There are less than 100 end users using this solution. 

We are in the implementation phase. We have done the basic things which are in place and now we are doing the enhancements. As we are doing the enhancements now, there might be various feasibility checks and so on. Then we would come to know whether the product is feasible to take care of our requirements. Only then, I would be able to comment on scalability.

I rate the scalability a five out of ten because it is not quick to scale. My clients are enterprise-sized international businesses.

I rate the product’s scalability a seven out of ten.

The solution is scalable. We conducted performance testing and benchmarking of the solution. We implemented the solution as far as it is scalable and tailored to customer requirements. Currently, the system is handling one million transactions without any downtime.

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.

Earlier, when we were using the on-premises version of the solution in my company, it was really hard to use the scalability option. Post my company's decision to deploy the solution on the cloud with the help of IBM Cloud Pak for Business Automation (CP4BA), the ability to use the scalability option has become fast and easy for us.

My company has applied IBM BPM technology in some of the big firms in Vietnam, so there are a lot of end users, which may go up to 15,000.

I give the scalability an eight out of ten.

The solution is scalable.

The solution is scalable because the licensing cost is per the number of cores. Our clients are medium-sized companies.

It has good scalability. We have many sites. On a big site, we have about 4,000 users. For other sites, we have about 500 or 600 users.

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

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

It is a scalable solution that can be scaled up or scaled down, including the components or processes of IBM BPM.

Our company handles ten customers using the tool.

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.

It is a powerful system. It can scale to really big numbers in terms of the number of users. You can put lots and lots of users on it, and it works fine, but if you put lots and lots of developers on it, it seems to have challenges.

It was a development house, and we had 25 people using it, but now, because of COVID, they have cut back, and there are probably 14 or 15 people left.

We haven't had an opportunity to scale it. From what I understand about the architecture, it's definitely scalable to the enterprise. But we haven't used it in that capacity yet.

We just have the one application and it has not been in production long enough to really see the ROI yet, in terms of scaling. But based on the project, cost benefit analysis early on, it was showing positive. But we're not there yet.

IBM BPM has been scalable our my experience.

It is a scalable solution. We have below 100 end users in our company. 

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has 1000 users. 

It's a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

In my current environment, the solution has more than 500 users.

Both stability and scalability are fine. I think we have been able to manage the monumental growth of the processes over the last three to four years. It has been pretty encouraging. It's been a success story for us. 

Because it is an on-prem solution, we had initially provisioned sufficient cores and storage. It is at an enterprise scale with the data center and the disaster recovery center. So, we can scale up, and there are no problems. We have already done it. 

We have around 15,000 users of this solution.

It is a bit difficult to scale.

Sometimes, we face unknown issues. It's our goal to gather information and logs that we need to take. There should be a solution where we can easily monitor what is happening in the system. The system should provide us with a way to implement things such that it is scalable.

We have more than 7,000 users.

We still have a lot to move to figure it out.

BPM is scalable, though not automatically.

The scalability is really good. The scalability of IBM BPM is one of the best in the market because you can scale seamlessly. You can add any number of user licenses, CPU cores, or other components.

Most of the customers I have are enterprise companies using this solution.

Scalability is good. We are looking into rolling out BPM for newer projects as well. I can't say we are seeing an ROI from being able to scale with it.

IBM BPM can be scaled up and down to various layers. At the highest level, the solution is implemented quickly and suits our purpose. Lower levels provide more functions but take longer to implement.

I think it will meet our needs going forward. And they better make sure it does.

We will be scaling it up, especially on the account opening side, because we do end up opening about a couple of a million accounts a year. So yes, we will be putting it to scale and we'll be seeing how it goes.

So far, we've been doing it in a couple of hundred branches, we wanted to do it in a controlled manner. But starting in about the second quarter this year is when we're going to put it to test on a mass scale and we'll see how it goes.

In terms of scaling, it's not like you can see the return on investment in hard dollar terms, but just the fact that from a customer experience perspective, if you can turn it around in two days instead of 10 days, by default, that should hopefully translate into more loans that we book, better customer experience, and better word out there in the market. Obviously, you can't put a dollar value to that itself.

It has been okay so far, knock on wood. We are in the middle of refreshing our topology right now. We are trying to figure out if there are potential advantages that we have not been able to look at before by orchestrating how we cluster and divide the deployment environment, so we will see what happens.

We started with some processes that were about five or six a day to our target processes, which will be about hundred of thousands a day. The big effort now is to taking models from MQ Workflow and putting those into BPM. Obviously, MQ Workflow has been decommissioned and is end-of-life (EOL) later this year. We had 45 or so applications on MQ Workflow and we have been moving those over to BPM. That has been most of the work right now. 

It is quite a scalable product. On one of our projects, we are running something like 50,000 processes a day. We're able to actually handle that efficiently without a lot of hassle.

It doesn't require installation. The user doesn't have to install anything on their system. It's all in the update. So, that makes it easy to scale.

The solution isn't exactly scalable. I'd rate it two out of ten overall. 

The scalability of IBM BPM is good. It's easy to add features and applications to the platform.

I have approximately 10 customers, with each having an average of approximately 300 users.

Not at the moment. It is quite easily scalable.

The solution was probably overkill for the initial application, so I did not experience any scalability issues.

IBM BPM is a scalable solution.

We have 100 users in our organization.

The company licensed at the PVU level and the scalability is a bit complex. You can't really tie it to the processes that you are putting in. You always have to monitor at a system or hardware level, the impact that you're putting on it - the more you customize and add things on it. It's a bit difficult to know when to scale up or down.

Originally, we wanted it to be used by at least 1,000 plus users, with the potential, depending on the process that you've put in, of more. We would've wanted to end up hosting process automation for processes to be used across 5,000 plus users, potentially. Unfortunately, we didn't get the adoption rate we were looking for.

We haven't actually stressed it because we do small processes.

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's pretty good. I would rate it eight or nine out of 10.

I'm not sure if we've seen ROI as a result of implementing BPM.

Because we try to understand the full enterprise, whether it's an SMB or a larger organization, we already have the scalability understood, and we've already taken a look at that architecture, we've taken a look at the delivery. The scalability is part of what we deliver as a company, in terms of the thought leadership, which is all hallmarked on the IBM product like that we're able to leverage.

I would say it's very good but it's not perfect. It is much more scalable than it has been in the past but there are some things, it does require some work to keep it stable. So that is an area that should be improved, actually.

The engine itself tends to accumulate a lot of data that needs to be cleaned up, and that's the kind of thing that keeps it from, in some scenarios, scaling as much as it needs to. And then, when you're building solutions, if you're not careful to keep the screens from being associated with too much data, if you're going to just do things the way that a lot of people would just assume that they can do, without having experience of having made those mistakes before, it will accumulate a lot of data, and that will cause it to perform very badly.

It would be great if you didn't have to worry about that, but the reality is, at the moment, that you have to pay attention to that. If you do, then you can do just fine. But if you pay attention only to the business requirements, and just throw in everything that the business imagines that it wants see, you can easily build something that is way too heavy on the front end. But if you handle those things, if you tune the underlying platform, it can achieve the target, sometimes with more hardware than you want.

In terms of ROI and scaling use of the product, I don't have a client where I can say that we specifically measured that as much as you would say we should, but my feeling is yes, they do see return on investment.

We did have multiple setups where the system was scaled to have more users when there was an expansion.

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

The scalability of the solution is high. It's a seven out of ten. 

We have a team of about six people, our business analysis team, who run the solution. There are about 2,000 end users. 

It is a scalable solution, and one small company that is a customer uses this solution. They do tender development proposal evaluations for clients.

I cannot say how scalable IBM BPM is. It was stable, but we did not need to scale it. We have 7,000 employees total. However, since the solution is automated, there are no actual users — just automated tasks. So it would be equivalent to 10 or 15 users or something like that.

IBM BPM is both scalable and stable.

It's scalable. We don't have problems with the scalability. The first prerequisite for it is really to define what the rules are, and the way to use it.

Scalability is a little bit tough, but I probably think that has more to do with how we have it set up, as opposed to the product itself.

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 solution can scale well. It's already quite sizeable and it's designed for larger organizations.

Scalability is very good provided you bear it in mind during implementation phase. It's possible to do bad things that will affect you later with scalability.

We use it across the board for what IBM labels smaller clients, commercial clients, all the way to enterprise clients. It's like any software package. Scalability is built into it, but it doesn't always come automatically. There is a lot of expertise that we use in performance-tuning it. There are times when, if you have a tremendous number of API calls, there's some tweaking that should happen to optimize that. But it's all configurable. There are things that you can tune to make it enterprise-capable, based on your use case.

It's scalable. We started with three nodes on day one. We expanded to five nodes, then we basically had two other engines, so we have about 15 now.

But there is a limit. There is a point where you stop, you can't scale anymore to improve the performance. But for now, I think we are okay.

We haven't had any issues yet in terms of scaling it out to our customer service reps. You never know, it depends on the complexity, what it's going to look like in the future.

It's cheaper than Pega, definitely.

Very good! horizontally and vertically

I have yet to come across a use case where scalability was an issue. 

We are moving to this tool because we have more than 40,000 transactions a month, and we would like to triple this amount. 

Our next step is to scale and change the repayment process.

Scalability is perfect.

We don't use heavy BPM processing with what we have. I know it is more scalable. We recently acquired another company, so we are trying to see if this can be used for all the eligibility stuff, but that is still in the initial analysis phase.

We have definitely seen revenue and income as a result of implementing BPM; it's basically the eligibility, the whole application, that flows through this product called Peer.

IBM BPM's scalability is very high.

It is not relevant for IBM BPM.

No. Scalability is actually a strong point of IBM BPM because it is designed to run on IBM WebSphere which can be scaled up easily if required.

The solution is scalable, as adding many offline and online servers is easy. We have 100-200 customers using the solution.

We are going to try out a hybrid solution: on-premise and cloud. So, we will see in the future about how scalable it is.

We can scale by increasing the infrastructure which is currently running. 

No.

Highly scalable, product offer two flavors: Standard and Advanced. Both these versions can be customized to support high-availability, scalable servers.

The solution is scalable. While this varies with the needs of the customer, we have very good technicians and developers for IBM BPM. As such, it depends on our know-how, although I can say that our customers are satisfied. 

It is quite scalable.

It is extremely scalable.

None.

Scalability is pretty good.

No.

From a system architecture point of view, the product is quite robust; deploying applications, adding/removing nodes, load balancing, and recovery mechanisms are tasks well supported by the technologies upon which IBM BPM is built.

We have at least 1,000 users.

When you start implementing a new BPM in your organization, there's some questionnaires that have to be submit to IBM and IBM gives the hardware specs according to that. The performance and the load have to be taken by the system.

The solution is scalable.

Server crashes under heavy load.

Not in terms of users, but in terms of tasks there were issues.

We have two nodes in the cluster environment. This is the scalability that we do have. If we need to increase it, we can add a node to the cluster.

The scalability is good for us.

We have seen ROI from it, I don't know the numbers.

Based on the sizing and hardware capability, we don't face any scalability issues.

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

I'm not sure I could speak to the scalability of the solution. I personally have never tried to scale it, so I'm not sure how it works.

It is scalable.

No.

Not at the moment.

BMP is scalable both horizontally and vertically.

Our teams work on scalability and I think it is good. It's based on IBM vSphere, and the scalability is good.

It's used by around 10,000 people and around 15 developers.

Scalability depends greatly on the application server, WebSphere Application Server in this case. I haven't encountered any issues so far.

The solution is scalable. IBM BPM has more than 1000 users in my company.