, robust, and reliable."
"Flexible and the ability to divide search screens, and to search for documents. The ECM feature inside the system is great."
"It provides us the capability of producing business processes for documents that are launched immediately when a document comes into the repository."
"We would like better performance and more visibility on each step of the tool."
"The coaches and the user interface are the areas that can be improved a lot. It is good in terms of data processing, but the UI, scripting, and coaches are not very user-friendly and developer-friendly. Performance is always an issue. The scripting and the pattern that it uses are very tedious for new developers to understand, and it takes time to master it in depth. When comparing IBM BPM with IBM APN, a lot of things are provided out of the box in IBM APN. We don't have to write code or a Java connector to make a functionality work. It would be very helpful and time-saving for developers if IBM BPM is improved in this area to provide many functionalities or drag-and-drop options so that the developers don't have to write the code."
"The integration could be improved."
"The initial setup process is complex for basic users."
"Process Server is no more available than new products out there, but in general IBM has a high cost and complex setup."
"Also, we would like to see integration with artificial intelligence, machine learning-type of technical capabilities. Right now, there are a lot Watson libraries out there. Building those integrations more, out-of-the-box, from IBM would be a good direction."
"Better integration with other products in the automation suite."
"Initial setup is very complex. Too many steps need to be done at the database and server levels, and complex configurations. From what I see, a lot of these steps can be and should be automated."
"The cloud version could use more stability."
"We are now using microservices but there are some areas where the coordination with FileNet is problematic."
"The solution can be quite expensive."
"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."
"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."
"The interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"The place of improvement is merging or combining all of the workflow functionality into one seamless tool. Now, there are multiple installations that are different. Case Foundation, before you can put Case Manager and you've got IBM BPM, and the roadmap is there to merge them altogether. But that's the struggle at the moment, it's having multiple installations and disparate workflow applications."
"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."
IBM BPM is ranked 5th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 105 reviews while IBM Case Foundation is ranked 27th in Business Process Management (BPM) with 12 reviews. IBM BPM is rated 7.8, while IBM Case Foundation is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Case Foundation writes "Streamlined business process automation with user-friendly design". IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Appian, Pega BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow and Apache Airflow, whereas IBM Case Foundation is most compared with IBM Business Automation Workflow. See our IBM BPM vs. IBM Case Foundation report.
See our list of best Business Process Management (BPM) vendors.
We monitor all Business Process Management (BPM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.