IBM Robotic Process Automation (RPA) Reviews

We're working with different clients from the manufacturing environment. We have implemented end-to-end solutions. We work on web automation and automation of invoices.

The non-SAP automation is also good. The product’s integration capabilities with other software are sufficient for improving our workflow efficiency. We follow the standard procedures for setting up and deploying bots. There are no challenges. The solution’s impact on staff productivity depends on what we automate. Integrating the tool with SAP, EBS, or other ERPs is easy.

The product must be promoted more. There are no promotions.

I have been using the solution for the last six months to one year.

The tool’s stability is good. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

The tool’s scalability is good. We can get more tools if we need them.

The technical support is pretty good. Some dedicated staff are allocated to us.

Positive

The initial setup is very simple. The learning curve is easy.

Our customers see a return on investment within six months to one year.

The pricing is reasonable. We buy it as a bundle.

I don't see much difference between IBM and other products. Whatever Automation Anywhere can do, IBM Robotic Process Automation can also do it. We have done some POC with other tools. We chose IBM because we have been partners with the vendor for many years. We are an IBM shop.

IBM’s OCR solution is pretty good. It is quite economical. OCR is good for streamlining operations. We have integrated the solution with our ERP. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We are a solution provider and we have been working on selling the IBM RPA product during 2020. We are primarily dealing with the on-premises version because our clients are not willing to use the cloud because of issues with their data. We have a lot of banks as clients, and it is a problem for them to use cloud versions.

One of our primary use cases is creating chatbots for clients, such as financial institutions.

Other things that we can automate are tasks like dealing with incoming credit processes, and administrative processes such as invoicing. These are the processes that take a lot of time.

We have not generated any sales yet, but we have experience with the product and are working on selling it.

IBM should provide specific solutions for specific problems, like templates for invoicing processes, or general templates for creating efficient processes. Another good example would be to have a template for a credit onboarding process. This would give us something to show the client in terms of a working solution, and that we're not having to create something from scratch.

The quality is great! It's very strong and has a very strong platform. However, you need to consider the clients and have a client perspective.

From my point of view, the RPA from IBM is not yet in touch enough with the clients. They are not taking the client's perspective into consideration, and they don't guide them enough throughout their journey to RPA.

They need to provide more guidance and more coaching. At the end of the day, it's a type of culture that they are trying to build within the company.

I would like to see an interface that would help customers establish which process is suitable for RPA or not. Maybe some type of scoring process would be helpful in establishing the processing suitability for whether it is an RPA or not. That would be a great feature to consider.

We began working with IBM Robotic Process Automation one year ago.

I think that it is a stable solution but I am not yet experienced enough to answer with certainty.

If you are working on-premises then scalability could be a problem. This is certainly not a problem with cloud solutions but again, this is the same problem for us. Our clients would like to remain working on-premises. we all know that cloud-based solutions are the best, in order to have scalability and in order to grow in the number of bots or applications.

Most of our clients are mid-sized banks, and we have a lot of government entities.

I think that the pre-sales and technical support are really great. I had worked for IBM myself in 2016, and these people are really professional.

We are competing with UiPath and Blue Prism, and also, our clients have been considering minor regional RPA companies. One such example is a company from Argentina that is very popular in the region, called BI.

The main difference between IBM RPA and the other products is that the small companies have developed ready-to-use solutions.

We work with the presales teams and have not had much experience with the setup.

The length of time required for deployment will be two or three months, depending on the infrastructure. When you have an on-premises deployment, you need to prepare the infrastructure to perform the implementation. There are times where the initial setup takes longer than you first imagine when the project begins.

For example, having availability with the client's infrastructure in order to start working on an RPA project is sometimes a problem.

The cloud is the best way to deploy RPA. However, we face the dilemma that we cannot use the cloud. So, I think that the solution to this type of problem is to try and set up a private cloud for our clients. Unfortunately, I have found that it is not a simple process to set up a private cloud. The number of resources required is not necessarily reachable for many entities.

My advice for anybody who is considering an RPA product is to carefully consider where to start because not all processes are suitable for RPA. You need to carefully evaluate what you are going to do because if you are starting from scratch, you need to carefully choose which processes you are going to start with.

Don't try another RPA solution for the company from scratch. You have to create a culture of RPA inside your company. A good product comes from creating a culture.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

It's used at a high level by about 100 users. A few of them are customer agents and a few of them are in the operations team. Currently, the product is deployed on a container-based platform, called Cloud Pak. We have created containers for our solutions for Automation on the OpenShift cluster.

If you have a business process, and once you have automated that process, you have a readily available workflow in place. We are using it after a sale is done, the next step is that the RPA calculates the offer and offers it to the customer. We have implemented this in sales.

Number one, you can record your actions, number two, you can orchestrate between the human task and bots. The biggest benefit is that you can orchestrate between the human tasks, system tasks, and the bots. That is what the complete IBM portfolio can provide. No other solution I have seen can provide this level of flexibility. In addition to that, we have the IBM Business Analytics insight as well, which is like real-time dashboards. 

The way the robots are being used actually. We need to design the robot to instantiate it based on some event or human intervention. If that can also be automated, that would be good. That would be an additional workflow completed. The next step after that would be to use the RPA service. Some things which require human intervention can also be automated using some decision management, based on rules. If there's a framework which does all of this part, that would be good I think. RPA should be configured as a part of business process management and built-in.  For the user, it shouldn't matter if he is using RPA or he's using none of the automation. It should be seamless from their viewpoint. So they would just use drag and drop, choose the features they wanted, and that would be it. RPA and BPM in one solution and RPA encapsulated inside BPM. This RPA should be under the umbrella of BPM. This is what the future should be. 

We have been using IBM Robotic Process Automation (RPA) for less than one year. I'm the analyst for this project. My responsibility is to design the system, but I am not the developer for the project. 

For now, it is stable because the best thing we have is the scalability as part of our cloud-native application. 

The size of a container is quite small. I think it's only a single MB, so not big. Initially, we started from 20 containers and it grew to around 50 containers or maybe more, depending on the configuration. I think we now have approximately 50 to 100. The assumption is that each container will run a separate process.

We have raised some support tickets, but not very often. We have trained staff also, and therefore we have several teams which could potentially deal with support.

One is the IBM RPA. as a company, we are using UiPath as well. But IMB RPA is the one which my team is using as part of this Cloud Pak for Automation.

I think it's complex, and not straightforward.

Now that it is based in the cloud, it is an easier process and minimises the time for deployment. We are using the OpenShift OCP platform to achieve this. It's like a gateway for the infrastructure team which manages the servers and the cloud server. IT operations take care of the operational activities, and the Gateway infrastructure team does the deployment. IT operations provide support, so we are using three to four resources. 

IBM licensing is annual and based on Virtual Processor Cores (VPC). This provides flexibility as part of the containerization environment. The licenses can be allocated across multiple products. So for example, if you have IBM BAW, Business Automation Workflow,  ODM, Operational Decision Management, and IBM Datacap, or whatever product you are using, you can allocate the licenses to your needs. This provides licensing flexibility, as opposed to single licenses for standalone products. 

We considered Automation Anywhere and UiPath. However, IBM RPA i's a part of one bundle. The Business Automation Workflow can directly integrate with the IBM RPA. The business becomes more robust. Your platform gives you more flexibility to integrate with multiple different types of tasks. 

Based on what you want to do, you can automate your processes in the organization. You need to have a roadmap as part of digital transformation and application modernization. I would give this solution 8 out of 10.  

I use the solution to extract data from PDFs and upload it into Microsoft Excel.

The solution’s performance is good.

The product's document readers must be improved to capture the data well.

I have been using the solution for six months.

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

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. The setup can be done in an hour.

The deployment can be done in-house. Once the development is complete, we need to download the source file and upload it to the production control room. The product does not require a technical team for maintenance.

The product has a yearly licensing fee.

I am using the latest version of the product. The product has two versions, one on cloud and the other on-premise. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

In my experience, we've done IBM RPA implementations for payment processes and intercompany processes for our customers. Basically, the process is as follows: it interacts with the banking website and collects the necessary data for validation and approval in SAP.

The solution's ease of use is its most valuable aspect.

The user interface is very good.

It's easy to develop code. I can click on items and simply drag and drop. I can even open the modules in Excel. It makes everything very simple.

Much like Automation Anywhere, it would be helpful if there was some sort of community board to help share and trade information to help users learn how to troubleshoot and learn about the various aspects of the solution. Right now, there isn't anything of that nature available to help users find answers.

We're based in Thailand, but the documentation is not in Thai, which makes it difficult for us. If they could translate all of their documentation into our language, we'd be very grateful.

The pricing of the solution is quite high.

I've been using the solution for two years.

While we found version 10 to not be quite stable enough, version 11 is much better in this regard. It's still not 100% stable, however, I would estimate it's now at 90-95% stable, which is quite good.

The solution is very scalable. If a company needs to expand this service they should be able to without much difficulty.

I've been in touch with IBM's technical support in the past. I've found them to be helpful. We're satisfied with the level of service we receive. There's really no problem connecting with them and asking for help. They are quite knowledgeable.

We haven't worked with any other solution. We've only worked with IBM.

I did not find the initial setup complex. I would describe it as easy. It's very straightforward.

We find the solution to be overly expensive.

We are a reseller. We provide the product to our customers.

I'd advise other companies to consider using the solution. It's very easy to use. It's got a great user interface as well. However, you need to use logic in order to use it effectively.  This is important especially during implementation.  

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use robotic process automation for automating financial services processes, so back office processes for accounts receivable, accounts payable, etc. We are at the PoC stage at this point. 

The performance has been good. We are still in the early stages. One of the challenges that we have solved is helping to replace individuals with robots or bots, so we can free up capacity. We have not had any attrition; we have simply taken on more work. Therefore, it has been helpful. 

The most valuable feature is the ability to automate mundane tasks. This improves efficiency, reliability, etc. You can form critical operations which can be highly automated. 

At this stage though, we are not using AI. I think that is the next step. Today, we are mostly focused on taking the human element out of processes. The next step for us before we can deploy to scale will be solving for exception handling. We think AI can help with this. 

We would like more focus on understanding AI and how it can be used to manage exception handling. 

We have not really explored it as much as we would like yet. That is something we are going to start focusing on. We wanted to try it out as a PoC to see how it worked. So far, it has been good. 

We were not using anything previously. We just tried this solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. I don't think there are any issues with the product usability.

I think it is more about the features: How we leverage them, then how we apply them at scale in our enterprise. There is a lot more focus on change management when you are bringing robots in, e.g., people start getting concerned about losing their jobs. 

We worked with a local partner.

No.

Focus more on change and make sure that there is buy in to try it out. Use a PoC model (proof of concept model), otherwise it gets really challenging to implement it at scale. 

Right now, we have more pull than push because people understand the worth of robotic process automation in financial services, and are not as threatened by it as they once were. 

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: There were not that many vendors in the market, at least not in the consideration set. 

There are a lot of legacy applications which are not modernized in terms of exposing APIs or services. Those are the places we are using Robotic Automation a lot.

Speed. That's the key. When you create a transformation-type of a program, just the discovery itself usually takes between six to eight weeks. But in six weeks you can actually take a robotic solution and move it all the way into production. So speed is definitely the key here.

Cost as well, not just from a software perspective, but cost from an enterprise perspective. Since it's not inclusive, in terms of automation, you can just do it standalone, in its own silo. It's not going to force your existing system or teams, your admin teams, to create new IDs for you or even force them to create new services or APIs for you or expose something from there. They can just keep the way they are doing it right now, but you still automate it.

So speed and agility in terms of not having inclusive automation, both really help.

The ability to do screen-level automation becomes key, and people can connect to it. Especially extracting data from a legacy application, putting information into an Excel, running some macros, etc. Those are well-defined use cases from an RPA perspective.

Extensibility is the key, especially in terms of the Recorders feature that we have. That should be browser independent. Enhance it, because some people have Chrome, some have Internet Explorer, etc. Allow it to be browser independent.

Integration with PDFs: Not just the ability to read information from PDFs but the ability to write information from PDFs, make it secure, sign it, etc.

An additional enhancement would be: How do you connect to your Microsoft Exchange Servers? Right now, the connection forces Microsoft Exchange to expose a port. Some enterprises are not allowed to expose a port, so it has to go through the firewall and security and token assessment.

And that's another thing: If they can allow a token exchange inside the tool itself, that would help.

This solution is still evolving. It is going through the rounds right now. We hope it will become more stable, but right now, since it works on the laptop, it has a lot of dependency on your browser or what type of operating system you have. Sometimes it has dependency on your credentials - are you using a network type of an ID or a local ID, etc. The use case has to be selected properly and then, accordingly, once you scale it up, it works fine. But the use-case selection becomes key here.

Just from an IT perspective, increasing the number of bots or reducing the number of bots on demand is a click of a button. It's as simple as that.

But from a business perspective, scalability takes a different meaning altogether because they want the same kind of bot to do a variety of different use cases. The key comes out in terms of design. At our company, one of the key things that we do regarding bots is to lay out the governance structure and always think from a microservices architecture perspective. Once it is from a microservice architecture perspective from the business side as well, it just looks like Lego blocks. You just combine them together and complete the use case and it becomes more scalable.

From an RPA perspective, since this tool is kind of new, there are a lot of incidences that we have discussed a lot with IT support. Right now, in version 11.2, the Control Room gets disconnected frequently, so we are working with IT support on that. Earlier, we had an issue where we wanted to put information into a PDF document and, again, we worked with IT support to get a solution and work around that. So there have been a variety of use cases where we have had to work with and rely heavily on them to give us solutions.

The setup is a little complex as compared to Blueworks Live but it is not as complex as IBM BPM or IBM ODM. From a structure perspective, you still go through creating your three layers - your Bot Creator, Bot Runner, and your Control Room - along with the database. So from a structure perspective, you're still going through the same stages, but the tool itself is so small compared to the size of IBM BPM that it's not very difficult to install. Typically, we allocate two days for installation, which is about 16 hours of effort to do the installation in a test environment.

There are a lot more options in the market. For example, Pega. If our clients already have a Pega product, especially the BPM side of Pega, they are often inclined to take Pega's RPA. Then there are the integrated products like Kapow from Kofax. If they already have a Kofax solution, Kapow comes as RPA-based so it's all integrated together and they use it. Then there are standalone products as well in the market, such as UiPath, WorkFusion, and Blue Prism. 

Out of all these, UiPath and Blue Prism are the current contenders. Kapow is up and coming and has great potential.

In terms of advice, every tool has an issue. We have evaluated multiple tools and every tool had an issue from a scalability perspective as well as from extensibility perspective. There is no reason not to go with Automation Anywhere. The use case selection is the key. If your use case is heavy on document management, I may not be inclined to suggest Automation Anywhere, but if it is more on the integration side of it, definitely go with IBM RPA.

We are solely working with an IBM product for this solution.

In terms of the important criteria when selecting a tool like this, the starting point for our customers is cost. The other thing that comes into it is the security aspect and, "What will happen to my human workforce if I put bots in there?" It depends upon what the enterprise objectives are. Operational cost saving is definitely a done deal when executing excellent RPA, but in terms of enterprise goals, the overall operational cost on the human side, it's completely based on the business case, and how they want to manage it.

We have a client with a line of bars in the service/hospitality industry who wanted to have a system which takes a reservation for restaurants. They wanted to use IBM Robotic Process Automation software for this on the back-end. E.g., if a user wants to make a reservation, they can select a restaurant make if a table is available and at what time. On the back-end, IBM Robotic Process Automation will log all that data and create the reservation for the client.

From a business users perspective, all they care about is the dashboarding and reporting feature. It is very easy to take a dashboard or report, then use that report for their own internal purposes.

It is easy to use. We have enabled our resources who don't have a background in automation to be certified and trained, then implement this product within a very short period of time, as it is very user-friendly.

I would like more drag and drop type of features. If you look at some of the competition, they do provide that scalability feature, where a user who doesn't know anything about automation can work off of it using a bunch of drag and drop things. That is what our clients are looking for.

I would like it to do pretty much everything out-of-the-box without any need for any customization. However, that is not the case right now. We absolutely have to do some amount of customization with the solution in order to use it out-of-the-box as-is.

The technical support is great.

The client was looking at a solution. Because it was an IBM client, this solution was their top choice. When they were trying to compare IBM Robotic Process Automation against the other things which were there in the marketplace, we decided that because it was an IBM product backed by IBM support, this would be the primary driving factor for the client to pick the solution.

The initial setup was not complex at all. It took less than an hour to set up the solution. 

We were able to put up a solution, like set up a port or create an application, in such a short time from the ground up. We are able to run this and put it in production with minimal effort required, and that is a big deal for us.

We used an integrator for the deployment. 

This solution produced a good ROI.

If you compare it to other competing products, it is pretty good in this space. It provides ease of use when you perform a task. If you compare IBM against the competition, the amount of effort required to set up a part or set up a process is way less than what you get from competition.

Put IBM on top of your list because we have done the analysis. We have compared this solution with other solutions that are out there in the market. Nine times out of ten, this would be the go to solution if you are considering all of the factors. I would strongly recommend other clients to start looking here.

We have not integrated the solutions with other solutions. It is a standalone implementation.