On the one hand, ARIS is very flexible, so you can do everything with it. You can even conduct a survey, which we are doing now, and send it via Aris. On the other hand, ARIS' flexibility and power add a certain complexity. If ARIS could be more streamlined, I think customers would have a better handle on what to do with it in the end. If you're not a tech geek, you might struggle to understand what you should do with it as a customer because it's that powerful. The scope of other tools is narrower, so they seem easier to use. That's where you need to balance. Tools that are easier to use sometimes hit a wall when you want to go deeper. 

Security is a consideration when migrating to the cloud. It's crucial to address potential risks and include security measures in the contract with the cloud provider. While there haven't been issues so far, acknowledging the risks is essential, especially when dealing with applications like ARIS. With the increasing capabilities and advancements in technology, many current challenges are likely to be resolved in the future. Despite security concerns, utilizing opportunities in the cloud and the internet offers significant advantages.

Regarding areas for improvement, security remains a key consideration, especially when deploying ARIS in the cloud. However, this is not solely a product-specific concern but also pertains to the cloud environment. Beyond security, the strength of ARIS lies in its ability to serve as a unified repository for enterprise architecture. Having all information in one place facilitates alignment with the company's vision, strategy, and business objectives. Reducing redundancies across departments is crucial for maintaining service quality and minimizing costs. It ensures that everyone is on the same page, fostering collaboration and preventing discrepancies in information and services. While I currently use Guardis for this purpose, the concept of enterprise architecture is applicable, and ARIS stands as a valuable tool to support business processes and technology alignment within the company.

I find that the on-premises version is more stable than the cloud version because I can use it in offline mode. It does not rely on the network or the internet.

The length of time for data retention needs to be improved. I was surprised when my license was deactivated and I could not access my data. The retention period in ARIS Cloud is only one month.

It would be very helpful if this solution were more open and could integrate with other solutions like ServiceNow. 

There is room for improvement in the solution. It might be a bit more difficult to use compared to simpler and more basic tools. However, if you're an IT professional, it's a user-friendly solution. The current trend is to make it more accessible for end users. It's not ideal for everyone, but it serves its purpose.

Moreover, there is room for improvement in the support.

Sometimes, some of our employees face issues when I download or install the software because some of the versions of Windows do not support it. On Windows 11, I was able to use ARIS Cloud, but some of the users with Windows 12 couldn't use it since it was not supported on that particular version of Windows. I don't know whether the cause of the aforementioned issue is because of Windows or the software, but my team really tried in the past and failed to resolve the issue since some of the versions of Windows are not supported on ARIS Cloud at all. In short, my company cannot figure out the cause of the glitch in the product.

The support team of ARIS Cloud has certain shortcomings where improvements are required.

I would like to see the cost of the licenses improved.

The trial version of this solution does not give you enough time to learn how to use it, so it should be extended to one year.

It would be an improvement if ARIS Mashup were integrated into this solution.

It seems that there could be innovations in fostering spontaneous cooperation between departments and individuals. This extends to case management and finding new paradigms for enhancing such cooperation. While some approaches, like basic case management tools, have been tried in the past, they may not have met expectations entirely. However, ongoing efforts in administrative science are focused on these areas. Companies with innovative ideas can contribute to progress, possibly involving concepts related to trust, even within the context of Web 3. There are intriguing developments in how economic and business organizations can be formed.

When it comes to learning about these concepts, starting with simple examples and gradually moving to more complex ones is advisable. Begin with the basics, excluding unnecessary details that might hinder understanding. Over time, you can delve into more intricate aspects, such as Bitcoin and the Lightning Network, to gain a deeper understanding of these technologies.

The price is quite high. This is one weak point of the solution.

What I don't like is that it's got release cycle management at the model level. It makes the assumption that all the objects that you've been using on the model are actually also good quality. It doesn't really ensure that it is good quality with the latest version. You can create tons of duplicates in Aris, that's the problem. If you're not careful and you don't have very good governance in place, the system is not going to stop you from creating multiple instances of the same thing but different spelling, different underscores etc. For example, Microsoft CRM. Another person will call it MS CRM, somebody else will spell it out, MI-CRO-SOFT CRM. So you have all these things in the system which ultimately you're using to ensure the data quality. If you can't trust the data, if you can't do what-if analysis, then it becomes a problem.

You have to actually get somebody who has to run scripts, or a whole team in a big organization, to look at these things the whole time and make sure it's sound. I don't like that because it's not self-managing. In comparison, on the Symbio side, it's just the opposite. All objects in the thing are under the ownership of somebody in the business. If you use that object once on a process, for instance, you don't have to go and ask again. The system will check. That's in the latest release, you can actually then release your process, with other words and it gets published. But let's say for instance you now create something new, and it hasn't got an owner, you won't be able to publish your process because the system will tell you, no, you're using stuff on this process which hasn't been verified yet. That's what I like. I like the fact that it's more self-driving management system than something which you have to have a little cottage industry around it.

It's no different to, let's say, a CRM system. You don't want to have your contact details duplicated in the CRM system 20 times and then you don't know which one is which one. You don't want that, you want one. And that's the problem. That's a complete architecture from a design perspective. That's something you'll have to re-architect the platform completely to do.

On an enterprise level, the ability to onboard somebody quickly is cumbersome because it just has too many things in it. It's got something like a hundred or more techniques and things in it. If you don't have that bedded down exactly and can't do a how-to for somebody, is a nightmare.

For improvement, I think BPM-vendors should make their models more flexible. One approach would be:

• (a) to analyze the challenges of complex event processing in business environments subject to recurring change, 
• (b) to cluster observed agile adjustments into types and 
• (c) to extend their models to include the most common adjustment types. I think this is a very difficult issue, mathematically sound deadlock detection and prevention being one of the reasons.

Features that could be included relate to the above issues of flexibility. I'm not sure these issues could be solved in the next release, they might rather be included as goals in the medium and long-term strategy. It's really the vendors who would need to be involved in flexibility improvement and identifying the areas where it's required. I assume they are already doing that because they are quite interested in this area and are probably already on the right path.

I would like to see more support for architectural diagrams.

They need to revamp a whole module. This module has been in place for 16 years. It hasn't been updated since then. It's actually a separate license on its own. It's a disaster. It needs to be more functional. It doesn't work easily. It takes too much time to just create a simple flow, in terms of the process and governance structure. 

If you have multiple tiers of approvals into an update of a policy, or the process design itself, it takes ages to prepare those internal flows within the system.