IBM Blueworks Live Reviews

The primary use case is process discovery and modeling prior to process deployment using the IBM Business Process Manager (BPMS) solution. It includes the capture and management of process governance roles against processes such as process owners. This was in a publicly funded emergency services organisation.

It raised the process maturity of the organisation from a low level to a reasonable degree of awareness and introduced some process language and conventions to the organisation. The SaaS solution was quick to set up and use.

The solution is quite easy and visual to use for stakeholder collaboration such as during workshops.

It did improve process maturity and floated the idea of the process governance roles but the organisation lost interest and found new tools (toys) to play with.

Along with the IBM BPM solution, the costs escalated too much and were unsustainable for a relatively small organisation.

The most valuable feature is the support for BPMN 2.0 because it is an industry standard.

Blueworks is easy to use.  If you want a very simple quick and easy solution for fairly simple workflows, this is a good choice.

I believe that the APQC cross-industry process hierarchy and some linear single role workflows can be imported.

It has a built-in capability to capture process owners and managers against processes along with other process governance roles. The 'milestone' models are quite good for discovering architecture and then moving into workflow modeling.

The models produced are not sufficient to be imported and used by IBM Business Process Manager - the developers will need to use the IBM BPM modelling functionality to design processes.

The user interface is quite easy at first but process analysts soon run into roadblocks of limited functionality, which is disappointing.  For example, anything but a fairly simple 'happy path' workflow soon becomes tangled with the process flow lines being routed automatically and looking messy and off-putting for stakeholders.  In the version I used (I'm not sure if this is different now), a modeller cannot move any of the model components and re-route the flows; this can be mitigate by using the 'milestone' functionality which enables you to 'stage' a workflow - but this has limited effectiveness and also has the side effect of introducing artificial stages into the 'milestone' view of the model.

The workflow management functionality is so basic it was almost pointless. I was looking for some functionality and realised there isn't any - it is just a list of tasks which get sent as emails to users.  Again, very simple 'happy path' workflow.  If that is all you need, then this produce is fine but there are other similarly-priced solutions that have more extensive user forms, document and email generation etc. that can be configured closer to a full SaaS application.

IBM had an alternative product that was more comprehensive in its functionality but this was discontinued.

I have used Blueworks Live for 24 months, with 12 months in each of two different organisations.

Very stable.

We had a few performance issues occasionally that frustrated the team.

Not too bad.

I've used this in two organisations between 2012 and 2017 - the functionality didn't seem to have changed much from my perception as an end user.

Very easy browser-based, cloud-hosted SaaS solution - the way most solutions are heading.

In the first instance, direct with IBM; in the second instance, via a reseller.

It's fairly cheap and scalable for simple process discovery applications.  It is easy to use.  There are more comprehensive solutions at a similar price.  Beware that there is a minimum contract period and some fixed annual costs.  With a larger number of users, it would like make sense to switch to a proper BPMS such as Appian (although I've not used Appian).

Not really, it was recommended by IBM as part of the IBM BPM package.  Other solutions (Hitachi) were evaluated against this but I was not part of that process.

Unless you really want a simple solution for process discovery only and value simplicity over the ability to exploit more functionality, I see Signavio as a much better option.  Of course, IBM may develop Blueworks.

We primarily use the solution for process discovery, from end to end.

The mega process maps are very easy to use. You can do standard things like indicating which applications to use or to look at different pieces of information that are linked to the process. This helps with polices, etc.

The solution is a very basic discovery product so it doesn't have that much modeling capability. This can be improved.  

The solution needs to be seamlessly integrated with downstream automation.

The solution is stable. All the refreshes run very well.

The solution is scalable. It can work for companies that have 50,000 or 200,000 users and can be managed quite well.

Technical support rolled out according to the licensing scheme. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The solution offers up a lot of documentation that helps with the process. Deployment takes about one month.

The licensing costs are based on the number of users. There are editor licenses and UA licenses.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd advise users that they need to look at how relevant the discovery process is, and how quickly you can maintain it or its life cycle as things change. They should also note how it interfaces with other platforms that are integrated into their automation robotics. It's important users know what they are doing and what problems the solution will solve for them.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It's a competitive field, so there's always somebody who's better in some aspects.

Discovery workshops and collaborative sessions with customers.

Very collaborative, and business users understand it really well, which means we can then help them automate their business processes.

We don't use the document repository.

In terms of utilizing the collaboration features, really we use everything. We use it for creating the as-is and the to-be business process model; for activities, decisions, documentation.

We are you using the product as a process mapping tool and as part of a larger process improvement project. We use it with IBM BPM and IBM ODM. We get an automated workflow solution for our customers, an improved workflow automation. We're helping our business.

I think it's pretty good. I can't think of any additional features it needs.

Stability is pretty good. It has never broken on me. I've been able to do my job.

Scalability is pretty good. 

Pretty good, pretty responsive.

Pretty straightforward.

I rate it a nine out of 10 because it does the work.

I've recommended Blueworks Live to many people, for collaboration.

It was for business process, modeling and analytics, and it performed really well.

It has improved the way the organization functions. We were using it for design and modeling purposes. We didn't actually follow through with the tool into an operational process. So it was very much a discrete workshop-based activity.

We didn't use the document repository, at least, not extensively. We used it as a mapping tool.

• Real-time modeling and design work
• The ability to perform workshops with clients in real-time with the tool
• Getting instant output

In terms of the collaboration features, from the point of discovery, it was useful to go to load up the policies and the rule sets that the client had. And in terms of exploring options and being able to model a variety of different processes, that was incredibly useful as well.

Building out my first process model took quite a while, because I hadn't done it before. But the teething problems were very limited and very short-lived. Within 24 - 48 hours, we were pretty much in full flight.

As for process version control issues, that wasn't something we were particularly suffering from.

We didn't really explore the opportunities for process execution. So moving from the modeling to the process orchestration, it wasn't very clear how we would do that from a BPM perspective, and then into the larger tool set perspective. But I can't talk with authority on it. We just never actually got there.

Some of the import functionality was a bit restrictive, in terms of loading data in from other data sources. Something as simple as Excel, loading data tables from Excel, wasn't great. And vice-versa. Some of the export and import functionality with something like Visio - which, I know it's a slightly different tool - but being able to work seamlessly with those other tool sets would've been quite useful. I know it was something that was in the pipeline to be looked at. So that would be useful.

Really stable. We didn't have any stability issues at all.

I don't know about this actually. We didn't experience any problems with it, but we didn't use it at scale. It was fairly localized. I wouldn't have any concerns with using it at scale though.

We didn't use technical support.

We were using a previous solution, it was called "paper and ink." So we needed to something slightly more, well, less 19th-century and slightly more 21st-century.

When selecting a vendor, what's important is a vendor that understands and is able to provide a clear solution for the problem that's in front of us. In this particular instance, it was an answer to a question we didn't even know we were asking. We had what we thought was our set of requirements, and then we found we actually had a different set. Meaning, we had that first set of requirements and then some others. We were able to not just take one step but take several steps at once. So, having a vendor that understands the problem and is able to deliver the answer is important.

Straightforward. It was just really intuitive. It's not a particularly complicated tool to set up. There are fairly limited configuration requirements. It was reasonably straightforward.

We really only evaluated IBM in this particular scenario.

For what it did, for what we used it for, it was relatively complete.