I tried Komunda (evaluation version) for a year and found it user-friendly, so I'm curious about its scoring against competitors like IBM BPM.  

In 2016, it was the top product. So, we kind of stuck with it.

We used to use IBM's Case Foundation before. From there, we have now moved to the BPM route.

We currently use Camunda BPM. It is based on Java, a very popular stack for developers, and it is then easier to hire developers for the project. It's easier than for IBM products, where we must spend some time, up to three months, to involve a new member of the team.

I previously used the Pega BPM. Pega BPM had a built-in feature that was for the process, but it was not scalable and had performance issues. Therefore, we followed industry best practices and took out that layer, and built a customization process orchestration tool. IBM BPM is the more valuable solution because of its support of Blue-Green deployments, which will be highly beneficial as it allows for installation without downtime.

As my organization can be described as an IT company, we deal with products from other vendors, like Microsoft, Oracle, and SAP. For a business process management solution, my company chose IBM based on our strategy. My company chose Oracle for databases, and for AI, we preferred Microsoft, along with Amazon. My clients also prefer to deal with big companies like IBM.

I have used Mule previously.

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

My first exposure to BPM was with IBM BPM. I had never heard of it before I got the job.

No solution previously. We've been discussing BPM for a number of years, just looking for the right use case and the right time to do it.

When selecting a vendor, typically we look to see if we have strategic partners, strategic relationships with larger vendors, like IBM; if they have the product that meets the requirements. We tend to look at analyst information to say, "Okay, who are the players in this particular space?" We tend to go with that as a starting place, and go from there. If they're someone we're already doing business with, and we have a strategic relationship with them, that will be our first point of reference, and then look at the requirements, can they meet the requirements?

We went with IBM largely due to, from what I gather, the requirements, the technology and functionality, were very similar. And we weren't doing business with the other vendors, while IBM, we are.

We also have projects in our systems and projects with Comunda, and we are doing some parallelly. We also have some experience in using the BPMO methods and Software AG. It's not great, but for small things, it does the trick in terms of the licenses model. Sometimes depending on the situation, it becomes much more interesting for some of our clients.

We did not have a BPM solution previously. 

I am also starting to use Cloud Pak.

I have not used other solutions in this category.

This was a new venture into the Business Process Management.

We have recently changed to Camunda BPM.

We didn't previously use a different solution. It was mostly just acquired Shadow IT.

We did not switch solutions. We chose to purchase IBM BPM because it was bundled with the actual RPA program/solution that we decided to purchase. We decided to use Automation Anywhere tool (RPA), and it is was bundled with IBM BPM.

We did use Oracle for a little while, but we did not like the Oracle BPM product.

IBM BPM allow us to streamline manually processes.

Mainly for auditing purposes, and security concerns. That's why we started using the BPM tool.

When looking at vendors, we do a PoC with them to find out their support structure, etc.

My clients that go with IBM usually do so because they have a sense of, if they have problems they have an organization like IBM to complain to.

If we try to use open-source, that's usually a problem if it's a relatively big company, something like banking or insurance, they're not going to want that. But the manufacturing companies, they tend not to care as much, and as long as it works they're fine. For banking, they want something that looks a bit like the big-time.

I would say clients prefer to go with IBM, versus competitors, because of the support, and product releases, upgrades or updates or new features that come up very often, in the last couple of years. That has improved compared to two or three years ago.

We have used OpenText before. 

We had been using Drools for some other BPM implementations.

I am using also Camunda. It is an open-source BPM and I can make a parallel between these two tools. Therefore, if you want to create new apps and you have experiance software developers and have resources, and you don't wish to pay licences then it will be better for you to create a business process apps using open-source.  If you woudl like to create your services and your UI in some external tools, like Java. .NET, Angular, .. it is possible in camunda and it is not easy to achive in IBM BPM. On other hand if you don't have IT resources and you woud like to create apps faster then use IBM BPM.

We used Pega. Pega can be used both as a workflow engine and a process engine. We have our own internally built process engine too, written in Java, but it's more customized to a certain issue and we are not able to scale it out. That's why we looked at Pega and IBM BPM.

When looking at vendors - we sell a health platform to our clients, the Blue Cross and Blue Shields of the world - and one of the things we look at is, when we sell a platform, how can we reduce the cost of the platform, to reduce healthcare costs at the end of the day. We keep on evaluating products based on the licensing cost and the cost to run it, the consulting rates for each product.

We look at the scalability and stability of the platform too. We also look at what other capabilities there are, the capabilities of the future, and that's one of the reasons we are going towards robotic process-automation, trying to automate some of these mundane tasks that people have to perform manually. Although it is process-oriented, it is still difficult to figure things out across multiple applications.

no

We did not have a previous solution.

Our clients were previously using Excel sheets for processes. It has changed their whole life as now the processes are all automated.

We did have experience with other solutions such as Appian, jBPM, Activiti BPM. We switched to IBM BPM primarily because we had customer demand for that product, and it has been that way since.

We were building isolated solutions using SharePoint or other tool. So, it seemed to make a bit more sense to say, “Can we use something that's more of an industry standard tool to utilize?"

We previously used the very early workflow engine from IBM. 

IBM BPM is a more modern tool than what we used before. 

I used to work with Oracle BPM, but they changed the product's landscape. Instead of retraining, we changed to IBM BPM (Lombardi at the time).

We already had a bunch of WebSphere applications running, and have competence in it. BPM running on WebSphere allowed us not to have to build a completely new support team.

We tried several solutions, but after testing them out, this is the solution we have used for over ten years. Ten years ago, BPM was not so advanced, but IBM was the best at that time, so we chose IBM because it was a good asset. It was a good strategy to follow.

No previous solution.

We previously used Tibco BPM.

In the beginning, we had an IBM BP3.

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.

Before IBM, we didn't use any other kind of business process management architecture. We chose IBM due to our existing architecture. Whether or not we used a different software that helped us complete similar tasks, I cannot say.

No, I did not previously use a different solution.