We're primarily using the solution for workflows, mostly. We are a telco-based company, however, most of our use cases are kind of in a workflow format. We're trying to workflow things across other systems.
The installation was straightforward.
For us, we had the challenge whereby the training was not done properly through a sales partner. The BPM has a partner to deliver, and with our local partner, the training was not properly done, so we were not very comfortable. We never got to a comfort level with the product. We ended up not using it that much. There were missing modules within it. For example, the document management part was missing and we failed to integrate it into our SharePoint. In the end, there was no uptake for the processes that we had put in through it.
The solution as a whole should be simplified due to the fact that it has so many paths. It's difficult for a customer, when you are onboarding this system, to understand all the parts that you have to put together.
What you buy depends on what you know about it. For example, if it's supposed to then have BlueX and a separate document management platform like FileNet, and a process server and a processing center, decision center, you kind of have to put these things together. And yet, you don't know them due to the fact that you are not an IBM expert. It's not like you can say, "Look, I want in a BPM solution." And then it just comes with everything together.
They should incorporate an API gateway functionality within it to simplify integrations. One of the key issues with IBM, BPM is the integration part. It is not very flexible with integration. For an automation platform, you really need easy integration. If I am going into SharePoint, if I'm going into ERP, those are some of the key things that you have to integrate into. We were doing point-to-point integrations. Within the system, the API gateway and the integration management should be part of the solution.
I've probably been using the solution for two years at this point.
The stability was likely okay. For us, we had issues, however, I don't think it's the platform, which caused the problem. It was likely the expertise in terms of the actual deployment.
The company licensed at the PVU level and the scalability is a bit complex. You can't really tie it to the processes that you are putting in. You always have to monitor at a system or hardware level, the impact that you're putting on it - the more you customize and add things on it. It's a bit difficult to know when to scale up or down.
Originally, we wanted it to be used by at least 1,000 plus users, with the potential, depending on the process that you've put in, of more. We would've wanted to end up hosting process automation for processes to be used across 5,000 plus users, potentially. Unfortunately, we didn't get the adoption rate we were looking for.
Technical support was okay. We didn't really have any issues with their level of assistance.
We didn't previously use a different solution. It was mostly just acquired Shadow IT.
While the installation of the solution itself was straightforward, the customization wasn't straightforward for us. It was too complex, and the training we received did not help us understand the solution. We needed to be experts and we weren't.
We used a consultant to assist us with the process. We did not handle the entire process in-house.
The licensing is a bit expensive for a main process automation platform. Maybe it's because of our background, however, we found it to be a bit pricey.
We were just end-users and customers of IBM.
It's hard to rate the solution as we didn't really get to use it. I would likely rate it at a seven out of ten - if it was installed correctly.
If I learned anything from the experience, it's the importance of proper training. A company really should get proper IBM training to understand the product first, before committing to purchasing and implementing it.