It's challenging to pinpoint which specific Flowable feature has improved our process efficiency, as we're still in the development phase and learning from mistakes. However, we rely on the process engine to fulfill our requirements and expect it to meet our needs. Currently, we're working on the on-prem version. However, we're now in negotiations with two customers who are government organizations. Government restrictions on cloud usage can be quite stringent, which is another reason we're cautious about moving to a cloud-based solution. As I mentioned, we needed a workflow solution that allowed us to deploy on-premises and within our cloud computing environments, which our public sector customers are comfortable with. Some government organizations have very restricted deployment requirements for the cloud. I rate it a seven out of ten. My advice would be to consider using the REST API approach for integration with Flowable. Additionally, the Flowable open-source components can be challenging due to lacking a process engine, forms designer, and tools for tasks like user group membership management. While the database structure of Flowable is similar to Activiti, there are some differences to navigate. We've found that certain tools from Activiti are not fully integrated into Flowable open source, even though Flowable is largely derived from Activiti open source. It seems that Flowable's decision to prioritize its cloud environment and no-code offerings may explain why certain components are not readily available in the open-source version. While this strategy may work well for some users, it challenges businesses like ours. The lack of these basic components in the Flowable open source can be a significant drawback. We want these components included in the product to meet our needs better. Otherwise, we might find that Flowable open source doesn't offer much beyond basic Activiti functionality, which could be a concern for us. Ultimately, we've chosen Flowable over Activiti because Flowable open source supports OSGI bindings, whereas Activiti 7 does not. If Activiti 7 had OSGI support, we might not have opted for Flowable open source.
Process Automation streamlines business operations by using technology to execute recurring tasks or processes with minimal human intervention. This transformation enhances efficiency and can apply to many areas, including manufacturing, information technology, and service management.It encompasses the use of software solutions to automate repetitive tasks, improve accuracy, and reduce operational costs. Often integrated within an organization's existing systems, Process Automation solutions...
It's challenging to pinpoint which specific Flowable feature has improved our process efficiency, as we're still in the development phase and learning from mistakes. However, we rely on the process engine to fulfill our requirements and expect it to meet our needs. Currently, we're working on the on-prem version. However, we're now in negotiations with two customers who are government organizations. Government restrictions on cloud usage can be quite stringent, which is another reason we're cautious about moving to a cloud-based solution. As I mentioned, we needed a workflow solution that allowed us to deploy on-premises and within our cloud computing environments, which our public sector customers are comfortable with. Some government organizations have very restricted deployment requirements for the cloud. I rate it a seven out of ten. My advice would be to consider using the REST API approach for integration with Flowable. Additionally, the Flowable open-source components can be challenging due to lacking a process engine, forms designer, and tools for tasks like user group membership management. While the database structure of Flowable is similar to Activiti, there are some differences to navigate. We've found that certain tools from Activiti are not fully integrated into Flowable open source, even though Flowable is largely derived from Activiti open source. It seems that Flowable's decision to prioritize its cloud environment and no-code offerings may explain why certain components are not readily available in the open-source version. While this strategy may work well for some users, it challenges businesses like ours. The lack of these basic components in the Flowable open source can be a significant drawback. We want these components included in the product to meet our needs better. Otherwise, we might find that Flowable open source doesn't offer much beyond basic Activiti functionality, which could be a concern for us. Ultimately, we've chosen Flowable over Activiti because Flowable open source supports OSGI bindings, whereas Activiti 7 does not. If Activiti 7 had OSGI support, we might not have opted for Flowable open source.