ARIS BPA Reviews

I am part of an IT service organization and working in capacity of Advisory Consultant where various customers seek advice for Business Process Analysis. The primary use case is Business Architecture Modeling, however, I've suggested ARIS BPA as an upstream to many implementations. 

I have used ARIS Architect, Designer, and ARIS Connect for various other models to complete overall Enterprise Architecture Modeling be it Applications Models, Information/Data Models or Technology/Infrastructure Models. 

ARIS-Solman Integration is another useful use case when it comes to ARIS BPA.

ARIS BPA supports various model types for business processes, customer journeys, organizational charts, applications, information, and technology views along with product and service views. It brings transparency and 360-degree views of end-to-end processes. 

Also, it avoids needing heavy documentation to maintain attributes/properties of processes, organization units, roles, positions, applications, systems, data clusters, and products and services. This list is still not comprehensive. We can easily customize attributes based on our needs and keep the information up to date. This is another important benefit that ARIS BPA has bought.

ARIS BPA provides a variety of features, however, the feature to look at the same model from a different perspective is amazing. We can show the information/view which is relevant to specific stakeholders. This also helps to avoid creating multiple views of the same model and saves a lot of time. 

Also, creating various queries, ad-hoc queries, and reports (what you see what you get) helped us in analyzing the information which is captured on these ARIS models and helped with rapid impact analysis for our application and role rationalization project.

Simulation is one area that is a bit complex. Nowadays, we are talking of digital twins. We should have simulation functionality offered in a simple way and promote process twin. Also, dashboarding is another important area where some other BI tools provide very aesthetic looks to different dashboards (e.g. PowerBI) - although ARIS Process Mining can bring us that. 

In ARIS BPA, if we are providing a dashboarding feature, aesthetics could be improved and dashboard templates can be added for easy and quick consumption.

I've used the solution for more than ten years.

This can be easily scaled. They have 3 editions that start with a Basic, Advanced and an Enterprise edition. Basic provides all essential features like modeling, sharing and optimization. Advanced will give comprehensive features, provides full flexibility of method and access control. Enterprise addition is complete stack, provides full configurability and integration capabilities.

Customer service and support are flexible and help to guide you through simple queries. If you are implementing the first time, they can assist. For complex implementations, you can always count on them to meet your needs.

Positive

I have used various other solutions as well. However, ARIS BPA provides 200+ model types that give me the flexibility to use different models depending on the context.

The initial setup was not that complex; we could manage it with an installation guide. ARIS Connect is plug-and-play. It is a SaaS offering.

We have implemented everything in-house.

ARIS BPA provides complete suites when it comes to the discovery, design, and analysis phases of implementation. Therefore, the cost it has is just not for modeling. The licensing models are very innovative. You can go with whatever it suits to your organization. The environment starts with basic and moves on to advanced and up to an enterprise-level offering.

I have evaluated multiple other options before selecting ARIS BPA, however, I would prefer not to disclose the product names.

Our customers have generators on their facilities, and we manage those generators to provide services to the grid and reduce their costs. It involves peak shaving and that sort of stuff. We use ARIS BPM to essentially automate the communication to the grid and the generator and then update all of the account information regarding those transactions.

The ease of use is the most valuable. I have tried a number of BPMN packages, and I find the user interface of ARIS BPM easier and more intuitive than others. If your team is knowledgeable on BPMN, it is really pretty easy to figure out on your own because it adheres to the standards extremely well. I have tried Bizagi, BizFlow, and a variety of such solutions, and I just liked ARIS BPM better.

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.

I have been using ARIS BPM off and on for six months.

I would not comment on this because we use it primarily just for the business process modeling and not the automation. So, I really can't comment on scaling. We have four users who are using this solution.

We never contacted them. Its user interface is good and pretty intuitive. 

The initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented it through an in-house team.

I would recommend ARIS BPM depending upon the use case. I would generally recommend Vtenext first. I found Vtenext on GitHub as I was looking through and trying out lots of BPMN and BPA stuff. I used their product, and it is a really good product. We've now partnered with them.

I would rate ARIS BPM an eight out of ten.

We use the platform for document automation and capture all the processes.

ARIS BPA has valuable reporting capabilities.

ARIS BPA's scripting language takes work to understand. Even a JavaScript developer has to learn the language to write the script. This particular area needs to be easier to understand.

The user interface could be more intuitive and better designed. There is a lot of unused space in the interface, which could be utilized. Additionally, the color needs to be changed to make it more user-friendly.

We have been using ARIS BPA for five to six months overall.

The product crashes sometimes. They could provide clearer documentation detailing the right GDPR releases for installation on laptops or desktops. This documentation should not just state a generic version like "JDK 11" but provide specific details, such as recommending a certified or tested JDK version like "GE 11.0.19. Given the frequent updates in JDK releases—such as those from Oracle and Java, occurring nearly every week—it becomes essential to specify the precise compatible version and any performance implications between 32-bit and 64-bit architectures. Additionally, aligning the development environment (potentially using JDK 17) with the executable's certification (such as JDK 11.0.19) is crucial for consistency and stability when users download and use the solution.

We have 20 ARIS BPA licenses in our organization. It is a nice software. I rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

We are also using an open-source VPN solution.

The initial setup is easy. We have deployed it on-premise and in the cloud. We are a large organization requiring an IT team to manage the installation. I rate the process a nine out of ten.

The product is inexpensive.

ARIS BPA's facilitate the visualization of change management during the development phase. We can extract the factory report directly. It is quite encouraging for the users. It has been in the best leadership position in Gartner since 2023.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

We are modeling different processes and documenting all of them using the solution.

It's a really nice and user-friendly tool, and we can extract different reports from it. We have had different processes modeling and everything done with the solution. With the solution, we were using it for documenting, and then now we are updating all of these. So it's been great software for everyone.

We would have appreciated it if the company who has sold the software could show us how we can create our own reports, apart from showing us how to extract different SOPs and run our own scripts. So that would have been helpful for us.

An area where it lacks and can be considered for improvement in the future is if we can somehow automate or learn how we can automate different processes. So, it's like The processes in which we initiate a request, and we can follow where the request is and how the workflow management is being done in different software. So if you can somehow learn how we can do it, it will be great.

I have been using ARIS BPA for two years. I am a user of the solution. I don't remember the version.

It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten.

My designers are very few in number, but there are a lot of users. Also, we have a lot of viewers. We have around 10 designers and more than 2,000 viewers. We frequently use the solution in our company.

The support for the solution is good. I rate the support a ten out of ten.

Positive

Previously, I used Microsoft Visio for process mapping.

The solution is easy to install. It wasn't hours but maybe days to do the deployment, but it was done swiftly. It wasn't an issue.

I don't remember how many days it took to deploy. But currently, we have multiple designer licenses. So now the deployment doesn't take long. We can use it. Also, I wasn't involved in the installation process.

If we get stuck with the installation part, we request the provider company to let us know how to proceed.

I can't speak about pricing because I was not involved during the installation days.

It's a great system for viewing, modeling, and everything, extracting different kinds of reports. So the only thing is that the users must understand how different reports can be extracted. What are the different attributes or the fields, what is their purpose, and learn how analysis can be done. So we need to do the aforementioned things, and overall it is great software.

On a scale from one to ten, one is worse, and ten is the best, I rate the overall solution a ten.

We use the solution to collect information, design, publish, and validate the process. We can implement the process according to the improvements that can be retrieved. We monitor the process before the four phases of discovery, design, publishing, and implementation.

BPA is used to represent reality. We need to find and implement potential improvements from a workshop presentation and then monitor the results. We are not implementing these tools to plan and organize artifacts. This tool covers everything except implementation because that is not the purpose of a BPA tool. However, this tool can interface with implementation tools, and after implementation, you can use APIs and other interfaces to get information back from reality. In terms of improvement, the app could use some small details and functionalities. However, I need more time to sync to get more specific suggestions. We already have interfaces for these four tools, and it is possible to develop interfaces for the other four tools. 

Inside the product, we can have a developer environment where we can create new scripts using APIs or STPI. This is the environment that we use to help interface the tools. In the past, we had many packages of interfaces. The suppliers of the provider preferred to have these package interfaces. We like to open the code, at least part of the code, with APIs and other things like this so that the consultants can create the interfaces with the specific tools. We use APIs and other search tools for this.

I have been using ARIS BPA for more than 30 years.

The technical support is good.

Positive

The product is expensive. People who don't understand BPA or only understand a little bit about it often compare tools with videos and things like this, which are not comparable. They may have a lot of models and artifacts, but nothing is aligned or consistent. Customers prefer to start with fizzes and things like this, and later on, they come back and prefer to use a more professional tool.

The solution is not easy to use. People at the operational level don't have the abstraction level needed for this proposal. When they get information from business people, they immediately decide on the other model. They come with additional information from other business departments and do the same. To do things properly, you need to think about a proper structure based on components. Then, when you get new information from previous areas, for example, IT, you should frame this further information or these recent changes in the structure you previously found. Otherwise, you're constantly reacting, doing a lot of ad hoc models. You'll have a lot of content without alignment, sense, or semantics. 

The first step is to contact the customer. The next step is to present the customer with some proposals because when you present the proposal to them, they may accept or reject it. If they leave it, what will you do? This flexibility allows you to generate different views of the process for different stakeholders. For example, someone in top management might want to see a view from the customer contact until the proposal. Another person might want to see everything. You can take all of the components that you have designed before and create a specific view for them. It’s only about how to design business processes. It depends on the other two. One of the primary and critical requirements is to create business processes based on specific components that are well-linked and aligned together, in order to avoid ad hoc models. Ad hoc models are not very good. They do not work in the future. Usually, people start doing this because it is easier. This is closer to how ordinary people think. 

Still, in the middle and long term, you will realize that it is not manageable because you have to prepare models, a visualization of things, and different models of the same reality. You will not know what the source of truth is at a certain point in time because you have many different presentations of the same fact. For me, this structure is crucial. This is where it should start: defining the system, how you will model it, and the methodology. What are the pros and cons of the method? How will you capture, model, validate, implement, and monitor the information? You must define this beforehand, at the beginning of any project. Otherwise, forget about it, regardless of your tool, because it is more about the concepts. If you don't have the right concepts, then forget about it. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I work at a beverage manufacturer. We use ARIS BPA to design and publish our core processes.

ARIS BPM has helped us speed up our business process transformation by centralizing everything instead of everyone working within a silo. I can't say precisely, but if I had to take a wild guess, I would say that it has sped up our transformation by about 10 to 15 percent. At the moment, it hasn't saved us much time. It has the potential to save us time in the future by giving us a firmer basis to work from. However, we're not saving time on analysis at this stage. ARIS provided a solid basis for our company to manage its assets and by that, I mean its processes. It also helps our customers to have a Single Source of Truth for processes and related information.

The two most valuable aspects of ARIS BPA are the shared common repository and the whole governance cycle. The shared repository allows for cross-functional cooperation instead of doing things in a silo. You can operate cross-functionally and really work end-to-end, instead of dividing everything up on a functional basis. The governance element is important because functions can be managed in a controlled manner. There is a stacked database, and we can move things in a controlled manner from the development environment to the publication environment.

The standard out-of-the-box solutions for modeling are not so good. You have to do some configuration to make it easier and more user-friendly. There are a lot of options, so that can get confusing, but if you filter some things out, then it's easier to use. After you customize it, the end-user has an easy toolset to work from. Another feature I would like to see is the complete visualization of the connect portal.

I've been using it since around 2018, but I think my company has been using it longer.

ARIS is scalable but costly. You can start small and grow the solution over time, but you have to demonstrate the benefits to the leadership before scaling up. Otherwise, it's a one-off, and we aren't looking for a one-off. We're looking for sustainable solutions. Therefore, it's important for us to start small, show the benefits, and then expand.

I would rate Software AG's support six out of 10. It depends on who is providing the support. If you are dealing with support engineers in the Netherlands, it's okay. However, if they refer you to a shared service center, they usually don't know enough to give you proper support. 

Neutral

We purchased the license for ARIS a long time ago, but the central team was dismantled. We revived it back in 2018. Deployment wasn't too easy. We didn't have a maturity roadmap in place, so we were building it step by step. I wasn't able to see the end state or the steps we needed to go through to grow more mature. I'm not blaming Software AG for that. That's just how it went. The deployment process wasn't intuitive or transparent in terms of the next steps we should take. It was also complicated by the fact that our needs as a customer changed from month to month and year to year.

ARIS is quite expensive.

I've previously used QPR. I would say the advantage of ARIS is that it offers more possibilities, but it's also a more complex and costly solution. 

I rate ARIS BPM six out of 10. 

We use BPMN for process design. We check our processes. There is the start event, then there are the tasks and steps as well as risks on the steps and controls. In the end, there is a result event of the process. There is a hierarchy model through the processes themselves to locate, classify, and build a whole tree off of the complete process design. So, we try to get the complete process model in all the layers. It is not only about flow diagrams. You also need the hierarchy system in the process design to get an idea of which business area it is, which products we handle there, etc. This is to get some kind of a systematic approach to a wide area of the complete company, e.g., which services are delivered from whom and how it is organized.

We separated the fields. We had some kind of internal control system, which was one use case for us. We had risk management and how to get a picture up of the actual risk evaluation. We had the policy management separated. We started process management. This is all integrated on the technical side and the tools' side. We tried to get the different solutions out of the one system to see them as different solutions with different responsible people with different roles behind them. 

It fits all together, so there are no completely loose ends, where there is one philosophy and one architecture behind it. We managed to get it a little bit separated, but it has good connection process management, internal control systems, and a risk system. It is very well-integrated.

We are using Connect and ARCM. ARCM is the ARIS governance, risk, and compliance module to do workflow-orientated stuff, e.g., how much is your risk.

Another use case is value chain processes. These are in a hierarchy built up through the company and our business use cases since we have export and capital market services. At the bottom, we decided to use only a business process model notation (BPMN), which made it possible for us to integrate on this flow chart. This integrates risks and controls directly on a flow chart, making it easier for non-super process experts to get an idea of the steps, controls, and risk as well as how this all fits together to get a good overview at the starting point when working with these processes.

In normal, day-to-day business, when a process is drawn, our expert team can review the processes, risks, and controls. They can do that completely themselves on a technical level. There is a review step from the process expert to her/his boss, then it is approved and published. After that, we use the risk evaluation and control execution using ARCM Risk and Compliance Manager, where they can do everything with the risk, e.g., how much is our risk? How much is the risk now? They evaluate that and do a controlled execution. We use the ARIS APG programming to get the approval and publication processes. 

Now, we have a fully automatic-supported risk evaluation each quarter. I only need to take the results and put them together for the board's report. That is a big improvement. 

The implementation of the completely decentralized process management, meaning that business departments can simply document their processes and flowcharts to improve their businesses, is now in one system. They have a list of business applications that are used within the process documentation, where there is one list of organizational departments interacting within this process. It has everything that we normally would want to have if we use an integrated process management system that works fine. Therefore, we have possibilities that we did not have before. 

If you ever tried to draw a picture in a browser app or with a cloud service, it is normally a painful death. ARIS works perfectly on diagrams in the browser, so I was excited. I like it because there have been so many bad experiences in the past with drawing or doing something in a browser. Normally, it's always painful because it's coded badly. With ARIS, it is really well-implemented. It's simple. 

We only get emails if something went wrong or the semantic checks are integrated, which means you can't publish it. If there is the smallest mistake in it, then you can't publish it at all. It is only allowed to get the symbols which are permitted. Therefore, everything is perfect on the technical side, and on the control side, no mistakes are published. You can check the deep semantic process. For example, if it does not make sense, but it is formally correct. If it's correct on the technical side, but it does not make sense when you have to read it. That is the human interaction that you need. However, what is technically possible is implemented to get good results.

I had this decentralization mission where I had some friendly fights with the consultants of Software AG. My opinion was the business department should be able to publish their processes and do all their evaluation stuff in ARCM themselves. It has to be a one stop shop. I want a one stop shop to go from ARIS BPM to ARIS ARCM, because having everything go through that would be an improvement due to the inputs that we made with Software AG. They will make it possible that the trigger sent from BPM to ARCM will start their object generation. Although, they did something in SR 16 for our business needs, and that was great.

The process needs to be straight-through. This means, if the process experts say, "Okay, I'm finished. I sent the process to my boss," and the boss says, "Okay, it's great. The documentation is right," and they can give approval. Then, the process experts can click on it, and five minutes later, they will get the risk for the evaluation. After that, the process expert says, "Okay, it has this and those risks. We could lose this amount." So, they send it again for approval back to the boss. The boss reviews whether the risk evaluation is right, then it is approved. Finally, it is finished in one hour (in a best case scenario). The yearly process documentation can then be completed without the action of any central process management board. 

We have been using it since Autumn 2020, which is about a full year now.

It is a stable product. 

We did one upgrade throughout the project. Now, we want to wait until the end of the year for SR16.

There is almost zero maintenance to maintain its design from a central process management or risk management team standpoint. Decentralized business departments can do their jobs all by themselves. Sometimes, there are questions, like, "Can you help me? I'm lost. What am I doing here?" For example, if you have new bosses in new jobs, then they do not know what to do. 

In 2020, we did a lot of presentations, videos, and training. They had to do these on the training systems to evaluate risks and processes. We knew if they did not do it themselves, then they would learn nothing. If they did it themselves, then it was possible to learn to work with new tools. So, the normal maintenance should be really low. 

We have a concurrent license system. We have about 80 persons in-house decentralized in all the business departments who received their training. We have a lot of information, material, and how-to videos to ultimately support them so they can do the processes themselves. It is completely decentralized. Once finished, they can send it to their boss to approve it, then it is published. We have a central expert team in process management, who cares about how ARIS should be used.

Because we use it within a concurrent license system, everyone within the group can read the publications of errors and do risk evaluation at the same time. We now have 15 to 30 people (out of 500) who can use it at the same time. 

The help desk of Software AG is great. We had some problems. This happens in projects, where you do something stupid, then it does not fit together. The data is not useful. You try to do some test cases and put something in the system to determine how it works. The support was always really professional. The software developers and help desk did a really good job. I am really a fan of Software AG because they are a very competent business partner.

Positive

Before, we used Casewise from London for centralized process management. That was our old tool, which wasn't bad, but it was only for three heads in the central team. It limited us completely. Then, they were bought by erwin in New York, and erwin is on the data governance side. Casewise was now a small part of a big company and wasn't being developed or improved as ARIS is. Therefore, it was quickly clear to us that we would go with ARIS.

We started with the idea at our company in February 2019. We got in contact with Software AG around June 2019 to do some kind of proof of concept, learn about the design, the idea, and philosophy, e.g., how to solve such problems and how to get process management within a fully integrated tool. 

Before, we had Excel lists and some types of Visio diagrams, which were put together based on the process description. That wasn't okay. We always had to do it on a central basis, take the documentation, work it through and give it back.

This solution was really an improvement on the efficiency of our process management, documentation for end-to-end development, business processes, and business departments, who complete freedom and empowerment to do it themselves. That was a big improvement.

Luckily, we had Software AG implement the ARIS Connect platform, the web-based platform, with this broad possibility to use it in a concurrent way. In 2017, that was what we wanted. We wanted the system to be used by the business experts and leaders in the business units in a decentralized manner. 

When you start the solution, you eliminate every useless variant that you do not need, then it is really simple. At the starting point, you need to learn how the philosophy of the solution works. You need to deal with the solution as if you are taking a normal car through the woods. You can't normally. You have to think, "Okay, what is it built for? How is this model designed?" You then need to get in contact with the design and philosophy. After that, you can do a good job. It is a big mistake to say, "No, they have to code everything around our old company stuff because we always did it that way. So, we need to stay with the old way." Then, you are lost and will never have any kind of success. 

At the start of the project, we set up some testing and development implementation. It took us one to two weeks for our IT and Software AG's IT to get it up and running. Before we were productive, we had to edit the publication database as well as all the backups, restore processes, and all that stuff in a production environment. We also had to put brain power in it. That was for part one and two of the processes (installation and implementation), which both took one to two weeks. That was net five to 10 consultant days or IT expert days to get up this step in performance and excellence. The implementation was about two days. 

We put a lot of brain power and personnel power into the project. We also had consultants who supported us very well through the coronavirus pandemic. Therefore, we had the chance to implement it quickly.

Go with a consultant. In every solution, e.g., ARIS, there are a lot of consultants with experience over the years. Many companies bring in their experience to provide general solutions for general problems, since these problems are not individual to a company.

From the mid-2019 to Autumn of 2020, we always had support consultant days remotely or a consultant who visited us to develop the method as well as do all the processes and risk management stuff, which have to be customized.

We only worked with Software AG, who integrated the consultants, e.g., IDS software developers. They brought them to us because we needed to implement some improvements on the ARIS ARCM governance, risk, and compliance model. We did their multi-object handling, which means you can approve 20 risks with one click. So, it marks all the risks on the list as okay, pulls them through, and then they are finished, which we loved. There were also some user interface optimizations for mass objects. 

We have seen ROI. The quality has improved enormously. You do not always get faster because if you want to improve quality, then you have to sit in, think about and work with it. Therefore, you need a good tool. 

The management board really likes it because it is well-adopted by employees with no problems using it.

On our evaluation list, we also looked at Signavio Process Manager, but there were so many differences. They were millions of miles between ARIS and Signavio Process Manager. Therefore, we did not think about which tool to take. It was completely clear that we should get ARIS because it was the best solution for us.

The process could be so simple. The question for the business units is always, "Okay, let's think about this." If the process is what we brought into ARIS, then how can we make it better? They shall use their brain and time to improve and think about their business. ARIS is only a tool. They should not be focused on, "Oh, how can I work with this tool? I'm so confused." Everything should not go into the tool. They should use their brain and energy to think about their business. 

We are still developing our process management method. We are still using it, but we are also improving it to get it more integrated, have more detail, and have process management be more connected with our internal control system. 

It was hard to do process management on a yearly cycle on an annual basis. It was helpful for us to have ARIS as a tool for this, but we also learned that it is a really complex job to do process management through the year on such a high quality level. You have to think about a lot of questions. These are all processes approved every year. All the stuff seen is, "Okay, I have to do that, and I have to do that. I have to check that they looked it through for the first half of the year. Then, they have to do the rest in the second half of the year." All this gets operationalized. With this tool, we now had process lists that we could deal with. 

You need a clear aim to reach for and it should not be too big. You should separate it in some way. If you want to do more than one thing, then handle it as if you want to reach for aim one, two, and three. This makes it easier than doing big bang projects where you never get to an end. 

Separate your aims and focus on them. For example, we started with different starting times. In September 2020, we started risk management. In November, we then started with the internal control systems. Step by step, we are now pulling our process management up. We are still improving on the methods. 

This solution has been my baby the last three years, so I would rate it as 10 (out of 10) because I gave everything to make it the best.

We use ARIS BPA for various operations and processes.

ARIS BPA has a good directory option, which helps to keep track of all of your metadata, and that's very useful.

It would be helpful if ARIS BPA could have a simple database to get the extract of various attributes.

The solution should include a simpler database where one can select the required columns or attributes to be downloaded and various reports. Also, the report formats could be simpler.

I have been using ARIS BPA for three years.

ARIS BPA is a stable solution.

ARIS BPA is a scalable solution. We have close to 20 to 30 end users working on the solution.

The solution’s technical support is good.

Positive

SAP is better than ARIS BPA because it has some positive features.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

It is easy to maintain ARIS BPA. The solution is deployed on-cloud in our organization.

ARIS BPA is a simple-to-use solution with good cloud-based support.

Overall, I rate ARIS BPA an eight out of ten.