Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with ARIS BPA.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
I didn't like working with this solution. The design and functions are lacking and they are better in Bizagi. The interface could be improved. The solution is difficult and not very exciting to learn. It was a bit complicated to understand. Aris BPA is very complex and very difficult to start learning and onboarding. When you compare it with Bizagi, Bizagi is better. The interface is nicer, the onboarding process is easier, and they have a manual for you to start with. It is better because I could understand how to start with it.
There is a lot of room for improvement. They need to increase the performance of the system flow. They need to support it more. ARIS Process Governance is still quite basic, and they are using an old BPM and process automation module. They have a problem with the form. It's good but has limitations when integrating with other systems. This means that ARIS Process Governance or process automation is limited to the ARIS framework. Integration with other systems is available with the ARIS API but isn't usable in APG. There isn't a proper workflow, and they need to merge their API module with the APG module. This will increase the capability of the form builder. Customization of ARIS will also be simpler and more user-friendly. They have tried to do that for more than ten years, but I don't know what they are doing now. The installer could be improved to avoid multiple installations. For example, you have to run a script in the database site to complete the installer. So all those should be in one single point for installation. Enter all this data in the installer, and the installer will go and create the system database in the database. The price could also be better.
Its governance tool and integration with ESB and execution engine can be improved. Their partner support can also be improved.
ARIS EPC & FAD features and functionality does not feel like they are not designed for business users. Instead, it feels like they are geared for Process Modelers and Technology users who are focused on System Interface, User Interface, Risk and Control, etc. Trying to read an EPC in a screen Top-Down while dragging the screen is next to impossible. The model graphics can be exported in PDF, but the model is too small to read. In my experience, once the organization creates the process model in ARIS EPC, it will take approximately two years before most organizations ditch any effort to update it. It takes more effort to maintain it than the value that an organization gets out of it. The requirements for events after the rules, whilst accurate, simply take up too much space and makes the process model difficult to read. Connecting the upstream and downstream process interface is a pain. The auto-layout is a great feature but does not work as expected all of the time, as lines appear to overlap and can be confusing to read unless you click on the line to highlight it.
I use it strictly for developing the business process model. I don't use it for the actual automation. I do that with Vtenext. I have standardized on Vtenext, and I don't use ARIS BPM anymore. The Vtenext UI is just as good, and it is much more tightly coupled to the underlying object model. I can get more done in one session with Vtenext rather than first going to ARIS BPM, then importing, and having to edit it for tight coupling.
Some of the interactions with different versions of browsers caused a little bit of angst because there are certain corporate SOEs (Standard Operating Environments), which do not lend themselves well to representation in the latest version of ARIS. The product is sort of one version behind with current trends, typically. I have definitely seen better UIs, but the crux of why we use the ARIS process modeler is because we have everything all one suite. When you talk about enterprise architecture, application architecture, process architecture, or whatever else you want to model and monitor, these processes are all in the same place. You can make cross-references or create links between processes, you can link part of a model to an application, you can link to a capability view, et cetera. As an enterprise architecture tool, there is probably very little they can improve on at least compared to other modelers. Because you keep on working with different versions of a model, the only way to maintain a record is to take a snapshot. Certain things are still in design or still in the conceptualization stage. Other things have already gone into production. At a glance, it is quite hard to work out which processes are at a particular stage. The overview is very flat. Having some form of a hierarchy in terms of approvals or a sort of ranking would be good. This could show whether a process has been deployed or not, or if it is still just a conceptual model. Some sort of formal approval process that defines a released version of your models could be incorporated into the workflow approval process to help visualize what stage a process is in.
Most of our customers and myself would expect that the next complementary step for this platform would be to offer easily customizable content governance. Mini workflows provided out of the box should be open to be easily adapted by customers. There could also be improvements to the automation part which some new -with the BPM practice- customers find a bit overwhelming. Other vendors are promoting that they have diagrams automated within the same platform. For this to happen with ARIS there is an extra step required to export these diagrams in the webmethods platform, which can be overwhelming for customers because web methods is a very huge though very powerful automation engine and they hesitate to deal with it. It's clear that there are different skills required for mapping compared to those required for automation. In an ideal world, you'd have a mixed team working in automation projects. It would be nice to offer them just one tool for satisfying these two different audiences.
Integration with third-party tools should be improved (e.g. based on APIs).
With ARIS BPM, the script creation is quite cumbersome. With version ten, the typed ones were quite extensive where we needed our developers to do scripting. If they can improve on that so that we just outline analytics and then produce the required scripts, that would be ideal. I've not fully looked at ARIS BPM because we are only now evaluating the management of business processes. We've been more focused on AP, so we are seeing less to be utilized as for BPM capability. We've been planning that late for our part. There's currently an issue where we don't have people in direct communication, even with the reviewing models, using ARIS BPM. Another issue that they could improve in their functionality is the guidance, i.e. if they look at the processes that you have running or not. They will clear you in the interim going into business system areas, highlighting the information that you need the script to support. ARIS BPM generates functions according to need and creating the script from the start could be improved likw having those functionalities as part of the system.
I would like to see a simpler process for integrating with other tools. When we tried to integrate ARIS with other external tools, it was not easy. I would like to see the reporting aspects improved.
What do you like most about ARIS BPA?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with the community!