It is not very stable. However, it's stable now after the latest upgrade about a year ago, but we haven't moved to the cloud-based maintenance version yet.

The stability has been good. We haven't dealt with bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

I rate the solution's stability a nine or ten out of ten. It is very stable. But there are some exceptions, such as if you talk about using only one version. When migrating from one version to another new version, you can make some mistakes and face some difficulties, such as node capability and needing to rewrite code. When you use only one version without any migration between versions, it's very stable.

I rate the platform’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is stable. IBM BPM is more stable from a Gartner class perspective, as Gartner members have done an assessment and determined that IBM BPM is the leader, and the discovery phases and run that we come up with in the IBM process orchestration tool make it the best solution.

IBM is known for stability and reliability.

With IBM BPM on the cloud, my company has seen some stability issues that came from the product's different aspects, like the installation phase and its architecture. I believe that when an IBM user moves from on-premises to the cloud, IBM starts to continuously release new versions with a lot of issues that need to be fixed concerning the installation process, which includes Red Hat OpenShift.

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

IBM BPM is a stable solution.

IBM BPM's stability has been good so far.

It is very stable.

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

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.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The stability is good at present.

It was very stable. 

In production, it's great. We have about 60 or so users, so it's small. We are in the cloud. There was some learning early on in development of the application. We just had one, sometimes two, developers, and there were some things that we had to do in the cloud to allow for the performance. It was taking up memory and we didn't know it. We had to work with IBM support, create some scripts to clean up the environment on a weekly basis, so that we weren't loading up memory.

It was a little challenging early on because we had just started. We were having problems right away with just two developers, but we got it sorted out and support helped.

From our side and our core customers, we didn't get any complaints.

The IBM engine is very powerful, it is highly stable.

Overall, I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I rate IBM BPM's stability a nine out of ten. 

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

It is definitely stable. It comes from the IBM stack, so it is a stable solution, but the stability also depends on the partner who is developing your IBM BPM solutions. There could be issues if your partner has not written the artifacts or the business process diagrams properly or the checks and balances are not proper. IBM BPM interfaces with so many things. It interfaces with middleware, ECM repository, SAP, etc. Therefore, all the checks and balances have to be properly coded. Otherwise, certain problems or errors will keep on cropping up. You require really good developers who can develop these kinds of solutions.

This is a stable product.

So far, it is stable. We do not have a ton of processes moved over yet, but the ones we do have seem to be working pretty well.

The stability varies because it involves a lot of other components like databases, so sometimes if something goes wrong there, it can't recover from the fatal errors.

This solution is very stable. When looking at all the features reliability is one of the strongest points of this solution. It has greater scalability and stability compared to the other competitors, such as Appian.

Except for the Lucene the index - we had a couple of issues in the Process Portal where the Lucene index went out of sync, and we had to work at least 15 - 20 hours to have it back in sync with the database. So that was big for us last year. 

If that's improved, or if that's removed, or if there is a workaround for the Lucene index issue, that would be great. 

One of the processes, the one that we developed first, is running okay. The other one is not, but I attribute that to the fact that we are still in the rollout process, and it's still in the early stages of development.

In terms of ROI through scaling, one of the processes we automatated with BPM is running smoothly with fewer people than before, and in fact the size of the demand has scaled, very notably. We haven't calculated it yet, but it's really returning on the investment.

So far, we have not put huge volumes onto it, so it's been working fine. I am not sure how it will behave when we put really large volumes onto it.

It wavers. We have some opportunities for improvement in this space, especially as we approach our target volume of a million transactions a day. It is tough, because it is not necessarily the product. It is more around the platform and infrastructure to support it, so the connectivity to the database, web sessions, and reverse proxies in front of that. Therefore, the whole environment plays into how the application performs.

Yes, we did actually. When we were initially installing 8.5.7, it deleted the server. We encountered a lot of issues when we had to migrate processes in the old version to the new version. This was happened recently, because we only started with the 8.5.7 server this year around June.

The stability is pretty good. I'd rate it seven out of ten in terms of reliability. 

IBM BPM is a stable solution.

Yes, on the Process Center (development environment), especially when you have too many developers working on it. Then, it becomes unstable.

There were performance issues with the solution, which were related to the IBM – Microsoft interaction (as described above). The browser-based solution does not work well at facilities that do not have reasonably fast networks. This would not be an issue now as easily available data bandwidth has increased dramatically since then.

IBM BPM is a stable product.

The stability was likely okay. For us, we had issues, however, I don't think it's the platform, which caused the problem. It was likely the expertise in terms of the actual deployment.

It appears to be quite stable.

Stability is good. We have had a few problems, but IBM has helped us to resolve them.

We had a weird problem that whenever the database would go down, even for a few seconds, it broke the connection. It would not come back up as it was supposed to. However, working with IBM, we were able to figure out a fix, then it came back up, even after an interruption of the database.

The latest versions have been more stable. Initially, we were using older versions. With the latest version it is more stable.

The product has been well-orchestrated and proven. Through a lot of our own blood, sweat, and tears in terms of our frameworks, we've been able to validate them in every instance.

Stability is pretty good. Many users, concurrent users especially, are using the application built on BPM, so it is good.

I would rate the product's stability a nine out of ten. 

The stability is good. I would give it a seven out of ten.

It is a stable and powerful solution.

It's stable. We haven't faced any huge issue with it, up to now.

Stability seems pretty good. We have quite a bit of work being done on them right now. We had to build out a pretty large system for it, but so far it's been really stable.

It is a stale solution. I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. 

The solution is extremely stable. IBM is a reliable product. There aren't issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

It is stable.

It is a consistently stable product. IBM BPM has come a long way from its original Lombardi days, to coming into IBM and the rewriting of the overall framework, to the way the UIs work. Where it is today, it's quite an enterprise-level product.

It is pretty much stable. We had some hiccups in the beginning, because of the product learning curve. But once we got the environment stabilized, we have hardly seen problems, from a BPM standpoint. We do have other components like, the LDAP and databases, and the ASM F5 Web tier, but from a BPM product standpoint, I think it's pretty good.

Process engines have been here for a long time now. When you look at IBM BPM it provides the same stability that most engines do today. I think it is more in terms of development time and the ease of learning it that helped us more.

It is not as heavy as a Pega workflow system which is customized and has a lot more things you can do with it, but we don't need that level of complexity.

Excellent but some network latency should be prevented for development since Web Process Designer is collaborative and distributed

It is very stable right now. We have seen nothing but amazing results over the last six years.

It is performing very well. We are building the solution right now and launching in August.

Stability is perfect.

It has been really stable the last couple of years. Initially we had issues with stability. It was not the product itself, it was the platform we had it on. But it's stable now, I don't see any issues.

We still have a couple of issues that we are working on right now. Mostly on the configuration side of the tool, and it has been about a month that we have been working to stabilize the platform.

Not really. Not that I can remember.

I rate the solution's stability as a seven as we face issues with the snapshots in the processor.

It's stable. We haven't had any issues.

Initially, we were using the cloud solution for BPM. As we keep building up the versions, it has become a better solution for us. There were some things we stumbled stumbled upon that we would have expected a bit more advanced information from IBM, but we are now more informed.

We have been experiencing bad performance and instability. 

• Product is pretty stable, if sized correctly with the right platform architecture.
• Even the version migrations have improved and simplified for IBM BPM 8.5.x.

Yes, v7.5.1 was the worst. v8.0.3 started to be more stable, but still complex to update. v8.5.6 is more reliable but we faced lot of problems with some development issues.

No.

The solution is stable. 

It is quite resilient to failure. It's a good solution in this sense.

IBM can handle anything. IBM BPM can handle a lot of variables on an environment when you pass through a lot of transactions simultaneously.

None.

Stability is mostly good.

No.

In general terms, the platform is stable. Though lately, we've had many issues after installing the most recent fixpacks (Cumulative Fix 2017.06). This is something we were not used to.

This solution is very stable.

It is a stable product, and there's quite a lot of support from IBM.

I have found the solution to be stable.

Under load, the server crashes and many of the applications become lost. You have to handle this manually. In some cases, we had to resubmit the applications from start.

Yes, sometimes there is a latency with the tasks flow, based on the table space.

It is pretty stable. Sometimes we have performance issues. Otherwise, it is good.

Stability is good. We've never had any downtime.

Apart from the usual fixes (which any product encounters), generally the product works well in production.

Yes, but they were related to issues with our underlying infrastructure component like application servers or databases.

The solution is quite stable. We find that it doesn't crash and it's quite reliable.

BPM is very stable.

No, it is highly stable.

Not at the moment.

It is scalable. No bugs or glitches. 

We don't use it in the production systems right now. We're just using it in the pilot mode. 

No, stability is good, even with hundreds of new process instances per day.

I rate the tool's stability seven to eight out of ten.