If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering Camunda BPM, what would you say?
How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?
Right now we use a standalone Camunda in Docker. Before, on previous projects, we used embedded Camunda in Java applications. We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models. For cloud deployment, we use Microsoft Azure as the provider. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
We are currently a startup with Insur Tech and we are sensitive to cost. It's our strategy and it is the best tool for the price at this time. What I have learned from using Camunda BPM is to keep it simple. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
My advice to others would be to know their own abilities, their own resources. Are they comfortable with a lot of programming even for a simple form? Do they have enough programming provided in their resources? If they are not comfortable with that, it can take a little longer for them to adapt to Camunda. But if they have good developers, programmers, HTML, CSS and so on, they won't have a problem. I can also say the documentation is good and they have a live, technical forum where you can ask questions and get a fast response. I am not sure if it is available in all BPM packages, though. On a scale from one to 10, I will rate this solution a seven, because there are quite a few things that could be improved.
I feel that there is always room for improvement, so I rate this solution a nine out of ten.
My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to first do a proof of concept. See how it works, and see if you like it. We were able to build our rules-based API engine, and it does exactly what we wanted it to. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.
We use the free version, the open-source version, but there is an Enterprise option. And the Enterprise version has heat maps so you can easily optimize complex processes on performance. You can easily see the hot spots that need to be scaled in a different manner in terms of hardware or improving your process flow. I would definitely recommend the solution to anyone. At least for the short-term. They are currently shifting towards their new product, Zeebe. It's not production-ready yet. We are actually currently using it already in smaller labs on smaller projects, such as modelling process flow's and micro service orchestration driving front end ui's such as digital assistants. But there is not much difference between the two so, I would definitely advise anyone starting with a BPM, in general, to start with Camunda. I found Camunda really easy to start with. I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.
I would rate the solution somewhere around 9 out of 10 because it is very good. The documentation and all that they have done is just splendid. On the documentation side, Camunda has done a really good job. I would say that Camunda should actually focus on small cases as well. There's a lot of space out there, for small businesses. If they can, they should cater to them.
We're very strongly recommending Camunda BPM. It is good. It is easy. The community is good. There is a lot of support if you are stuck anywhere. You can Google it and find the answers. Many people are using Camunda BPM worldwide and finding the responses was easy. I would rate it an eight out of ten. The reason why I wouldn't rate it a 10/10 or higher is that there are some other features available within other tools that can improve the algorithms they are not aware of yet. Camunda BPM satisfies our requirements and we have been using it for a year.
For an internal project, this is a solution that you can install and have up and running quite quickly. As soon as you have a complex problem then you have limitations. The processing engine is fine and is not an issue. If I were rating this solution for internal use then I would give it a seven out of ten. On the other hand, if I were rating it for use by the public then I would rate it a three out of ten. With respect to security, there are a lot of question marks. Overall, I would rate this solution a five out of ten.