Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with ARIS BPM.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
Its governance tool and integration with ESB and execution engine can be improved. Their partner support can also be improved.
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.
It takes a long time for a new user to start working with ARIS, so perhaps it could be more user-friendly in terms of the complicated construction conventions that it uses. Making it more customizable and easy to learn would be a benefit. In the age of artificial intelligence, the system should make suggestions as to what to do, and how to do it, rather than depending on the book or relying on the trainer to figure out how to get started.
One of the biggest challenges is to realistically enable the defined structures of the processes that you have in ARIS documented, and then actually implement them in the business. If you could see the way those structures and processes are not used then you could identify the bottlenecks that are the real issues and make the necessary changes. But, instead, there is a discrepancy between all of these group processes and all of the documentation that has been in ARIS. When you are going through the business, it's like "Oh, we did like this...How can you ensure that those processes are actually really followed within your business?" How that is possible, I do not know. From our automation perspective, I think it will be easier because then you can link your EPS or whatever you want or two levels down to your actual application. This application is automated and then you can know "Oh, this piece of code is doing that task always like that." And, that would be great to be able to manage real process and code, as well as everything from ARIS. All of that information is difficult to implement and enforce. In terms of room for improvement, it may be nice to give access to whatever information in ARIS for a non-process kind of person. And, if you do not understand the basic labels, then there should be training for those people. Perhaps provide simple graphics to help those training sessions.
* ARIS Connect capability: Ability to switch from a vertical step view to a horizontal. * Displaying role allocation matrix models in ARIS Connect.
Areas for improvement include sales, prospecting, shopping, customer service, after-sales (claims and advice for the client), and all processes pertaining to customer loyalty.
Training is one of the important aspects for process awareness. As soon as a process is rolled out, process training is required. If ARIS could generate output in PowerPoint, it would be great for business users. Simplify Cloud offerings
I have been talking with developers for many years, and it was before using your UML class diagram and those things for defining data. One of the issues is, when you are defining databases, the way they use entities and relationship diagrams, the way we can define data, like data models, there is still a part they could improve. By using the UML part, you would use that instead of the old fashioned way of an entity and relationships diagram. But there they have a still point where they could improve.
What do you like most about ARIS BPA?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with the community!