Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fraunhofer IESE - 2014 - Full Report - English Translation
Fraunhofer IESE - 2014 - Full Report - English Translation
IESE
Contact address:
This work and all its parts are protected by copyright. Any use beyond the strict limits of copyright law
is forbidden without the written consent of the publisher and subject to prosecution. This particularly
applies to reproduction, translation, microfilming and storage in electronic systems.
Reproduction of trademarks and trade names in this book do not justify the assumption that such
designations are to be considered free for public use within the meaning of trademark and trademark
protection law.
If this work directly or indirectly quotes or makes reference to laws, directives or guidelines (such as
DIN or VDI standards), the publisher does not guarantee their correctness, completeness or currency.
Authors
FRAUNHOFER VERLAG
About Fraunhofer IESE
Abstract vi
1 Introduction 1
2 Procedure 3
2.1 Purpose of the study 3
2.2 Test metrics 3
2.3 Assessment categories 5
2.4 Test scenarios and preliminary script 7
2.5 Selection of providers 8
2.6 Conducting the assessment 9
2.7 Evaluation 10
2.8 Possible influence factors 12
3 Providers studied 15
3.1 AgilePoint 15
3.2 agito 17
3.3 Appian 19
3.4 Appway 21
3.5 AXON IVY 23
3.6 Bizagi 25
3.7 DHC Business Solutions 27
3.8 Groiss Informatics 29
3.9 HCM CustomerManagement 31
3.10 IBM 33
3.11 Inspire Technologies 35
3.12 JobRouter 37
3.13 K2 39
3.14 Metasonic 41
3.15 Oracle Corporation 43
3.16 PROLOGICS 45
3.17 SoftProject 47
3.18 T!M Solutions 49
4 Results 51
4.1 AgilePoint 51
1 Introduction
2 Procedure
The study’s key test metrics were the BPM suites’ overall performance,
capabilities and ease of use. In addition, a confidence level was determined for
the reliability of these metrics.
In this study, each test metric was defined as follows:
Overall performance: Cumulative, weighted performance level of the BPM
suites in implementing all of the study’s requirements.
∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖 =1 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ü𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖
𝐺𝐺 =
𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖
∑𝑚𝑚
𝑗𝑗=1 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝ö𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ü𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖 = � , 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖 = 1
𝑚𝑚 ∙ 4
0, 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
Capabilities: Study requirements that can be met without access to the BPM
suite’s code. This means only delivered tools, such as standard functions or
extension options, such as report configuration, process modelling, etc.
∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖
𝑀𝑀 =
𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖
Ease of use: Overall performance of the BPM suite compared to the study’s
maximum performance benchmark. This performance must be achieved
without accessing the code. This ease of use reflects how the user perceives
the BPM suite’s quality in terms of functionality. It involves the quality
perceptions of the end user participating in a process, as well as the developer
and modeller.
∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ü𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖
𝐾𝐾 =
∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖
∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 =
𝑛𝑛
1, 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 = �
0, 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
All of the test metrics (overall performance, capabilities, ease of use and
confidence) were evaluated for all BPM suites studied, and for each BPM
suite in each individual assessment category.
When interpreting the results, overall performance of 100% is only
theoretically possible.
Such a score would require all tools for implementing all requirements to be
rated “very good” by all evaluators. This is usually impossible.
We therefore consider overall performance of 87.5% or greater to be “very
good” both within the individual assessment categories and for the BPM
suites as a whole.
MC8. Administration
User administration Management of BPM suite users
In contrast to the 2013 study, this time the assessment categories and the
individual requirements were not weighted and therefore have the same
priority. This makes it impossible to make comparisons with the 2013 study.
To ensure uniformity, a test script with 113 steps was developed based on
the requirement assessment criteria. The test script was logically
subdivided into “Executing a sample process” (39 steps), “Changing a
sample process” (25 steps) and “Other aspects” (49 steps).
In order to check the test steps in “Executing a sample process”, first a
fictional publication process was defined inside a fictional organization.
The process was then described in a preliminary script. This preliminary
script was to allow the BPM suite providers to prepare adequately for the
study. To keep things fair, all providers received the preliminary script
exactly two weeks before the study date. The fictitious publication process
involves an application by the author of a publication. The application goes
through two levels of approval and review before it can finally be submitted
to the publication.
With the exception of preparatory steps, all steps within the script
corresponded one-to-one with the underlying requirements. This allowed
direct evaluation of how well the requirements were met. That also
produced a test protocol of about the same length (see excerpt in Figure
1). The log gave every expert participating in the study a standardized way
to evaluate the various BPM suites. The scale included these evaluation
options:
Besides judging each test step on a standardized scale, experts could freely
write comments on the positive and negative aspects of each suite.
• Presentation of the company and software: this 20-minute slot called for a
short overview of the speakers, the company, the product (including its
special strengths). Also requested was information on cloud capability, the
architecture and the components used in the sample solutions shown.
The speakers were also asked about the time required to implement the
sample process, which was one-half to four person-days for all providers.
• Executing the sample process: during this two-hour slot, the providers
executed the sample process mapped out ahead of time. This involved
various theoretical users and the 39 test steps. The evaluators made a
corresponding assessment.
• Executing change scenarios: during this two-hour slot, the providers made
changes to the implemented sample process on the fly, using the 25
defined test steps. The evaluators again made an assessment.
• Presentation of other aspects: this slot lasted an hour and a half. The
providers were asked to show other aspects or functions that could not be
addressed during the two previous slots, using the 49 prepared test steps.
Here also, the evaluators made an assessment.
The timing of these slots was meticulously overseen by a moderator, who
also directed each of the test steps. For example, providers who had
executed change scenarios faster could not use the time gained for a longer
talk about the other aspects.
The evaluators were a core team made up of two scientific employees with
strong backgrounds in BPM and corresponding tools, and two practitioners
who worked with BPM. At some workshops, there were also up to three
participants from an academic field related to BPM. For all providers, at least
four people made their own independent evaluations using the defined test
protocol. At the beginning of the workshop, all evaluators were first instructed
in using the test protocol.
2.7 Evaluation
Finally, the overall performance level was calculated for each requirement,
each subcategory, each main category, and each BPM suite. Then the
capabilities, ease of use and confidence were calculated.
After the individual evaluations and all assessment workshops were finished,
all BPM suites in the study were compared to one another. German-style
school grades were calculated (such as “very good” starting with performance
of 87.5%, or “good” beginning at 62.5%). For each BPM suite, deviations in
the assessments for the main categories were analysed against the average
evaluation of the other BPM suites studied. Additionally, all products were
assigned within a coordinate system using the dimensions “Capabilities” and
“Ease of use”. Chart 3 shows the grades issued for the criteria Overall
Performance, Capabilities, Ease of Use, and Confidence.
good > 62.5% high > 80.0% high > 73.3% moderate > 70.0%
satisfactory > 37.5% moderate > 70.0% moderate > 60.0% low ≤ 70.0%
unacceptable ≥ 0.0% very low > 50.0% very low > 33.3%
The scores for overall performance largely correspond to the typical grades
given in German schools. The exception was “satisfactory”, which combines
two German grades meaning “adequate”. The two grades were combined,
because the software that earned these grades largely fulfilled its purpose,
and the distinction was not relevant in practice. The grade “very good” was
deliberately made a bit narrower so that only very impressive BPM suites
would earn this grade. The same goes for the grade “unacceptable”. This
grade was to be given only to software that truly lacked the functionality for
productive work.
The bottom limit for a program’s capabilities is set at 50%, because products
below that lacked the functionality to be regarded as real BPM suites. These
grades are equally distributed over the evaluation scale (50% to 100%).
The bottom limit for ease of use is set at 33.3%, because at lower values on
that scale, “ease of use” is no longer present. These grades are also equally
distributed over the evaluation scale (33.3% to 100%).
Confidence is broken down as follows: Confidence above 90% assumes a
correct evaluation based on results. When confidence is between 70% and
90%, however, initial doubts about the evaluation are justified, because this
only reflects moderate confidence. When confidence is 70% or below, it is no
longer possible to say how well the BPM suite will perform (low confidence).
As with any study, the results here must be interpreted against possible
influence factors. Major factors that may influence validity of results are
discussed below.
The first possible influence factor is definitely the use of a very simple
publication process as the study’s object of observation. Even though this
example allows evaluation of many of a BPM suite’s functions, this process
represents only one type of business process to be automated with a BPM in
actual practice.
Another possible influence factor is the quality of presentation at the
assessment workshops. Many BPM suite providers were represented by
technically well-versed employees with comprehensive product knowledge.
Other providers brought in employees with less technical expertise.
The speakers’ technical knowledge and their ability to react quickly to the
testing tasks they were given may have had a subliminal influence on the
results under some circumstances. This was especially possible when the
BPM suite actually had certain functionality but the speaker did not
satisfactorily show it. However, this influence is not apparent in the study
results.
In general, preparation for the assessment workshops is also a possible
influence factor. Some providers seemed less prepared than others. This
became apparent when parts of the preliminary script had not been fully
implemented. Many providers had some faulty implementations that did not
work on site. Among other things, this meant that many test steps could not
be performed or objectively evaluated. This decreased confidence in the final
results.
As for the evaluators, the learning curve should also be considered. For
example, the core team participants examined all 20 products. This means
that features that were considered impressive at the beginning may have
been ranked as “does what it’s supposed to” for providers who came later in
the study. On the other hand, learning the strengths and weaknesses of
various products could have led to providers coming near the end of the study
being evaluated more objectively. This is because evaluators could then
compare the strengths and weaknesses to other software more realistically.
However, the study results do not show a trend toward evaluating more
positively or negatively, so this influence factor seems merely theoretical.
Figure 3 shows the overall performance trend across all workshops.
There is also the risk that the more sporadic evaluators — particularly those
who took part in only a few workshops — might have given extremely positive
evaluations due to their weak knowledge of BPM suites. However, here also,
the study results do not indicate that this theoretically possible influence
actually occurred. Moreover, as in 2013, those providers receiving the best
evaluations appeared at the beginning, the middle and the end of the
workshop series.
Regarding the study results’ general validity, two important influence factors
must be considered. It first must be realized that BPM suites continuously
develop. Therefore various offerings’ strengths and weaknesses may change
over time. It should also be considered that the requirements underlying the
evaluation are just a cross-section of “typical” requirements for BPM suites.
They may not address all individual needs. Specific functionalities, such as
multi-client capability, complex event processing, adaptive case management,
document management, etc., played no role in the study. Nonetheless, many
of the BPM suites studied currently draw their market advantage from such
functionality. Therefore, the study results are no substitute for an individual
selection process.
3 Providers studied
3.1 AgilePoint
Currently, 1500 companies use AgilePoint. Its users (from small start-ups to global
players) are in a wide range of industries, such as engineering, insurance, banking,
production and services. They use AgilePoint in mission-critical processes. The
approach includes components for process modelling, process execution/participation,
and process monitoring.
• Controllable technologies
AgilePoint draws wide attention from analysts and has been described as
“...the most innovative Microsoft-based software in methods and
technology...”). More evidence can be found at agilepoint.com.
Contact:
3.2 agito
Currently, agito GmbH employs about 5 people. The company does not
publish its business figures.
• Support for multiple languages, clients and the BPMN 2.0 standard
Contact:
3.3 Appian
Appian is used by about 250 companies worldwide, with 3.5 million users. Ten of the
customers are German firms. Appian’s typical customers are from pharmaceuticals,
banking, insurance and government and use the solution as a BPM platform for a
wide range of applications. However, in the past even customers in industries such as
manufacturing, retail, consumer goods and logistics have gone with an Appian BPM
solution.
Special strengths and unique characteristics of Appian’s BPMS include the following:
• Mobility
• Reports
Appian has received many awards. It has been designated as a leader in the Gartner
Magic Quadrant, the Forrester Wave and the Ovum Report. In 2014, it received the
Gartner Business Process Management Excellence Award and the Workflow
Management Coalition (WFMC) Global Case Management Excellence Award.
Contact:
3.4 Appway
Appway currently employs about 120 people. The company does not publish its
business figures.
The Appway platform is used by about 110 companies worldwide, with about 60
customers in the German-speaking countries. Appway platform customers are
typically in finance, insurance, telecommunications and the public sector. They use
Appway to orient their business processes and business models for the digital age.
Contact:
The AXON ACTIVE Group employs more than 550 people. Its revenue last year was
60 million Swiss francs, of which 12 million francs was from Axon.ivy BPM Suite
licenses and service contracts.
Contact:
3.6 Bizagi
Special strengths and unique characteristics of Bizagi’s BPM suite include the
following:
Bizagi was honoured with two “Finalists for WfMC & BPM” in 2014.
Contact:
IT
Contact:
An @enterprise project for the Swiss railways received the WfMC Global
Award for Excellence in BPM and Workflow in 2013.
Contact:
About 1,100 companies worldwide use the VDoc Process. They include over
15,000 users at more than 20 customers in the German-speaking countries.
Typical customers for HCM VDoc Process are in the automotive, mechanical
engineering, production, and public institutions and public services, such as
healthcare. Users apply the solution to map a wide variety of business
processes. They include
business portals for supplier management, development management, idea
management, complaints management and quality management.
HCM itself says that its BPMS’s special strengths and unique characteristics
are in the system’s great flexibility, which allows all of the customer’s
business processes and requirements to be mapped directly as an
executable application with no programming. Many HCM customers see the
large selection of practically tested best practice solutions that come with the
package as its key asset. These can be used modularly. In very little time,
from a portal environment, the toolset of HCM Smart Enterprise Collaboration
Suite can be used to adapt workflow, DMS reporting and more, both to the
customer’s own needs and to
the existing IT infrastructure.
As part of HCM SEC Suite, VDoc Process has received the 2014 BEST OF
industry award from Initiative Mittelstand in the e-business category.
Contact:
3.10 IBM
Every year, the company invests more than 6 billion US dollars in research
and development. IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH, in
Böblingen, Germany, is one of IBM’s largest technology centres worldwide. It
develops business process management solutions, such as IBM Business
Process Manager (IBM BPM).
IBM bundles software and services for business process management (BPM)
under the name Smarter Process. This portfolio is intended to make
organizations’ processes flexible and efficient. Here the IBM Business
Process Manager was tested. Worldwide, more than 5,000 companies use
IBM Smarter Process.
Worldwide, more than 200 companies use the BPM inspire. About 80% of
them use it as a BPMS platform to centrally administer processes. Its process
portal offers many free solution templates, such as risk management /
internal control system, invoice processing, contract management, complaints
management, travel expense invoicing, incoming postal processing, and
many more. They allow fast entry and prevent island solutions. Customers of
BPM inspire span all industries and are assisted by partners with appropriate
expertise and solutions. BPM inspire is used as a powerful development tool
• High performance
• Scalability
BPM inspire has been tested in a project by TÜV Rhineland for banking
security standards, has received the middle-sized business award and been
certified by IBM, SOA Ready and PureSystems.
Contact:
3.12 JobRouter
About 550 companies around the world use JobRouter, including more than
400 customers in Germany. JobRouter’s customers are of all sizes and in all
industries. In large part, the companies use JobRouter for auxiliary business
processes, such as invoice verification, purchasing and personnel.
3.13 K2
• Simple tools
Contact:
3.14 Metasonic
In this way, Metasonic provides ideal support for the transformation to digital
business models. This means that companies using Metasonic can always
implement and continuously adapt their strategy and tactical decisions. They
can keep their company in line with important changes. METASONIC -
BUSINESS. IN TUNE.
Contact:
Oracle currently employs about 120,000 people and had revenue of USD
38.275 billion in fiscal 2014.
Oracle BPM Suite has users in various industries, including finance, public
institutions, telecommunications, education, automotive, logistics, energy, etc.
They use the solution to implement all types of processes, such as document
processing, backend integration, human interaction, and case management.
• Use of the XML and Java standards (BPMN 2.0, BPEL, WSDL, WS-*,
etc.)
Contact:
3.16 PROLOGICS
Contact:
3.17 SoftProject
SoftProject has more than 300 customers in all industries, ranging from
middle-sized to large companies. Companies like R+V, BMW, DEKRA and
Siemens automate their business processes with X4 BPM Suite.
X4 BPM Suite is a comprehensive tool for automating business processes. The
software contains all modules for modelling, technically implementing,
executing and monitoring business processes. Ready-made modules,
adapters and process libraries allow high productivity in process
implementation. Users can work with the suite immediately after installation
and without programming knowledge.
Contact:
T!M Solutions GmbH considers its BPMS’s special strengths and unique
characteristics to be the following:
Contact:
4 Individual results
This chapter shows the individual results for each software company. An
analysis of each product discusses its strengths and weaknesses in various
categories.
4.1 AgilePoint
The BPM suite “AgilePoint iBPMS” version 6.0 generally made a good
impression in the study. In all categories examined, the solution came close to
the average for all providers, with no significant outliers above or below. This
BPM suite’s results in comparison to the other providers are shown in Figure
40.
Administration
Total Runtime
AgilePoint Average
1 Despite high confidence (95.5%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of satisfactory
in this category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
2
Due to mediocre confidence (83.3%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of
satisfactory in this category.
3
Due to mediocre confidence (75.0%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of
satisfactory in this category.
4
Due to mediocre confidence (72.2%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of
satisfactory in this category.
5
Due to mediocre confidence (75.0%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of poor in
this category.
6
Due to mediocre confidence (87.0%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of
satisfactory.
Criterion Evaluation
4.2 agito
The BPM suite “agito BPM” version 6.3, from agito, generally made a
satisfactory impression in the study. While in the Runtime Management
category the software is above average among the providers considered, in
the categories Administration, Process Modelling and Systems
Integration, it scored below average. This BPM suite’s results in comparison
to the others
Administration
Total Runtime
agito Average
7
Due to mediocre confidence (75.0%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of poor in
this category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
On the other hand, agito rated only satisfactory in the other subcategories.
As before, the reason is that meeting many of the requirements required
implementation effort, and not much is provided right out of the box.
However, agito’s ease of use was rated as low (58.6%), which puts it below
the average for the other solutions examined.
Nonetheless, the evaluation team found the BPM suite impressive for its end
user portal’s clean, clear interface, which also allows many standard
functions, such as delegation, representations and storage options. The
controlling overviews also appealed to the evaluators. The criticism is mainly
due to the large amount of programming needed to implement process
applications.
Chart 5 shows how the agito BPM suite scored in the individual categories.
For the evaluations marked with an asterisk (*), deviation is possible due to
reduced confidence in this category.
Criterion Evaluation
4.3 Appian
The BPM suite “Appian” version 7.6, from Appian, generally made a
satisfactory impression in the study. While the software is above average in
the category Systems Integration, in all other categories it is average among
the other products studied. This BPM suite’s results in comparison to the
other providers are shown in Figure 42.
Administration
Total Runtime
Appian Average
8
Despite high confidence (95.5%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of good in this
category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
9
Due to mediocre confidence (88.9%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of
satisfactory in this category.
Appian’s ease of use can be considered moderate (68.8%), which also makes
it average for the solutions examined.
The evaluation team reacted positively to the BPM suite’s simple, clear
interface. The testers were also impressed by the process review. However,
the many aspects that required explicit modelling or configuration received
negative feedback, such as delegation or reassignment of tasks.
Chart 6 shows how the Appian BPM suite scored in the individual categories.
For evaluations marked with an asterisk (*), deviation is possible due to
reduced confidence in this category.
Criterion Evaluation
4.4 Appway
The BPM suite “Appway Platform” version 6.1, from Appway, generally made
a satisfactory impression in the study. One of the BPM suite’s special
weaknesses is in BPM Governance, where it was below average for the other
providers. On the other hand, it was impressive for its Process Modelling and
Process Implementation. In these two categories, the software was above
average among the BPM suites studied. This BPM suite’s results in comparison
to the other providers are shown in Figure 43.
Administration
Total Runtime
Appway Average
Appway was also rated as good in the category Systems Integration (73.4%),
which was about average for the other providers. The subcategory Data
Integration, i.e. interaction with external data sources, just missed a grade of
very good. However, the subcategory System Integration, i.e. interaction with
external applications was merely “good”. Less than optimal is the manual
programming effort required to integrate web services into the process.
10
Due to mediocre confidence (88.9%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of good in
this category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
The evaluation team positively rated the BPM suite’s pre-designed interface
and the user-friendly tool for creating masks. However, the roles and rights
concept was considered unsatisfactory. Evaluators also found fault with the
fact that some standard functions, such as delegation or representation rules,
had to be explicitly modelled.
Chart 7 shows how the Appway BPM suite scored in the individual categories.
For the evaluations marked with an asterisk (*), deviation is possible due to
reduced confidence in this category.
Criterion Evaluation
The BPM suite “Axon.ivy BPM Suite” version 5.1, from AXON IVY, generally
made a good impression in the study. In the assessment categories studied,
the product barely shows any weaknesses. It was especially impressive in
the categories BPM Governance, Process Modelling, and Process
Execution. In those three categories, the software was above average
among the software studied. This BPM suite’s results in comparison to the
other providers are shown in Figure 44.
Administration
Total Runtime
In the category Systems Integration, AXON IVY was also rated good (71.3%),
which is within the average for the other providers studied. In the subcategory
System Integration, i.e. interaction with external applications, the BPM suite
scored as very good. In Data Integration, i.e. interaction with external data
sources, it was not impressive. The rating of only satisfactory was due to the
fact that no external data sources could be integrated into the portal.
In the Process Execution category, AXON IVY also achieved a good
evaluation (77.7%), which is above average for the other providers studied.
One highlight is the software’s score of very good in the subcategory
Absence, i.e. correct performance of defined processes when individual
people are not available. Especially positive here were the individual absence
setting for a specific time period, including specification of substitutes for
custom roles and tasks. In the other subcategories, the BPM suite shows no
significant weaknesses and received good evaluations for all.
11
Despite high confidence (93.8%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of good in this
category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
12
Due to mediocre confidence (88.9%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of good in
this category.
4.6 Bizagi
The BPM suite “Bizagi Suite” version 10.5, from Bizagi, generally made a good
impression in the study. Except for the category Runtime Management, the
software was above average in all categories compared to the other providers
studied, especially in Process Modelling and Process Implementation. This
BPM suite’s results in comparison to the other providers are shown in Figure
45. Administration
Total Runtime
Bizagi Average
13
Despite high confidence (90.9%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of satisfactory
in this category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
Criterion Evaluation
The BPM suite “DHC VISION” version 5.2, from DHC Business Solutions,
generally made a satisfactory impression in the study. While the software is
below average for the other providers studied in the categories Process
Implementation and Systems Integration, it is above average in the
category BPM Governance. This BPM suite’s results in comparison to the
other providers are shown in Figure 46.
Administration
Total Runtime
In regard to rule definition, the rules required by this study had to be defined
through complex SQL queries, which was also negative.
In the Process Implementation category, DHC Business Solutions was
considered poor (25.0%), which is below the average for the other providers
studied. The BPM suite was not impressive in any of the subcategories. In the
subcategory Data Implementation, i.e. representation of data structures and
authorizations, changing process data rights and definition of process data
fields was very unfriendly for the user, which resulted in a rating of poor. Also
rated poor was the subcategory Notifications, which is definition of process
event notifications. Even here, creating e-mail notifications (with attachments)
was extremely tedious. Regarding Mask Design, i.e. definition of graphical
user interfaces, there was no support for masks on mobile devices. Even Test
Support, i.e. tools for quality assurance of implementation, rated as poor,
because external tools had to be accessed for this. In regard to Round Trip,
i.e. interaction between process model and technical process models, the
software rated only poor, because the models contained no distinction between
professional and technical information.
14
Due to low confidence (50.0%), it is possible that the product deserved a better or worse grade of
satisfactory or good in this category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen
by the provider.
15
Due to mediocre confidence (88.9%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of poor in
this category.
Administration
Total Runtime
On the other hand, Handling Special Cases, i.e. dealing with tasks and
processes in exceptional cases, rated only as poor. Revocation or cancellation
of process instances is possible here only with special rights.
16
Despite high confidence (96.5%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of good in this
category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
Criterion Evaluation
The BPM suite “HCM VDoc Process” version 12, from HCM
CustomerManagement, generally made a satisfactory impression in the
study. While, in the Runtime Management category, the software is above
average among the providers considered, in the other categories it scored
below average. This BPM suite’s results in comparison to the other providers
are shown in Figure 48.
Administration
Total Runtime
17
Despite high confidence (91.7%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of good in this
category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
18
Due to mediocre confidence (87.5%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of good in
this category.
4.10 IBM
The BPM suite “IBM BPM” version 8.5, from IBM, generally made a good
impression in the study. While, in the Process Execution category, the
software is average among the providers considered, in the other categories it
scored above average. This BPM suite’s results in comparison to the other
providers are shown in Figure 49.
Administration
Total Runtime
IBM Average
19
Despite high confidence (95.8%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of good in this
category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
IBM rated as good in the Process Review category (75.4%), which was
above average among the other providers considered. Both Progress
Review, i.e. sequence traceability for specific process instances, and
Conflict Recognition, i.e. recognizing deviating or problematic process
instances, rated very good in this software. The testers especially liked the
graphic representation of the information. On the other hand, in the
subcategory Instance Review, i.e. inspection of specific process instances,
the rating was only satisfactory, because filtering for instances of a specific
initiator requires a custom variable.
In the BPM Governance category, IBM rated as satisfactory (56.9%) 20, which
was slightly above the average for the other providers examined. The BPM
suite scored as good in the subcategory Rights Management, i.e. definition
and administration of BPM-specific roles and rights. However, in the
subcategory BPM Management, i.e. visualization of company-specific BPM
processes, it rated as just satisfactory, because individual modelling
conventions cannot be customized.
IBM rated good in the category Administration (68.3%), which was slightly
above average among the other providers considered. Also receiving a good
rating was Process Administration, i.e. management and deployment of
process versions. In the subcategory User Administration, i.e. management
of BPM suite users, however, the software rated as satisfactory, because
although the requirements were basically met, user administration, failed
miserably overall.
20
Due to mediocre confidence (75.0%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of good in
this category.
A special highlight, according to the evaluation team, was the attractive end
user portal, which offers functionalities such as real-time collaboration
between process participants and team management. The controlling
overviews also appeared sophisticated. On the other hand, the modelling
interface was no longer visually up to date and offered little ease of operation.
Moreover, important standard functionalities are missing, such as substitute
and absence regulation.
Chart 13 shows how the IBM BPM suite scored in the individual categories.
For evaluations marked with an asterisk (*), deviation is possible due to
reduced confidence in this category.
Criterion Evaluation
The BPM suite “BPM inspire” version 9, from Inspire Technologies, generally
made a good impression in the study. While, in the Process Review and
Administration categories, the software is below average among the
providers considered, in the other categories it scored above average,
especially in Systems Integration and Process Implementation. This BPM
suite’s results in comparison to the other providers are shown in Figure 50.
Administration
Total Runtime
21 Due to low confidence (62.5%), it is possible that the product deserved a better or worse grade of good or poor in this
category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
22 Due to mediocre confidence (88.9%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of poor in this category.
Especially weak was Value Review, i.e. defining and analysing relevant
indicators. Although the software has many ready-made dashboards and a
comprehensive graphical editor, the requirements posed in this study had to
be met through manual SQL programming. For this reason, the score was
poor. Also poor is Conflict Recognition, i.e. recognizing deviating or
problematic process instances. For this also, individual masks had to be set
up in the corresponding tool.
23 Due to mediocre confidence (75.0%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of satisfactory in this
category.
24 Due to mediocre confidence (89.6%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of satisfactory.
The evaluation team liked the BPM suite’s broad scope of functions and the
sophisticated multilingual concept. They also praised the compilation of rules
using a supporting editor or a graphic tree. They criticized the unclear, Eclipse-
based developer interface. Moreover, the BPM suite had no explicit controlling
overview.
Chart 14 shows how the Inspire Technologies BPM suite scored in the
individual categories. For evaluations marked with an asterisk (*), deviation is
possible due to reduced confidence in this category.
Criterion Evaluation
4.12 JobRouter
The BPM suite “JobRouter” version 3.7, from JobRouter, generally made a
satisfactory impression in the study. While, in the Runtime Management and
Process Execution categories, the software is above average among the
providers considered, in the Process Modelling category it was below
average. This BPM suite’s results in comparison to the other providers are
shown in Figure 51.
Administration
43\
Total Runtime management
Process
Process review
JobRouter Average
programming. The lack of BPMN support and the fact that there is neither
layout optimization nor mechanisms for traceability between models resulted
in a score of poor.
The BPM suite impressed the evaluation team as well structured and
thoroughly thought through. Praise went to many standard functionalities,
especially the controlling and monitoring views.
25 Due to mediocre confidence (75.0%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of poor in this category.
This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
26 Despite high confidence (98.3%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of good.
Chart 15 shows how the JobRouter BPM suite scored in the individual
categories. For evaluations marked with an asterisk (*), deviation is possible
due to reduced confidence in this category.
Criterion Evaluation
4.13 K2
The BPM suite “K2 blackpearl” version 4.6.5, from K2, generally made a
satisfactory impression in the study. While, in the category Systems
Integration, the software was above average for the other providers studied,
in the categories Administration and BPM Governance it was below
average. This BPM suite’s results in comparison to the other providers are
shown in Figure 52.
Administration
Process
Process review
C2 Average
In the area of Value Review, i.e. defining and analysing relevant indicators,
the rating came out poor, because custom process indicators cannot be
defined in the BPM suite. For the same reason, Conflict Recognition, i.e.
recognition of deviating or problematic process instances, also rated as just
poor.
K2’s ease of use can also be considered moderate (69.6%), which puts it
slightly above the average for the other solutions examined.
However, the evaluation team liked the modelling interface, which covers
many scenarios without programming. Negatives were the use of a
proprietary modelling language and separation of the modelling and
development tasks into two tools, that need to be alternated often.
Chart 16 shows how the K2 BPM suite scored in the individual categories.
Criterion Evaluation
4.14 Metasonic
The BPM suite “Metasonic® Suite” version 4.1, from Metasonic, generally
made a satisfactory impression in the study. While, in the Runtime
Management and Process Execution categories, the software is above
average among the providers considered, in most other categories it was
below average. This BPM suite’s results in comparison to the other providers
are shown in Figure 53.
Administration
Metasonic Average
27
Despite high confidence (91.7%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of satisfactory in this category.
This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
In the BPM Governance category, Metasonic was considered poor (36.1%) 28,
which is slightly below the average for the other providers studied. The
subcategory BPM Management, i.e. visualization of company-specific BPM
processes, rated as satisfactory. However, the subcategory Rights
Management, i.e. definition and management of relevant indicators, scored
poor, because the BPM suite allows only very rough assignment of rights.
28
Due to mediocre confidence (75.0%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of satisfactory in this
category.
Metasonic’s ease of use was rated overall as low (59.0%), which also puts it
below the average for the other solutions examined.
The evaluation team liked the interactive modelling touch table, which allows
simple models to be created easily with end users in workshops. The testers
also liked the end user portal and the concept of subject-oriented BPM (even
though this could not be acknowledged in the assessment criteria). Criticism
went to the very crude rights system and the lack of standard functionalities for
application and implementation pages.
Chart 17 shows how the Metasonic BPM suite scored in the individual
categories. For evaluations marked with an asterisk (*), deviation is possible
due to reduced confidence in this category.
Criterion Evaluation
The “Oracle BPM Suite” version 12c, from Oracle, generally made a good
impression in the study. While, in the categories Systems Integration and
BPM Governance, the software was below average for the other providers
studied, it was above average in other categories, such as Runtime
Management. This BPM suite’s results in comparison to the other providers
are shown in Figure 54.
Administration
Oracle Average
Oracle rated good in the category Process Modelling (65.7%), which was
slightly above average among the other providers considered. This impression
was confirmed in almost all subcategories. Just Rule Definition, i.e.
visualization of organizational guidelines, scored only satisfactory, because
manual programming was partially necessary to implement the business rules
in the study.
29
Due to mediocre confidence (75.0%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of good in this category. This
is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
30 Due to mediocre confidence (87.5%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of satisfactory in this
category.
31
Due to mediocre confidence (83.3%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of satisfactory in this
category.
32
Despite high confidence (92.2%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of satisfactory.
The evaluation team was especially impressed with the end user portal,
which offered many standard functionalities. Additionally, the development
environment gives the impression that this is the “do it all” BPM suite, which
is achieved with the large number of included adapters. The main target of
criticism was the use of two tools that had to be toggled between during
development.
Chart 18 shows how the Oracle BPM suite scored in the individual
categories. For evaluations marked with an asterisk (*), deviation is possible
due to reduced confidence in this category.
Criterion Evaluation
4.16 PROLOGICS
Administration
Total
Runtime management
PROLOGICS Average
33
Due to mediocre confidence (86.4%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of satisfactory in this
category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.
34
Despite high confidence (95.8%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of satisfactory in this category.
Handling Special Cases, i.e. dealing with tasks and processes in exceptional
cases. It is not possible to delegate tasks to user groups, while delegation of
task classes must first be implemented through substitution rules. Individual
implementations are also necessary for handling special cases, such as
cancellation and revocation of process instances.
35
Despite high confidence (94.8%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of satisfactory in this category.
The evaluation team liked the integration with Outlook, which allows tasks to
be performed partly from the e-mail program. Moreover, the end user portal
offered many standard functionalities right out of the box, even though it did
not look very attractive in the current version. The testers praised the ability to
change between various process notations, such as BPMN and EPK in the
modelling interface.
Chart 19 shows how the PROLOGICS BPM suite scored in the individual
categories. For evaluations marked with an asterisk (*), deviation is possible
due to reduced confidence in this category.
Criterion Evaluation
4.17 SoftProject
The BPM suite “X4 BPM Suite” version 4.7, from SoftProject, generally made
a good impression in the study. Although in the categories Runtime
Management and Process Review the software is average for the other
providers studied, in the other categories it is above average. This BPM
suite’s results in comparison to the other providers are shown in Figure 56.
Administration
SoftProject Average
The evaluation team thought the BPM suite offered very powerful
development capabilities that allow access to many modules and adapters.
However, many functionalities must first be integrated manually, which
requires technical expertise. Negatives especially included separation
between form design in the HTML editor and separate storage of functionality
for the process flow.
Chart 20 shows how the SoftProject BPM suite scored in the individual
categories.
Criterion Evaluation
The BPM suite “T!M - Task !n Motion” version 4.0, from T!M Solutions,
generally made a satisfactory impression in the study. Although in the
categories Administration and Process Review the software was above the
average for the other providers studied, it was below average in the
subcategories Process Modelling and Runtime Management. This BPM
suite’s results in comparison to the other providers are shown in Figure 57.
Administration
In the category Systems Integration, T!M Solutions was rated good (65.6%),
which is within the average for the other providers studied. The score in the
subcategory Data Integration, i.e. interaction with external data sources, was
also good. In the subcategory System Integration, i.e. interaction with
external applications, manual representation of parameters for integrating
web services was the reason for the satisfactory rating.
T!M Solutions ranked as good in the category Process Review (68.8%), which
was slightly above average among the other providers considered. The
subcategory Instance Review, i.e. inspecting specific process instances, even
received a very good rating. Only a score of satisfactory went to Value Review,
i.e. defining and analysing relevant indicators. The reason was that defining
and querying individual indicators required custom programming.
T!M Solutions’ ease of use can be considered moderate (65.7%), which also
makes it average for the solutions examined.
Chart 21 shows how the T!M Solutions BPM suite scored in the individual
categories.
Criterion Evaluation
5 Summary
This chapter summarizes the results of the study. It particularly deals with the
overall evaluations and the individual category results. Finally, it presents a
decision tree to help select a suitable BPM suite based on individual
requirements.
The study’s overall evaluations show that almost all of the BPM suites
considered were highly capable in terms of the requirements examined.
Especially at the upper end of the scale, many programs reach into the range
of 90% to 95%. The BPM suites’ ease of use varies more broadly. Very few
products offer excellent ease of use throughout the full suite. When it came to
ease of use and capabilities, all of the products we looked at had one or more
weak aspects. The average overall evaluation of all the BPM suites examined
was 58.7%. The average for capabilities was 88.9%, and the average for
ease of use was 65.9%.
Figure 59 shows the distribution of the BPM suites’ individual scores. It shows
that all products are rated as either good or at least satisfactory and no suite
was deemed outstanding or actually bad.
very good
good
satisfactory
poor
unacceptable
The BPM suite from Bizagi received the highest overall evaluation, at
70.3%. At the same time, this product showed the best ease of use for all
the programs examined (78.0%). The highest evaluation for capabilities
went to the solution by
SoftProject at 96.3%. AXON IVY and IBM are the two providers that got good
scores in the most categories (four of five categories each).
5.2 Process execution & runtime management
An overview of the BPM suites’ capabilities and ease of use in the Process
execution and Runtime management categories is shown in Figure 60.
Figure 61 shows the score distribution for the two categories combined.
Without exception, the products scored good or satisfactory.
very good
good
satisfactory
poor
unacceptable
very good
good
satisfactory
poor
unacceptable
In this category also, the Bizagi suite got the highest evaluation (85.0%). It
received the same score for ease of use and also ranked best in this
segment. Besides Bizagi, the BPM suites from agito, IBM, Inspire
Technologies and SoftProject also achieved capability ratings of 100%.
The diagram in Figure 64 shows the breakdown for the products regarding
capabilities and ease of use in the Process modelling category.
very good
good
satisfactory
poor
unacceptable
The BPM suite with the best evaluation in this category comes from
PROLOGICS (82.7%). Bizagi achieves the best ease of use at 85.9%. In
regard to capabilities, however, the suites from AXON IVY, Groiss
Informatics, Inspire Technologies, Oracle and PROLOGICS each scored
100%.
A large number of the BPM suites showed excellent capabilities in the Process
review category. At the same time, ease of use varies enormously, especially
because only some of the suites had good review options right out of the box
and provided pre-defined reports. In this category, the overall evaluation of all
the BPM suites examined was 57.0%. The average for capabilities was 90.7%,
and the average for ease of use was 62.8%.
Figure 66 shows the suites’ capabilities and ease of use in the Process review
category.
The score distribution is shown in Figure 67. Again, most providers were in
the satisfactory range.
very good
good
satisfactory
poor
unacceptable
Groiss Informatics rated highest in this category at 79.2%. The Bizagi suite
again led for ease of use, with 80.5%. The BPM suites from Appway, Groiss
Informatics and IBM rated 100% in capabilities.
The results for the Administration and BPM governance categories were
widely scattered. This means that there are both good and bad products here
in regard to capabilities and ease of use, because the manufacturers’ product
philosophies attached varying importance to these aspects. In this category,
the overall score for all BPM suites examined was 52.7%. The average for
capabilities was 78.0%, and the average for ease of use was 67.7%.
very good
good
satisfactory
poor
unacceptable
In this category, the BPM suite from DHC Business Solutions rated highest, at
73.5%, and was the only suite with 100% capabilities. Groiss Informatics had
the best ease of use for Administration & BPM governance at 85.9%.
Based on the results in the categories above, this section provides help in
choosing a suitable BPM suite. For this, Figure 70 shows a decision tree for
using one’s own requirements to narrow the list of suites for closer
examination.
The decision tree below combines the Process execution and Runtime
management categories under Execution. The categories Process
implementation and Systems integration are similarly combined as the
category Implementation. For clarity, the categories Administration and
BPM governance mentioned above are left out.
The decision tree allows step-by-step navigation of the BPM suites from left to
right, based on whether an above-average solution is required in each
category. As can be seen, however, the decision tree is not complete,
because not every branch or leaf could be assigned to a study participant.
above average
good out-of-the-box
review important
AXON IVY, Inspire Technologies
above average
good modelling
important
AgilePoint
above average
good out-of-the-box
review important
above average
good implementation
important
Oracle
above average
good out-of-the-box
review important
above average
good modelling
important
Groiss Informatics
above average
good out-of-the-box
review important
agito, JobRouter
above average
good out-of-the-box
execution important
Appian, Bizagi, IBM
above average
good out-of-the-box
review important
Appway, PROLOGICS , SoftProject
above average
good modelling
important
above average
good out-of-the-box
review important
above average
good implementation
important
above average
good out-of-the-box
review important
above average
good modelling
important
T!M Solutions
above average
good out-of-the-box
review important
DHC Business Solutions, HCM
CustomerManagement, Metasonic
The following charts give a summary overview of all the BPM suites studied.
The complete overview is in the appendix to this report.
Capabilities high very high high very high very high very high
(89,0%) (93.8%) (86,4%) (92.8%) (94.6%) (90.1%)
HCM
Category DHC Business Groiss IBM Inspire JobRouter
Customer
Solutions Informatics Technologies
Mgmt.
average very high very high very high very high high
Capabilities
(79.8%) (92.4%) (94.3%) (90.8%) (96.3%) (89.5%)
5.9 Outlook
The results of this year’s study show that in 2014, BPM suites are very
advanced and that many good solutions are on the market. Although no
solution is perfect or scores well in all of the categories considered, there are
nonetheless impressive products in every category.
The following charts show the overall evaluation for all participants in all
subcategories. However, confidence in the individual areas is not considered
here.
poor
Model export good (85.0%) satisfactory (46.9%) poor (32.1%) satisfactory (56.3%) good (85.4%) very good (100.0%) good (87.5%) good (68.8%)
(25.0%)
poor poor
Modelling support poor (25.0%) poor (25.0%) satisfactory (49.4%) good (64.1%) good (84.8%) satisfactory (62.5%) satisfactory (43.8%)
(28.1%) (21.9%)
Process definition good (84.4%) satisfactory (42.2%) good (74.1%) good (75.8%) good (66.7%) good (85.4%) satisfactory (50.9%) satisfactory (60.2%) good (64.1%)
poor
Process implementation good (64.2%) satisfactory (57.1%) satisfactory (61.1%) good (71.1%) good (64.3%) good (84.6%) satisfactory (47.7%) satisfactory (52.2%)
(25.0%)
Poor Poor
Exception performance satisfactory (53.3%) good (75.0%) satisfactory (53.6%) satisfactory (43.8%) satisfactory (49.7%) very good (91.7%) good (66.7%)
(33.3%) (25.0%)
unacceptable
Data implementation good (77.5%) satisfactory (59.4%) good (76.8%) satisfactory (56.3%) satisfactory (47.9%) good (83.3%) satisfactory (62.5%) good (84.4%)
(12.5%)
Process data export good (86.3%) satisfactory (46.9%) good (80.4%) good (81.3%) satisfactory (61.4%) very good (88.9%) satisfactory (53.1%) satisfactory (50.0%) good (75.0%)
poor poor
System connections good (81.7%) good (79.8%) good (64.6%) good (64.4%) good (80.6%) satisfactory (50.0%) satisfactory (47.9%)
(25.0%) (34.4%)
Systems integration good (74.7%) satisfactory (45.8%) good (82.1%) good (73.4%) good (71.3%) good (85.4%) poor (34.4%) good (66.7%) satisfactory (54.7%)
Satisfactory
Data integration good (75.0%) satisfactory (56.3%) good (76.8%) good (84.4%) good (75.0%) good (68.8%) good (75.0%) good (84.4%)
(52.5%)
Process execution good (64.8%) good (63.2%) satisfactory (58.1%) satisfactory (60.3%) good (77.7%) good (66.2%) satisfactory (49.4%) good (72.8%) satisfactory (59.9%)
Organizational changes - good (79.2%) good (73.8%) satisfactory (58.3%) good (81.1%) good (77.1%) good (75.0%) satisfactory (60.4%) good (68.8%)
Process implementation satisfactory (60.7%) good (65.6%) satisfactory (48.7%) good (68.0%) good (64.5%) good (65.6%) good (63.4%) good (71.1%) good (68.0%)
Process initiation good (63.6%) satisfactory (57.1%) good (69.0%) good (67.7%) good (82.7%) satisfactory (48.5%) poor (23.2%) good (64.6%) poor (37.5%)
unacceptable
Interaction good (70.0%) poor (25.0%) good (85.7%) good (68.8%) good (83.3%) good (75.0%) good (75.0%) poor (25.0%)
(0.0%)
Accessibility good (77.5%) good (70.8%) good (87.5%) good (84.4%) good (84.2%) very good (96.9%) satisfactory (50.0%) very good (90.6%) good (87.5%)
Runtime management good (65.8%) good (63.3%) satisfactory (48.0%) satisfactory (41.4%) satisfactory (60.9%) satisfactory (49.6%) satisfactory (50.8%) satisfactory (61.7%) satisfactory (58.5%)
Task management good (81.7%) good (81.3%) satisfactory (61.9%) satisfactory (41.7%) good (63.0%) satisfactory (62.5%) good (65.6%) good (78.1%) good (66.7%)
Task delegation satisfactory (51.7%) satisfactory (50.0%) poor (25.0%) poor (25.0%) good (63.1%) poor (25.0%) poor (33.3%) good (72.9%) satisfactory (40.6%)
External intervention good (85.0%) satisfactory (56.3%) good (67.9%) satisfactory (50.0%) satisfactory (53.3%) Category satisfactory (50.0%) satisfactory (50.0%) satisfactory (46.9%)
Handling special cases satisfactory (55.0%) satisfactory (51.6%) poor (29.5%) satisfactory (46.9%) satisfactory (62.5%) satisfactory (56.3%) satisfactory (42.2%) poor (37.5%) satisfactory (60.9%)
Process control good (69.0%) satisfactory (54.2%) good (63.2%) satisfactory (59.5%) satisfactory (59.0%) good (66.3%) satisfactory (43.0%) good (79.2%) satisfactory (52.0%)
unacceptable
Task review satisfactory (43.3%) satisfactory (52.1%) good (78.6%) satisfactory (41.7%) satisfactory (61.1%) poor (25.0%) very good (100.0%) good (66.7%)
(0.0%)
Instance review good (80.0%) good (81.3%) good (75.0%) good (81.3%) satisfactory (43.8%) good (87.5%) satisfactory (62.5%) good (75.0%) good (71.9%)
Conflict recognition - poor (37.5%) good (86.0%) good (73.4%) satisfactory (59.7%) good (70.8%) poor (34.4%) satisfactory (59.4%) satisfactory (39.6%)
Progress review very good (88.8%) very good (95.3%) poor (35.7%) satisfactory (45.8%) good (75.6%) very good (93.8%) satisfactory (60.4%) very good (95.3%) good (85.4%)
Value review good (63.1%) poor (25.0%) satisfactory (53.6%) satisfactory (58.3%) satisfactory (47.9%) satisfactory (58.8%) satisfactory (42.2%) good (71.3%) poor (25.0%)
Rights management satisfactory (45.0%) good (71.9%) good (73.2%) poor (25.0%) very good (93.8%) good (68.8%) very good (90.6%) very good (100.0%) good (75.0%)
Administration satisfactory (56.0%) satisfactory (45.6%) good (63.5%) satisfactory (58.1%) satisfactory (57.9%) good (76.9%) good (65.8%) satisfactory (57.5%) satisfactory (54.4%)
User administration good (73.3%) good (70.8%) good (75.0%) good (81.3%) good (69.4%) good (75.0%) good (75.0%) good (79.2%) good (77.8%)
Process administration good (67.5%) poor (37.5%) satisfactory (58.9%) good (65.6%) good (76.0%) good (81.3%) satisfactory (55.2%) satisfactory (56.3%) satisfactory (50.0%)
Self-administration poor (23.3%) poor (31.3%) satisfactory (57.9%) poor (25.0%) poor (22.2%) good (70.8%) good (70.8%) poor (37.5%) poor (28.1%)
Inspire
Category IBM JobRouter K2 Metasonic Oracle PROLOGICS SoftProject T!M Solutions
Technologies
satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory satisfactory
Process modelling good (69.9%) good (63.8%) good (65.7%) good (82.7%) good (66.8%)
(44.9%) (47.7%) (47.8%) (37.9%)
poor
poor Satisfactory poor poor Satisfactory satisfactory unacceptable
Rule definition good (69.4%)
(25.0%) (43.3%) (37.5%) (25.0%) (43.1%) (62.5%) (8.3%)
(37.5%)
very good
satisfactory
Form design very good (93.8%) very good (91.7%) good (63.3%) good (87.5%) good (85.4%) good (87.5%) good (75.0%)
(62.5%)
(100.0%)
Satisfactory
Systems integration good (75.0%) good (87.5%) good (67.5%) good (79.7%) satisfactory (55.6%) good (68.8%) good (78.1%) good (65.6%)
(60.9%)
Inspire
Category IBM JobRouter K2 Metasonic Oracle PROLOGICS SoftProject T!M Solutions
Technologies
satisfactory Unacceptable Satisfactory
Data integration good (75.0%) good (85.0%) good (85.0%) good (75.0%) good (75.0%) good (71.9%)
(53.1%) (0.0%) (50.0%)
Satisfactory satisfactory
System integration good (75.0%) very good (90.0%) good (84.4%) good (68.8%) good (83.3%) good (87.5%) good (81.3%)
(50.0%) (59.4%)
Satisfactory
Process execution good (70.7%) good (76.1%) good (66.3%) good (64.8%) good (65.0%) good (64.1%) good (69.9%) good (69.8%)
(62.4%)
Process initiation good (67.9%) good (80.0%) good (63.3%) good (64.3%) satisfactory (47.3%) good (75.0%) good (86.6%) good (82.6%) good (75.9%)
satisfactory
Accessibility very good (96.9%) very good (92.5%) good (72.5%) good (71.9%) good (68.8%) good (71.9%) good (72.9%) very good (90.6%)
(57.5%)
Inspire
Category IBM JobRouter K2 Metasonic Oracle PROLOGICS SoftProject T!M Solutions
Technologies
Poor Poor satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory
Task review good (75.0%) very good (95.0%) good (66.7%) good (81.3%)
(36.7%) (25.0%) (41.7%) (50.0%) (47.5%)
Satisfactory
Progress review very good (93.8%) good (63.8%) good (71.9%) very good (90.6%) good (84.4%) good (82.8%) good (74.4%) good (78.1%)
(55.0%)
• • SAP
149
Appendix
• EMC • SAPERION
• ESN innovo GmbH • Savvion -> Aurea
• EUPROCON • SEEBURGER
• Exact • Semtation GmbH
• SER Software Technology
• GBTEC Software + Consulting AG
GmbH
• Groiss Informatics GmbH • Signavio GmbH
• HandySoft • Singularity
• HCM Customer Management GmbH • SoftProject GmbH
• HUEBINET Informationsmanagement • Software AG
• humanIT Software GmbH • Soreco / Axon Active
• Hyland Software • SSA SoftSolutions GmbH
• IBM • T!M Solutions
• ibo Software GmbH • Talend
• iGrafx, a division of Corel GmbH • TIBCO Software
• Imatics Software GmbH • tiggs GmbH
• IMS Integrierte Management-systeme • Ultimus
• Inspire Technologies GmbH • Vdoc
• Intellior AG • ViCon GmbH
• intellivate GmbH • Vitria
• InterSystems • Whitestein