Fraunhofer IESE - 2014 - Full Report - English Translation

Fraunhofer
IESE
FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR EXPERIMENTAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING IESE
BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT -

MARKET ANALYSIS 2014
TEST OF BPM SUITES
Edition notice
Contact address:
Fraunhofer Institute for

Experimental Software
Engineering IESE
Fraunhofer-Platz 1
67663 Kaiserslautern
Tel. +49 631 6800-6000
Fax +49 631 6800-1099
E-mail info@iese.fraunhofer.de
URL www.iese.fraunhofer.de
Bibliographic information at the German National Library
The German National Library has recorded this publication in the

German National Bibliography. Detailed bibliographic data can be found on
the Internet at http://dnb.de.
ISBN (e-book) 978-3-8396-9389-6
© by FRAUNHOFER VERLAG, 2015

Fraunhofer-Informationszentrum Raum und Bau IRB
Postfach 800469, 70504 Stuttgart
Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart
Tel. 0711 970-2500
Fax 0711 970-2508
E-mail verlag@fraunhofer.de
URL http://verlag.fraunhofer.de
All rights reserved.
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
Dr. Sebastian Adam

Matthias Koch
Fabian Neffgen
Norman Riegel
Justine Weidenbach
BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT -

MARKET ANALYSIS 2014
TEST OF BPM SUITES
FRAUNHOFER VERLAG
About Fraunhofer IESE
Fraunhofer IESE in Kaiserslautern is one of the world’s leading research

institutes in the field of software and system development methods. Its
collaboration partners’ products are largely software oriented. They range
from automotive and transport systems to automation and machine
engineering, information systems and software systems for the public sector.
Their solutions are flexible and scalable. This makes the institute a competent
technology partner for companies of any size — from small businesses to
large conglomerates.
Led by Prof. Dieter Rombach and Prof. Peter Liggesmeyer, Fraunhofer IESE
has been making a decisive contribution to strengthening Kaiserslautern as a
centre for information technology for almost 20 years. The Fraunhofer
network for information and communication technology collaborates with the
Fraunhofer institutes to define tomorrow’s trailblazing technologies.
Fraunhofer IESE is one of 67 institutes under the banner of the Fraunhofer
Society. Together, they help shape applied research in Europe and contribute
to Germany’s international competitiveness.
Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014 v

Abstract
In recent years, Business Process Management (BPM) has developed at a

dramatic pace. Especially when it comes to process automation, more and
more companies have been moving toward software tools known as BPM
suites.
Because many companies currently lack a qualitative overview of the BPM
suite market, last year Fraunhofer IESE performed a market analysis as part
of a transfer project by the German state of Rheinland-Pfalz. In response to
positive feedback, the study was repeated this year, but with a wider scope.
In contrast to some past studies by other organizations, this study involved
BPM suites in use. Beyond the mere presence of features, it mainly examined
such aspects as simplicity, ease of modification and integration, and usability
in an everyday context. Because the manner of assessment has changed since
last year’s study, the results cannot be compared with those of the 2013 study.
This report describes the results and methodological procedure for evaluating
BPM suites from AgilePoint, agito, Appian, Appway, AXON IVY, Bizagi, DHC
Business Solutions, Groiss Informatics, HCM CustomerManagement, IBM,
Inspire Technologies, JobRouter, K2, Metasonic, Oracle, PROLOGICS,
SoftProject and T!M Solutions.
The study results show that there are neither any perfect nor truly bad BPM
suites among the products considered. All of the products had their strengths
and weaknesses.
For this reason, a blanket recommendation for or against a specific BPM suite
is neither reasonable nor objectively possible. However, because the
products studied can vary considerably in their strengths, weaknesses, target
groups and philosophies, a rough selection recommendation is possible. This
report provides a decision tree for considering the relative importance of
individual BPM suite categories, and this can be used for more detailed
selection.
vi Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014

Table of contents
About Fraunhofer IESE v
Abstract vi
Table of contents vii
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
Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014 vii

4.2 agito 56
4.3 Appian 60
4.4 Appway 64
4.5 AXON IVY 68
4.6 Bizagi 72
4.7 DHC Business Solutions 76
4.8 Groiss Informatics 80
4.9 HCM CustomerManagement 84
4.10 IBM 88
4.11 Inspire Technologies 92
4.12 JobRouter 96
4.13 K2 100
4.14 Metasonic 104
4.15 Oracle Corporation 108
4.16 PROLOGICS 112
4.17 SoftProject 116
4.18 T!M Solutions 120
5 Summary 124
5.1 Overall rating 124
5.2 Process execution & runtime management 126
5.3 Process implementation & systems integration 128
5.4 Process modelling 129
5.5 Process control 131
5.6 Administration & BPM governance 132
5.7 Decision tree 134
5.8 Overview of results 136
5.9 Outlook 139
Appendix A: Detailed overview of ratings 140
Appendix B: List of all manufacturers contacted 149
viii Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014

Introduction
1 Introduction
In recent years, Business Process Management (BPM) has developed at a

dramatic pace. Especially when it comes to process automation, more and
more companies have been moving toward software tools known as BPM
suites.
But what do users need to think of if they want to use this type of suite? What
is new, what is the state of the art, and what can these programs actually do?
Fraunhofer IESE first considered these and similar questions in 2013 and
conducted an extensive market analysis in this segment. The analysis was
part of a transfer project for the German state of Rheinland-Pfalz, backed by
the ministries of economic affairs, climate protection, energy and regional
planning (MWKEL). Other sponsors were the ministries of education, science,
continuing education and culture (MBWWK). SP Consulting GmbH
collaborated on the study. The study was done mainly because many
companies currently lack a qualitative overview of the market and increasingly
seek product evaluations.
Positive feedback on the study led Fraunhofer IESE to repeat it with a wider
scope. In 2013, nine BPM suite providers took part in the study. This time, the
study included 20 providers. They were not only evaluated by Fraunhofer
IESE, but also by outside experts. Special thanks go to:
• Dr. Thomas Allweyer (Kaiserslautern University)

• Dr. Andreas Gadatsch (Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University)
• Paul Bossauer (Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University)
In contrast to some past studies by other organizations, this study involved

BPM suites in use. Beyond the mere presence of features, it mainly examined
such aspects as simplicity, ease of modification and integration, and usability
in an everyday context. This study also differs from the BPM study by the
Fraunhofer Institute for Work Management and Organization (Fraunhofer
IAO). In its market overview this year of tools from the German-speaking
countries, it mainly used an online questionnaire to record basic information
on the providers, the products and the applications supported.
This report describes the results and methodological procedure for evaluating
BPM suites from AgilePoint, agito, Appian, Appway, AXON IVY, Bizagi, DHC
Business Solutions, Groiss Informatics, HCM CustomerManagement, IBM,
Inspire Technologies, JobRouter, K2, Metasonic, Oracle, PROLOGICS,
SoftProject and T!M Solutions.
Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014 1

Introduction
Chapter 2 describes the study’s preparation, execution and evaluation, and it

goes into many factors influencing the interpretation of results.
Chapter 3 then briefly introduces the providers considered, and Chapter 4
shows the results for each individual provider.
In Chapter 5, the study’s overall results are summarized based on the main
evaluation categories. Additionally, a decision-making tool and a forecast are
provided.
2 Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014

Procedure
2 Procedure
This chapter describes the procedure for preparing, conducting and

evaluating the study.
2.1 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to investigate a selection of business process

management solutions (BPM suites) available on the market. It compared
their ease of use (see Chapter 2.2) in various assessment categories as seen
by BPM experts and BPM users.
The study therefore aimed to determine the special strengths and current
weaknesses of individual BPM suites, as they may affect selection of a
specific suite. This is necessary for an informed decision on the choice of a
BPM suite in a specific organization.
However, the study’s results are not intended to replace specific companies’
individual processes for selecting BPM suites. The study can provide only a
rough idea of which solutions are suitable for which context and may deserve
a closer look.
2.2 Test metrics
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

Procedure
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖 = 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴ℎ𝑙𝑙 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
∑𝑚𝑚
𝑗𝑗=1 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝ö𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ü𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖 = � , 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖 = 1
𝑚𝑚 ∙ 4
0, 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑗𝑗: 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝ö𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ∈ {1,2,3,4}
1, 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 𝑜𝑜ℎ𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 Ä𝑛𝑛𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟

𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖 = �
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
Confidence: The portion of the study’s requirements that can actually be

evaluated in the study.
∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 =
𝑛𝑛
1, 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 = �
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.

Procedure
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.
2.3 Assessment categories
The study’s assessment criteria are based on a comprehensive requirements

analysis made by Fraunhofer IESE and well-known partners and customers.
For this requirements analysis, Fraunhofer IESE drew on experience with
past customer projects involving selection of a BPM suite.
The requirements from the various sources were then combined into a list of
115 requirements and categorized in two levels. This resulted in eight main
categories with 35 subcategories for using the aforementioned test metrics to
evaluate each BPM suite.
Chart 1, below, names and briefly explains the categories.
MC1. Process modelling

Model export Process model storage options
Modelling support Tools for simpler/faster modelling
Process definition Visualization of procedural issues
Rule definition Visualization of organizational guidelines
MC2. Process implementation

Representation of sample performance in exceptional
Exception performance
and special cases
Notifications Definition of notifications in process events
Data implementation Representation of data structures and authorizations
Form design Definition of graphical user interfaces
Process data export Storage options process for variables
System connections Use of adapters for connection to external systems
Test support Tools for quality assurance of implementation
Tools for reusing process parts and interaction of

Reuse & round trip
professional and technical models
MC3. Systems integration

Data integration Interaction with external data sources
System integration Interaction with external applications

Procedure
MC4. Process execution

Correct completion of defined procedures when individual
Absence/presence
people are absent
Information delivery Help pages and end user support
Correct completion of defined procedures with

Organizational changes
organizational changes at runtime
Process implementation Correct completion of defined procedures
Process initiation Options for starting process instances
Interactions Mutual influence of process instances
Accessibility Access options from various channels and devices
MC5. Runtime management

Task management Management and execution of individual tasks
Task delegation Forwarding of tasks
External intervention Changing and storing process instances at runtime
How tasks and processes are executed in special or

Handling special cases
exceptional cases
MC6. Process review

Task review Checking individual tasks
Instance review Checking specific process instances
Conflict recognition Recognizing deviating or problematic process instances
Progress review Sequence traceability for specific process instances
Value review Defining and analysing relevant indicators
MC7. BPM governance

BPM management Representing company-specific BPM procedures
Definition and management of BPM-specific roles and

Rights management
rights
MC8. Administration
User administration Management of BPM suite users
Process administration Process version management and deployment
Self-administration Self-administration and customization options for end users
Chart 1. Assessment categories
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.

Procedure
2.4 Test scenarios and preliminary script
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:
• Requirement could not be tested
• Requirement not implementable
• Requirement implementable only with workaround
• Requirement barely implementable
• Requirement adequately implementable
• Requirement highly implementable
Besides judging each test step on a standardized scale, experts could freely
write comments on the positive and negative aspects of each suite.

Procedure
Evaluation of publication process

implementation
could not Not implementable Barely Adequately highly

Test be tested implementable only with implementable implementable implementable
No. Test task □ workaround Reasons
1 Dominik Bechtel opens the

end user portal on his PC.
2 Dominik Bechtel looks at the

help pages / documentation.
3 Dominik Bechtel submits two

publication applications.
Figure 1. Sample excerpt from the test protocol
2.5 Provider selection
To ensure the study represented a cross-section of vendors, first a complete

list of BPM suite providers was prepared. It was based on the Gartner BPM
Suite Magic Quadrant 2010, the 2010 Forrester Wave BPM Suite study, the
2012 BPM&O market overview, and our own supplementary web research.
Some providers no longer existed, because they had merged into other
manufacturers in the meantime, so the final list contained 153 providers. Of
these, 98 had websites showing German sales or contact addresses. Providers
of open-source BPM suites were filtered out of this list, because those were
outside the scope of this study.
The remaining providers with German contact addresses were e-mailed or
contacted through their websites’ contact forms. They were addressed with
an identical text and asked to express interest in the study or refusal within
about four weeks.
Of the 97 providers contacted, only 35 responded. Twenty of these providers
expressed interest in the study and committed themselves to participating. One
of these providers was removed from evaluation, because a workshop revealed
that its product was not a BPM suite in the usual sense of the term. A second
provider was removed after evaluation was completed, because its overall
confidence score was a statistical outlier, and fair comparison to the other
products was not possible.
Chart 2, below, shows the participating providers and their BPM suites. This
report’s appendix contains the list of all providers contacted.

Procedure
Manufacturer Product Version

AgilePoint Inc. AgilePoint iBPMS 6.0
agito GmbH agito BPM 6.3
Appian Software GmbH Appian 7.6
Appway | Numcom Software AG Appway Plattform 6.1
AXON IVY AG Axon.ivy BPM Suite 5.1
Bizagi Ltd. Bizagi Suite 10.5
DHC Business Solutions GmbH & Co. KG DHC VISION 5.2
Groiss Informatics GmbH ©enterprise 9
HCM Customer Management GmbH HCM VDoc Process 12
IBM Deutschland GmbH IBM BPM 8.5
Inspire Technologies GmbH BPM inspire 9
JobRouter AG JobRouter 3.7
K2 Northern Europe GmbH K2 blackpearl 4.6.5
Metasonic GmbH Metasonic® Suite 5.1
ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Oracle BPM Suite 12c
PROLOGICS IT GmbH FireStart 2
SoftProject GmbH X4 BPM Suite 4.7
T!M Solutions GmbH T!M - Task !n Motion 4.0
Chart 2. List of participating BPM suite providers
2.6 How the assessment was done
The individual BPM suites were evaluated in separate one-day workshops.

Each provider was invited for an exclusive appointment. To make sure the
suites being studied were comparable; compliance with the following agenda
was explicitly requested ahead of time.
• 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.

Procedure
• 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
Each assessment workshop was evaluated immediately after it took place.

The first step was to analyse and resolve contradictions. The analysis first
determined whether some test steps received mutually exclusive answers,
such as: “Not possible” with other answers; “Only possible with
workarounds” with other answers; or “Could not be tested” with other
answers. To resolve these conflicts, the test steps were discussed again
among the core team participants using their personal notes, and a final
consensus was reached. This decided whether a test step got a
performance rating of “-1” (could not be tested), “0%” (not possible), “25%”
(only with workarounds) or got the participants’ average evaluation
according to the defined metrics (see Section 2.2).

Procedure
Finally, each evaluator’s handwritten test protocol was tallied up and

transferred to an Excel spread sheet (see excerpt in Figure 2). Each person’s
free comments on the items “What I liked about this solution” and “What I
disliked about this solution” were entered into the computer.
Test No. Test task Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 4 Total D
Dominik Bechtel opens the

1 end user portal on his PC. 2 3 3 4 0.75
Dominik Bechtel looks at the

2 help pages / documentation. -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Dominik Bechtel submits two

3 publication applications. 2 2 3 2 0.5625
Figure 2. Sample excerpt from the test protocol 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.
Overall performance Capabilities Ease of use Confidence

very good > 87.5% very high > 90.0% very high > 86.6% high > 90.0%
good > 62.5% high > 80.0% high > 73.3% moderate > 70.0%
satisfactory > 37.5% moderate > 70.0% moderate > 60.0% low ≤ 70.0%
poor > 12.5% low > 60.0% low > 46.6%
unacceptable ≥ 0.0% very low > 50.0% very low > 33.3%
Chart 3. Score distribution

Procedure
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).
2.8 Possible influence factors
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.

Procedure
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.

Procedure
Figure 3. 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.

Providers studied
3 Providers studied
This chapter introduces the providers evaluated.
3.1 AgilePoint
AgilePoint Inc. is owner operated and was founded

in 2002 in Mountain View California, USA. Since its formation, the company’s
main focus has been the development of Business Process Management
Software (BPMS) for the manufacturing industry, deeply integrated with the
Microsoft platform. Its core product is AgilePoint iBPMS (currently in version
6.0).
AgilePoint Inc. currently employs more than 140 people and has subsidiaries
in 10 countries around the world. Since 2010, the German-speaking countries
have been served by AgilePoint EMEA, with employees who are native
German speakers.
Figure 4. Screenshot of user view
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.

Providers studied
AgilePoint deeply integrates BPM (methods and technology) with Microsoft

products and frameworks (.NET, SharePoint, MS CRM, etc.). Core features
include:
• Closed BPM lifecycle (iterative initial solution development and

maintenance)
• Directly executable, agile solutions — generally from workshop to

executable model
• Controllable technologies
• Model-driven (no code) and metadata-oriented
Figure 5. Suite overview
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:
AgilePoint EMEA +49 (179) 133 8098
Remparden 1 B 104 dach@agilepoint.eu

9700 Oudenaarde (Belgium) www.agilepoint.eu

Providers studied
3.2 agito
agito GmbH was founded in August 2011 by two

former SAP and IBM employees, Andreas Weise
and Jörg Burmeister, in Berlin. The company’s main work involves optimizing
organizational and technological processes through consulting and
technological solutions. agito GmbH has been involved in business process
management solutions (BPMS) since August 2011. Its core product is agito
BPM, which was in version 6.3 at the time of the study.
agito GmbH has its headquarters in Berlin.
Currently, agito GmbH employs about 5 people. The company does not
publish its business figures.
A total of about 10 companies in Germany use agito. Typical agito BPM

customers come from IT, utilities and healthcare and use the solution to
automate personnel and master data processes.

Providers studied
Figure 7. Screenshot of developer view
Special strengths and unique characteristics of agito’s BPMS include the

following:
• Low initial hurdles through a usage-based licensing model and short

implementation times
• Ability for individuals to model their own applications
• Version management for all application artefacts
• Easy creation of automated tests for excellent application quality and

maintainability
• Support for multiple languages, clients and the BPMN 2.0 standard
Contact:
agito GmbH +49 (30) 85 01 84 03

Greifenhagener Str. 40 +49 (30) 85 01 84 04
info@agito-it.de
10437 Berlin www.agito-it.de

Providers studied
3.3 Appian
Appian was founded in 1999 by Matthew Calkins, Michael

Beckley, Bob Kramer and Marc Wilson in Reston,
Virginia, USA. The company focuses on development, sales and implementation of a
complete business process management suite. Appian has worked in business
process management solutions (BPMS) since 1999. Its core product is Appian, which
is now in version 7.6.
Appian’s headquarters is in Reston, Virginia, USA. The company also has

subsidiaries in nine countries. The company’s German headquarters is in Frankfurt.
Appian currently employs about 400 people. As an owner-operated company, Appian

does not publish revenue figures. Its 2013 licensing revenue was 86% higher than in
the previous year. About 70 new customers chose Appian during that time.
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.

Providers studied
Special strengths and unique characteristics of Appian’s BPMS include the following:
• Agility at the user and designer level
• Mobility
• Records (case-specific perspectives)
• Reports
• A user interface based on social networking principles
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:
Appian Germany Software GmbH +49 (69) 274015 412

Mainzer Landstraße 50
Info.de@appian.com
60325 Frankfurt am Main www.appian.com

Providers studied
3.4 Appway
Appway (previously Numcom Software AG) was

founded in 2003 by Oliver Brupbacher and Hanspeter Wolf in Zurich, Switzerland.
The company focuses on client onboarding solutions for financial institutions and
digitization of business processes in the services sector. Appway has worked in
business process management solutions (BPMS) since 2003. Its core product is
Appway, which is now in version 6.1.
Appway’s headquarters is in Zurich, Switzerland. Appway also has subsidiaries in

four countries. The German market is served from Switzerland with partners in
Germany.
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.

Providers studied
Special strengths and unique characteristics of Appway’s BPMS include the

following:
• Agility and completeness
• Strong support for DevOps
• Universal, visual, model-centred development methodology

The Appway platform has received 10 international awards so far.
Contact:
Appway | Numcom Software AG +41 43 204 06 08

Hardturmstrasse 66 +41 43 204 06 09
info@appway.com
CH 8005 Zurich, Switzerland www.appway.com

Providers studied
3.5 AXON IVY
AXON IVY AG belongs to the AXON ACTIVE group and

was founded as ivyTeam AG in Zug, Switzerland, in 1994. It began as a spin-off from
Landis+Gyr and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ). Its
founders were Dr. Heinz Lienhard and Prof. Gustavo Alonso. The company
focuses on BPM software, BPM software projects, BPM consulting and BPM
education. AXON IVY has worked in business process management solutions
(BPMS) since 1994. Its core product is Axon.ivy BPM Suite, which is now in version
5.1.
The headquarters of AXON IVY AG is Lucerne, Switzerland. AXON IVY AG has

subsidiaries in five countries (Germany, Austria, Singapore, Vietnam and the United
States). The company has its own development department in Switzerland and a site
in Vietnam. The company’s German headquarters is in Munich.
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.
Worldwide, 390 companies use Axon.ivy BPM Suite, including about 45

German customers.
The customers include companies of varying sizes in all industries. They
include international conglomerates, along with medium-sized companies.
The customers use Axon.ivy BPM Suite in a wide range of areas throughout
their companies.

Providers studied
Special strengths and unique characteristics of AXON IVY’s BPM suite

include the following:
• Support for the entire BPM lifecycle
• Extended coverage of intelligent processes (iBPMS)
• A wide range of service and support offerings (including a certified

academy)
• An attractive price/performance model
AXON IVY has received highest honours from independent organizations.

They include first prize from the expert jury of CeBIT America in Sparte
Enterprise Applications and the Process Solution Award from the Gesellschaft
für Organisation e.V.
Contact:
AXON IVY AG +49 (89) 58 9998 60

Munich branch
Elsenheimerstraße 57 info@axonivy.com
80687 Munich, Germany www.axonivy.com

Providers studied
3.6 Bizagi
Bizagi was founded in 1989 as Vision Software by

five people who still hold positions of responsibility
at the company (Gustavo Gomez is the CEO). It
was founded in Bogota, Colombia. It mainly develops BPM tools. Bizagi has
worked in business process management solutions (BPM suites) since the
beginning. Its core product is Bizagi BPM Suite, which is now in version 10.5.
Bizagi’s headquarters is Chalfont St Peter, London, United Kingdom. Bizagi
also has subsidiaries in four other countries.
Bizagi currently employs about 320 people and had revenues of USD 45
million last fiscal year.
Worldwide, more than 350 companies in 57 countries use Bizagi Suite,

including three large customers in Germany (adidas is one of them).
When Bizagi began, its typical customers were from the financial sector, but
now a broad variety of companies (with 150 to 14,000 users) from nearly
every industry use Bizagi Suite.
It is especially used where fast changes are required to business processes or
frequent adaptation is required to new conditions.

Providers studied
Special strengths and unique characteristics of Bizagi’s BPM suite include the
following:
• Simple, intuitive use
• Fast implementation and adaptation
• Close cooperation possible between IT and business
• Scalability in the number of processes, users and complexity

• A transparent business model: All tools are available free from the
Bizagi website.
Bizagi was honoured with two “Finalists for WfMC & BPM” in 2014.
Contact:
Bizagi Ltd. +44(0)777 0800004

3 Chiltern Park, Chiltern Hill, Chalfont St Peter, United
+44(0)1753 379270
Kingdom
Tamas.kramer@bizagi.com
Buckinghamshire SL9 9FG (United Kingdom) www.bizagi.com

Providers studied
3.7 DHC Business Solutions
DHC Business Solutions GmbH & Co. KG was

founded in 1996 by Dr. Rudi Herterich in Saarbrücken.
The company focuses on development and
introduction of standard software products for process
and quality management, as well as governance, risk and compliance. DHC
Business Solutions has worked with business process management solutions
(BPMS) since 1996. Its core product is DHC VISION, which is now in version
5.2.
DHC Business Solutions is headquartered in Saarbrücken, Germany.
Additionally, DHC Business Solutions has subsidiaries in one other country
(Switzerland).
DHC Business Solutions currently employs about 40 people. The company
does not publish its business figures.
DHC VISION is used by about 30 companies worldwide, including about 25

German customers. Typical DHC VISION Process Manager customers work
in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical technology, manufacturing and
automotive. They use the solution to manage their companies in a process-
oriented manner and to meet regulatory requirements.

Providers studied
Special strengths and unique characteristics of DHC Business Solutions’

BPMS include the following:
• Complete integration of all management tasks in a single system
• Transparency for processes, organization, documents, products and
IT
• Reuse of master data for reduced workload

• Better communication and coordination between organizational units
• Faster preparation and execution of all types of tests
• Greater compliance and legal security
DHC VISION has received the following awards: “Best of Industriepreis-IT

2014”, “QM” best in category, Innovationspreis-IT 2014 from Initiative
Mittelstand, National Winner - Innovationspreis-IT 2013 from Initiative
Mittelstand, “Process Solutions Award” 2012 from the Gesellschaft für
Organisation e.V. (GFO), “BPM” best in category and “Saarland” national
winner for Innovationspreis-IT 2009 from Initiative Mittelstand.
Contact:
DHC Business Solutions GmbH & Co. KG +49 (681) 93666 0

Landwehrplatz 6 - 7 +49 (681) 93666 33
info@dhc-vision.com
66111 Saarbrücken, Germany www.dhc-vision.com

Providers studied
3.8 Groiss Informatics
Die Groiss Informatics GmbH was founded in 1998

by Herbert and Claudia Groiss in Klagenfurt, Austria.
Since the beginning, the company has focused on optimization and
automation of business processes. The business process management
system (BPMS) @enterprise, currently in version 9, is its core product.
Groiss Informatics is headquartered in Klagenfurt, Austria. Partners represent

the company in Germany, Switzerland and other countries. The company
currently has 14 employees.
@enterprise is used by about 45 companies worldwide, including about 12

German customers. Typical @enterprise customers include government
authorities, banks and insurance companies. They use the solution for many
purposes, such as personnel processes, change management, purchasing or
electronic records.
Special strengths and unique characteristics of Groiss Informatics’ BPMS

• Completeness: @enterprise contains all components necessary for

process automation: modelling, execution, configurable user interface,
document management, reporting, application integration
• Scalability: From quick prototypes created in one day, to large

installations with thousands of users, it is a universal system.

Providers studied
• Flexibility: Highly structured, administrative or ad hoc processes are

supported. Runtime functions, such as delegation, restore and inserting
steps, allow great flexibility.
• Platform independence through Java — the client only needs a web

browser.
Figure 19: Screenshot of developer view
An @enterprise project for the Swiss railways received the WfMC Global
Award for Excellence in BPM and Workflow in 2013.
Contact:
Groiss Informatics GmbH +43 (0) 463 504 694 0

Strutzmannstraße 10/4 +43 (0) 463 504 694 10
office@groiss.com
9020 Klagenfurt, Austria www.groiss.com

Providers studied
3.9 HCM CustomerManagement
HCM CustomerManagement GmbH was founded in

Stuttgart, Germany, by Hans-Helmut Kümmerer und
Susan Hashem-Kümmerer in 2000. HCM mainly
focuses on software and consulting for business process management and
collaboration. HCM Smart Enterprise Collaboration is an all-in-one platform
for intuitive creation, automation and optimization of all types of business
processes. The HCM SEC Suite contains powerful instruments for BPM,
workflow, ECM, portals and collaboration.
HCM has worked in business process management solutions (BPMS) since
its founding in 2000. Its core product is HCM VDoc Process, a part of HCM
Smart Enterprise Collaboration, which is in version V12.
HCM CustomerManagement GmbH is headquartered in Stuttgart. HCM also
has a branch in Munich.
HCM employs about 30 people. Its revenue last fiscal year was about €4
million, of which €1 million came from licences and service contracts for HCM
VDoc Process and business solutions based on it.

Providers studied
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:
HCM CustomerManagement GmbH +49 (0) 711 933 425 90

Schwieberdinger Str. 60 +49 (0) 711 933 425 91
vertrieb@hcm-infosys.com
70435 Stuttgart, Germany www.hcm-infosys.com

Providers studied
3.10 IBM
IBM is a globally integrated technology and

consulting company headquartered in Armonk, New
York. With subsidiaries in more than 170 countries,
IBM is a technology and transformation partner for helping companies,
governments and non-profit organizations develop IT solutions that meet its
customers’ challenges.
Innovation is IBM’s core strategy. Its portfolio of solutions offers a broad
spectrum of consulting, cloud and IT services using its own intelligent IT
infrastructures consisting of software and hardware. It also arranges financing.
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.

Providers studied
Special strengths and unique characteristics of IBM’s BPMS include the

following:
• Optimization of business procedures with real-time transparency of on-
going work through constant process monitoring and analysis
• Faster completion of tasks through reliable functions for online
collaboration
• Change management with security through intuitive governance
• Business processes on employees’ and customers’ mobile devices

• Continuous view of operating procedures through seamless
combination of business processes with central business systems,
such as SAP ERP.
IBM Business Process Manager has been called the leading BPM solution by
independent analysts, such as Gartner, Forrester and IDC. This year, IBM’s
customer HML (the largest mortgage administrator in UK and EMEA) honoured
IBM with the 2014 Gartner Business Process Management Excellence Award.
Contact:
IBM Deutschland GmbH +49 (800) 225 5426

IBM-Allee 1
halloibm@de.ibm.com
71139 Ehningen, Germany www.ibm.com/de

Providers studied
3.11 Inspire Technologies
Inspire Technologies GmbH came about in 2008

through a management buyout of GFT AG by
founders Dr. Michael Otte and Andreas Mucke in Sankt Georgen, Germany.
The company focuses on the BPM inspire suite, which began development in
1996. It is used by renowned customers such as T-Systems, Metro / MIAG,
OBI, SIXT, Best Western, Deutsche See, Siemens and many more. Inspire
Technologies works with partners to develop solutions and success.
Its business process management solutions (BPMS), BPM inspire, is now in
version 9. It provides a complete suite with modelling, automation, interfaces,
process portals and monitoring.
Inspire Technologies GmbH is headquartered in St. Georgen, Germany.
Customers are also served directly from Cologne and Karlsruhe. Inspire’s
wide-ranging network of partners implements projects not only in Germany
and Switzerland, but worldwide.
As a special feature, Inspire Technologies offers a very sophisticated partner
program that supports IT service providers and software makers with BPM
components, marketing and sales. Moreover, its product lines Smart,
Premium and Integration offer the right price for various customer and partner
requirements.
Figure 24: Screenshots of user view
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

Providers studied
for individual process solutions mainly by large conglomerates and larger

middle-sized companies.
Figure 25: Overview of developer view
Special strengths and unique characteristics of Inspire Technologies’ BPMS

• High performance
• Scalability
• Great flexibility for changing processes
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:
Inspire Technologies GmbH +49 (7724) 85990 10

Leopoldstraße 1 +49 (8161) 85990 29
kontakt@bpm-inspire.com
78112 St. Georgen www.bpm-inspire.com

Providers studied
3.12 JobRouter
JobRouter AG was founded in 1993 by Fritz-

Jochen Weber and Walter Jäck in Mannheim.
Since 2002, the company has focused on developing the workflow system of
the same name, JobRouter. JobRouter AG has worked in business process
management solutions (BPMS) since 1995. Its core product is JobRouter,
which is now in version 3.7.
JobRouter AG has its headquarters in Mannheim. Additionally, JobRouter AG

has subsidiaries in France and Turkey, and has sales partners in all
European countries, the United States and Asia.
In 2014, JobRouter AG employed about 40 people, and its fiscal 2013

revenue was 3.75 million euros. In 2013, about 3.10 million euros worth of
licenses and maintenance contracts for the JobRouter workflow suite were
sold directly and through sales partners.
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.

Providers studied
JobRouter AG says that its BPMS’s special strengths and unique

characteristics are in its pragmatic approach: JobRouter is a high-
performance, process-oriented development platform for fast, goal-oriented
implementation of all workflow processes. Its great benefit to business
management comes from the fact that all users can create many processes
on the JobRouter platform themselves or through their partners during the
year.
JobRouter was awarded Initiative Mittelstand’s innovation award.
Contact:
JobRouter AG +49 (621) 42646 0

Besselstraße 26
office@jobrouter.de
68219 Mannheim, Germany www.iobrouter.de

Providers studied
3.13 K2
K2 was founded in 2000 by Adriaan van Wyk in

Johannesburg, South Africa. The company
focuses on creating and executing business applications, including forms,
workflows, data and reports. K2 has worked in business process management
solutions (BPMS) since 2000. Its core product is K2 blackpearl, which is now in
version 4.6.5.
K2’s headquarters is in the United States. K2 also maintains 21 subsidiaries in

13 different countries. The company’s German headquarters is in Munich. K2
currently employs about 300 people.
K2 has increased its involvement with customers and partners through its main
application platform K2 blackpearl. Last year, K2 further increased its revenue
and significantly surpassed other providers in the market. It made more than
USD 60 million and is expected to break USD 100 million in 2016.
The K2 platform is used by about 3,500 companies worldwide, with about 60

customers in Germany. Because K2 is designed to be industry independent,
there is no industry in which K2 is not used.

Providers studied
Special strengths and unique characteristics of K2’s BPMS include the

following:
• Fast building and integration
• Simple tools
• More value for the money

The following is just a selection of the awards K2 has won: Alwayson
Ondemand 2013 “Ones To Watch”, Best Of Tech-Ed “Best Sharepoint Dev
Product” 2012, Best Of Tech-Ed “Best Sharepoint Dev Product” 2011, DM
Awards “Best Workflow Product” 2011, Microsoft ISV of the Year - SA 2010.
Contact:
K2NE GmbH +49 (89) 710 422 178

Regus Center München Fünf Höfe
Theatinerstrasse 11
80333 Munich, Germany www.k2.com

Providers studied
3.14 Metasonic
Metasonic was founded in 2004 by Dr. Albert

Fleischmann in Rohrbach, Germany. The company is
a software provider focused on business process
management solutions (BPMS). Its core product is
Metasonic® Suite, which is now in version 5.1. At the
end of 2013, it was expanded with an alternative for Metasonic® and a multi-
touch table, which is currently in version 2 and is offered as Metasonic®
Touch 200.
Metasonic’s headquarters is in Pfaffenhofen, Germany. The company

currently has about 40 employees. Metasonic is also represented by a
partner network in 30 countries.
Metasonic® Suite is used by about 60 companies worldwide, including about

20 German customers. Typical Metasonic® Suite customers are in the fields
of mechanical engineering, automotive, telecommunication, information
technology, pharmaceuticals and media. They use the solution to create
easily adaptable business applications that are significantly less costly to
develop and change.

Providers studied
Metasonic considers its BPMS’s special strengths and unique characteristics

to be its intuitive, playful procedure. It allows any employee to create and
modify his solution quickly and as independently as possible. It provides the
necessary infrastructure and is then present only for consultation or to help
with IT integration. Existing applications and components of all system types
can be easily integrated, resulting in business IT that meets all requirements.
Another unique characteristic: While companies would otherwise have to

choose between standard software and individual development, Metasonic
combines the advantages of both approaches. On the one hand, the solutions
are perfectly adapted to the individual situation, leading to high user
acceptance. On the other hand, they deliver standard indicators for measuring
success and managing risk. Additionally, the applications can quickly be made
available by central IT and are easy to maintain.
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:
Metasonic GmbH +49 (8441) 278 10 0

Münchnerstr. 29 - Hettenshausen +49 (8441) 278 10 999
info@metasonic.de
85276 Pfaffenhofen, Germany www.metasonic.de

Providers studied
3.15 Oracle Corporation
Oracle was founded by Larry Ellison, Bob Miner

and Ed Oates in Santa Clara, California.It
provides the company’s own Oracle cloud solutions, Oracle database
systems, Oracle Fusion middleware, Oracle applications (ERP, CRM, etc.),
Oracle engineered systems, Oracle servers, Oracle storage, etc. The
company has worked with business process management solutions (BPMS)
for more than 14 years. Its core product is Oracle BPM Suite, which is
currently in version 12c.
Oracle’s headquarters is in Redwood City, California, USA. Additionally,

Oracle has subsidiaries in more than 140 countries. The company’s German
operation is headquartered in Munich and has 10 subsidiaries.
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.

Providers studied
Special strengths and unique characteristics of Oracle’s BPMS include

the following:
• A complete, unified, integrated platform for implementing the entire

BPM lifecycle (monitoring, simulation, execution, runtime analysis,
monitoring) and for all types of processes (people, systems,
documents, case management)
• Designed specifically to support collaboration between business and

IT (business-driven process management) and uses a single-model
approach based on BPMN 2.0.
• Integrated with an SOA platform (including adaptors) for easy,

seamless integration of processes into an existing IT landscape.
• Scalable, powerful and secure due to the infrastructure and services

of the SOA platform and the application server
• Use of the XML and Java standards (BPMN 2.0, BPEL, WSDL, WS-*,
etc.)
Contact:
ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Main +49 (89) 143 00

Administration and Munich Office +49 (89) 143 01 150
info_de@oracle.com
www.oracle.com/de

Providers studied
3.16 PROLOGICS
PROLOGICS was founded in 2006 by Robert

Hutter and Roland Hemmelmayr in Linz, Austria. It mainly develops standard
software products for business process management (BPMS). Its core
product is the FireStart BPM Suite, currently in version 2.3.
PROLOGICS is headquartered in Linz, Austria. PROLOGICS also maintains

subsidiaries in Germany, Switzerland and the United States. Its German
headquarters is in Bonn. PROLOGICS currently employs 28 people.
Figure 34. Screenshot of end user view
FireStart BPM Suite is used by about 150 companies worldwide, 40 of them

in Germany. Typical FireStart customers work in production and logistics, the
food industry, healthcare, banking and insurance, energy and public
administration, telecommunication, construction and real estate.
They use FireStart to plan and automate business processes in personnel

management, quality management, document control, controlling and risk
management, marketing control, IT and customer service management,
project management, and application lifecycle management.

Providers studied
Figure 35. Screenshot of developer interface
PROLOGICS considers its BPMS’s special strengths and unique

characteristics to be as follows:
• A universal approach between professional process modelling and

technical workflow automation
• A familiar, trusted Microsoft look and feel
• Excellent user-friendliness for process managers, IT managers and
end users
• Complete tool support for quality and risk management
• Native plugins for SharePoint and Outlook
• Visualization of process cycle times and costs
• Visual form and interface designer
• Workflow development without the expense of programming

FireStart BPM Suite has received the Process Solutions Award (2011), and has
twice received the GP Tool Masters Award (2012/2013) as the overall winner.
It is clearly impressive in process representation, usability and workflow
configuration.
Contact:
PROLOGICS IT GmbH +43 (732) 9015 6400

Hafenstraße 47-5 +43 (732) 49 6400
office@prologics.at
4020 Linz, Austria www.firestart.com

Providers studied
3.17 SoftProject
SoftProject GmbH is an independent software

company in Ettlingen, Germany. The company was founded in 2000 by Dirk
Detmer in the Karlsruhe technology region and has sales partners all over
Germany.
SoftProject develops the X4 BPM Suite, currently in version 4.7, and the X4
Enterprise Service Bus. Comprehensive services round out its offerings. From
strategic consulting and training to system implementation, the company
provides an experienced team with a high-performance portfolio developed
over more than 10 years.
SoftProject currently employs about 50 people and has grown in double digits
in recent years.
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.

Providers studied
SoftProject considers its BPMS’s special strengths and unique characteristics

to be the following:
• X4 BPM Suite is used to model, implement and technically execute
business processes
• More than 200 adapters integrate IT systems and formats in each
business process
• Any indicator — such as cycle times or costs — is determined, monitored
and evaluated
• With X4 Design Suite, departments, consulting and development work
together smoothly
• High speed and reliability in exchanging large quantities of data
• Integration of smartphones in business processes speeds up business
procedures for customers, suppliers and employees
• Business processes and their changes are quickly implemented with no
programming expense
Contact:
SoftProject GmbH +49 (7243) 561 75 0

Am Erlengraben 3 +49 (7243) 561 75 199
office@softproject.de
76275 Ettlingen, Germany www.softproject.de

Providers studied
3.18 T!M Solutions
T!M Solutions GmbH was founded in 2007 by Hermann

Filß and Florian Bauer in Freising, Germany. It mainly
focuses on execution and optimization of business processes. T!M Solutions
GmbH has worked in business process management solutions (BPMS) since
2007. Its core product is T!M - Task !n Motion, which is now in version 4.0.
T!M Solutions GmbH is headquartered in Freising, Germany. Additionally,

T!M Solutions GmbH has subsidiaries in two countries.
T!M Solutions GmbH employs about 20 people. Its revenue last fiscal year was
about €1.1 million, including licenses and maintenance contracts for T!M - Task
!n Motion.
Figure 38: Screenshot of user view
T!M - Task !n Motion is used by about 21 companies worldwide, including 19

in Germany. Typical customers of T!M - Task !n Motion are in automotive,
mechanical engineering and services. They use the solution to execute their
business processes in various fields.

Providers studied
T!M Solutions GmbH considers its BPMS’s special strengths and unique
characteristics to be the following:
• Flexibility in linking BPMN 2.0 modelling components
• Agility in process execution and procedural change
• Simplicity of the solution, and
• Enormous speed in implementing complex processes
T!M - Task !n Motion has received the following awards: Innovationspreis IT -

BPM - Best of 2012 Initiative Mittelstand, the central medium-size business
innovation program from the Germany’s federal ministry of economic affairs
and technology 2013, the 2014/15 FuE “Innovation Through Research” product
seal from the Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft.
Contact:
T!M Solutions GmbH +49 (8161) 4055 3000

Obere Domberggasse 7 +49 (8161) 4055 3009
info@tim-solutions.de
85354 Freising, Germany www.tim-solutions.de

Individual results
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
Process execution Process review
Process execution BPM governance
Process modelling Systems integration
AgilePoint Average
Figure 40. AgilePoint in comparison
The individual results are discussed below:

Individual results
In the Process Modelling category, AgilePoint achieved a satisfactory result

(62.4%) within the average for the other providers studied. In the subcategory
Process Definition, however — i.e. visualization of procedural issues —
AgilePoint got a good rating. This was partly due to simple graphical
modelling and partly to the large number of predefined modules. Also rated
good was the Model Export, which is the ability to store process models. In
the Modelling Support subcategories, i.e. tools for fast, easy modelling, and
Rule Definition, i.e. visualization of organizational guidelines, AgilePoint
performed unsatisfactorily and scored as poor and satisfactory. In regard to
rule definition, it is not possible to distinguish between hard and soft business
rules. Furthermore, cross-process business rules must be created as sub-
processes and cannot be expressed otherwise. The reason for the bad
evaluation of Modelling Support is that no options are provided for optimizing
the process model’s layout, and a proprietary modelling language (based on
BPMN) must be accessed.
In the Process Implementation category, AgilePoint achieved a good rating
(64.2%)11 within the average for the other providers studied. The AgilePoint
BPM suite did outstandingly in the Notifications subcategory, i.e. in defining
process event notifications. This was especially due to the simple integration
of e-mail notifications, which resulted in a very good evaluation. AgilePoint
was also impressive in the System Connections subcategory, i.e. use of
adapters to connect external systems, and in Process Data Export, which is
the options for storing process variables in external files. Here AgilePoint
received good scores. In the subcategories Reuse and Round Trip, i.e. tools
for reuse of process parts, interaction of professional and technical models,
and Test Support, which is tools for assuring quality implementation,
AgilePoint did poorly. This is because there is only one model, with no
distinction between professional and technical information, and because
testing process applications requires access to external tools.
In the Systems Integration category, AgilePoint made a good impression
(74.7%), which was slightly above the average for the other providers
examined. This result is confirmed in the two subcategories Data
Integration, which is interaction with external data sources, and System
Integration, i.e. in the interaction with external applications.
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.

Individual results
In the Process Execution category, AgilePoint also achieved a good

evaluation (64.8%) 2 within the average for the other providers studied.
Especially in the subcategory Absence/Presence, i.e. correct performance of
defined processes in the absence of individual people, AgilePoint scored as
very good.
In the Runtime Management category, AgilePoint also made a good

impression (65.8%) 3, which was slightly above the average for the other
providers examined. In the subcategories Task Management, i.e.
administration and execution of individual tasks, and External Intervention,,
i.e. changing and controlling process instances for runtime, the AgilePoint
BPM suite scored good. The subcategory Task Delegation, i.e. forwarding of
tasks, shows only the weakness that entire classes of tasks cannot be
delegated. However, in the subcategory Handling Special Cases, i.e.
dealing with tasks and processes in exceptional cases, the software offers no
option for performing transactional compensations.
In the Process Review category, AgilePoint achieved a good rating

(69.0%) 4, slightly above the average for the other providers studied. In the
subcategory Instance Review, i.e. when inspecting specific process
instances, AgilePoint scores good. In the subcategory Progress Review, i.e.
reproducibility of specific process instances, it even scored very good. In the
subcategory Task Review, i.e. when inspecting individual tasks, AgilePoint
scored poor. This is because details on tasks can be viewed only with
unforeseen workarounds.
In the BPM Governance category, AgilePoint only achieved a satisfactory
evaluation (38.3%) 5, which is nonetheless within the average for the other
providers studied. Especially in the category BPM Management, i.e.
visualization of company-specific BPM processes, only workarounds allow
the option to tailor the scope of the modelling language or to show the BPM
cycle within the suite.
2
Due to mediocre confidence (83.3%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of
satisfactory in this category.
3
4
5
Due to mediocre confidence (75.0%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of poor in
this category.

Individual results
In the Administration category, AgilePoint was considered satisfactory

(56.0%), which is within the average for the other providers studied. Good
scores were earned in the subcategories User Administration and Process
Administration, i.e. management of BPM suite users and the administration
and deployment of process versions. A weakness that earned a poor
evaluation was the subcategory Self-Administration, which is customization
options for end users. This was because no options for administering master
data and user data are provided.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, AgilePoint received an
overall evaluation of good (63.7%) 6, which puts this BPM suite in the upper
third of the 20 products evaluated.
The software’s capabilities generally scored high (89.0%), making it average
among the other solutions considered.
AgilePoint’s ease of use can be considered moderate (71.5%), which puts it
above the average for the other solutions examined.
As general strengths, the evaluation team especially noted the BPM suite’s
relatively simple, intuitive operation and the large number of predefined
modules for use in process implementation. Evaluated as negative were the
confusing window in the editor and the limited functionality in forms, in which
no scripts can be used.
Chart 4 shows how the AgilePoint BPM suite scored in the individual
categories. For evaluations marked with an asterisk (*), deviation is possible
due to reduced confidence in this category.
6
satisfactory.

Individual results
Criterion Evaluation
Process modelling satisfactory (62.4%)
Process implementation good (64.2%)*
Systems integration good (74.7%)
Process execution good (64.8%)*
Runtime management good (65.8%)*
Process review good (69.0%)*
BPM governance satisfactory (38.3%)*
Administration satisfactory (56.0%)
Overall performance good (63.7%)*
Capabilities high (89.0%)
Ease of use moderate (71.5%)
Confidence moderate (87.0%)
Chart 4. AgilePoint evaluation

Individual results
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
Figure 41. agito in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, agito was considered satisfactory

(42.6%), which is slightly below the average for the other providers studied.
The subcategory Rule Definition, i.e. the Visualization of organizational
guidelines, rated good thanks to global rule definitions through variables or
matrices. Meanwhile, Modelling Support, which is tools for fast, easy
modelling, rated only poor. There is no layout optimization, and traceability
between models cannot be used in the developer view.

Individual results
In the Process Implementation category, agito only achieved a satisfactory

evaluation (57.1%), which is within the average for the other providers
studied. Very good was the rating for Mask Design, i.e. definition of graphical
user interfaces. One highlight is the automatic generation of masks based on
the data to be represented or captured. The Round Trip rated good; it is the
interaction between professional and technical models. However, only one
model is used, in which technical information is encapsulated. Subcategories
rating as poor were Notifications, i.e. definition of process event notifications,
System Connections, i.e. the use of adapters to connect external systems,
and Test Support, which is tools for assuring quality implementation. In the
two former subcategories, the evaluation is due to the implementation effort
required to create notifications or to connect external systems. Where testing
is concerned, barely any support is offered, because test cases require
manual programming.
In the Systems Integration category, agito was considered satisfactory

(45.8%) 7, which is within the average for the other providers studied,
however. In the two subcategories Data Integration and System
Integration, i.e. the interaction with external data sources and applications,
individual programming is required to meet this study’s requirements, as
already mentioned.
In the Process Execution category, agito achieved a good evaluation
(63.2%), within the average for the other providers studied. The
subcategories Absence, i.e. correct performance of defined processes in the
absence of individual people, and Organizational Change, i.e. correct
execution of defined processes when there are organizational changes to
runtime, rated good. However, Information Delivery, i.e. help pages and
user support were only poor, because there was just a link to standard
support on the agito website. The subcategory Interactions, i.e. mutual
influence of process instances, also scored as poor, because despite the use
of BPMN symbols, such as signals and messages, great programming effort
is required for administration to access one process instance from another,
for example.
agito rated good in the category Runtime Management (63.3%), which was
slightly above average among the other providers considered. Task
Management, i.e. administration and execution of one’s own tasks, was
rated good.
7
this category. This is because some test cases could not be displayed as foreseen by the provider.

Individual results
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.
In the Process Review category, agito only achieved a satisfactory evaluation

(54.2%), which is within the average for the other providers studied. Progress
Review, i.e. reproducibility of specific process instances, scored very good,
due to the good display of information as a process diagram and as a table. In
contrast, Value Review, i.e. definition and analysis of relevant indicators, was
considered poor, because the required functionalities either were not
supported or required custom development.
In the BPM Governance category, agito was considered satisfactory

(48.4%), which is within the average for the other providers studied. Rights
Management, i.e. definition and administration of BPM-specific roles and
rights, scored as good. However, the software scores only as poor in the
BPM Management subcategory, because the modelling language and BPM
cycle representation required workarounds.
In the Administration category, agito was considered satisfactory (45.6%),

which is within the average for the other providers studied, however. User
Administration, i.e. management of BPM suite users, scored good.
However, the BPM suite scored poor in the Self-Administration
subcategory, which is customization options for the end user. Admittedly, the
portal offers visual settings options, but there are only very limited options to
see one’s own user data, and there is no functionality to edit them.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, agito received an

overall evaluation of satisfactory (55.0%), which puts this BPM suite in the
lower third of the 20 products evaluated.
The software’s capabilities generally scored very high (93.8%), which is
slightly above average for the other products evaluated.

Individual results
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.
Process implementation satisfactory (57.1%)
Systems integration satisfactory (45.8%)*
Process execution good (63.2%)
Runtime management good (63.3%)
Process review satisfactory (54.2%)
BPM governance satisfactory (48.4%)
Overall performance satisfactory (55.0%)
Capabilities very high (93.8%)
Ease of use low (58.6%)
Confidence high (98.3%)
Chart 5. agito evaluation

Individual results
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
Figure 42. Appian in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, Appian achieved a good result (62.9%),

within the average for the other providers. The BPM suite also scored good in
the subcategories Process Definition, i.e. visualization of procedural
behaviour, and Rule Definition, which is visualization of organizational
guidelines. It was unimpressive only in the subcategory Model Export, i.e.
the ability to store process models, as an image, for example. In the
subcategory Modelling Support, i.e. in tools for fast, easy modelling, the
software is only satisfactory, because there is no layout optimization for
process models and the modelling notation depends on BPMN without
completely supporting this standard.

Individual results
In the Process Modelling category, Appian achieved a satisfactory result

(61.1%) 8, within the average for the other providers. The suite scored as
good in the subcategories Mask Design, i.e. definition of graphical user
interfaces, Process Data Export, i.e. storage options for process variables,
and System Connections, i.e. use of adapters to connect external systems.
However, Appian showed significant weaknesses in the subcategory Reuse
and Round Trip, i.e. tools for reusing process parts and the interaction of
professional and technical models. The score of poor here is due to lack of
differentiation between the professional and technical model. Additionally,
there were no options for defining process parts as templates and reusing
them. Exception Performance rated only satisfactory; this is representation
of behaviour patterns in exceptional cases. This is due to the inability to
define transactions.
In the Systems Integration category, Appian made a good impression

(82.1%), which was above the average for the other providers. In the
subcategory Data Integration, i.e. interaction with external data sources,
Appian scored good. In the subcategory System Integration, i.e. interaction
with external applications, it even scored very good.
In the Process Execution category, Appian was considered satisfactory
(58.1%), which is slightly below the average for the other providers. In the
subcategory Accessibility, i.e. the ability to access the application from
various channels and devices, the product scored as very good. In the
Interactions subcategory, i.e. mutual influence of process instances, it just
missed a rating of very good. The subcategory Information Delivery, i.e.
help pages and end user support, however, rated unacceptable, because no
help came standard. The provider aims for an approach in which all
functionalities are self-explanatory, which makes a help function obsolete.
The subcategory Absence scored poor; that is the correct performance of
defined processes in the absence of individual people. The reason is that
support for absence does not come standard with the BPM suite, but must be
produced manually later.
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.

Individual results
In the Runtime Management subcategory, Appian achieved a satisfactory

result (48.0%), within the average for the other providers. The subcategory
External Intervention, i.e. change and control of process instances for
runtime, rated good in this BPM suite. On the other hand, the BPM suite is
not impressive in the subcategories Task Delegation, i.e. forwarding of
tasks, and Handling Special Cases, i.e. dealing with tasks and processes in
exceptional cases. The scores of poor are due to the fact that the delegation
functionalities and intervention options must be set up manually in the
process model, because they don’t come with the standard software.
Moreover, transactional compensations are not possible in Appian.
In the Process Review category, Appian was considered good (63.2%) 9,

which is slightly above the average for the other providers. The process
instances scored good especially in the subcategory Conflict Recognition,
i.e. recognizing deviating or problematic process instances. Appian was weak
in Progress Review, i.e. sequence traceability for specific process instances.
The inability to see the progress of process instances in the standard product
led to a rating of poor.
In the BPM Governance category, Appian achieved a satisfactory result

(42.9%), within the average for the other providers. The product scored as
good in the subcategory Rights Management, i.e. definition and
administration of BPM-specific roles and rights. However, it was weak in BPM
Management, i.e. rights management of company-specific BPM procedures.
This subcategory was rated as poor, because the scope of the modelling
language cannot be customized, and the BPM cycle can be displayed within
the suite only with workarounds.
In the Administration category, Appian achieved a good evaluation (63.5%),
within the average for the other providers. Here the software is impressive in
the subcategory User Administration, i.e. management of BPM suite users.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, Appian received an
middle range of the 20 products evaluated.
9

Individual results

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
Process modelling good (62.9%)
Process implementation satisfactory (61.1%)*
Process execution satisfactory (58.1%)
Runtime management satisfactory (48.0%)
Administration good (63.5%)
Chart 6. Appian evaluation

Individual results
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
Figure 43. Appway in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, Appway was considered good (69.1%),

which is slightly above the average for the other providers. Nearly all other
subcategories were rated as good, including Model Export, i.e. the ability to
store process models. The only satisfactory rating for Model Export was due
to the inability to export a process manual.

Individual results
In the Process Implementation category, Appway also achieved a good

evaluation (71.1%), which is slightly above the average for the other
providers. Appway scored very good in the subcategory Mask Design, i.e.
for definition of graphical user interfaces. The Round Trip rated good; it is
the interaction between professional and technical models. However, only
one model is used, in which technical information is encapsulated. On the
other hand, the BPM suite had slight weaknesses in the subcategory
Exception Performance, i.e. representation of sample performance in
exceptional and special cases. It received a score of satisfactory because it is
not possible to define transactions in the course of a process.
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.
In the Process Execution category, Appway only achieved a satisfactory

evaluation (60.3%), within the average for the other providers. It barely
missed a grade of very good in the subcategory Accessibility, i.e. access
options from various channels and devices. The largely good results in this
category are marred by a score of unacceptable in the subcategory
Absence, i.e. the correct performance of defined processes in the absence of
individual people, and a score of poor in Information Delivery, i.e. help
pages and end user support. The Appway BPM suite provides no way of
handling absences. Help pages can be stored, but they are not provided or
integrated into the standard version.
In the Runtime Management category, Appway made a satisfactory

impression (41.4%), which was slightly below the average for the other
providers. In the subcategory Task Delegation, i.e. forwarding of tasks,
Appway scored only poor, because this functionality must be completely
modelled and is not included in the standard BPM suite. In the subcategory
Task Management, i.e. management and execution of internal tasks,
functionality like saving and restoring tasks must be modelled individually.

Individual results
In the Process Review category, Appway only achieved a satisfactory

evaluation (59.5%) 10, within the average for the other providers. In the
subcategory Instance Review, i.e. inspection of specific process instances,
the BPM suite was rated good, because it provided attractive views of
running process instances. The BPM suite’s weaknesses here are in the
subcategories Task Review, i.e. inspecting individual tasks, and Progress
Review, sequence traceability for specific process instances. In both
subcategories, the corresponding views have to be defined or expanded by
the user, because the pre-packaged reports do not deliver all data.
In the BPM Governance category, Appway was considered unacceptable
(12.5%), which was slightly below the average for the other providers. The
software also received this score in the subcategory BPM Management, i.e.
visualization of company-specific BPM processes, again because no
functionality is offered. In the subcategory Rights Management, i.e.
definition and administration of BPM-specific roles and rights, it is not
possible to grant rights at the process type level, while the BPM roles could
also be defined very roughly across processes.
In the Administration category, Appway was considered satisfactory (58.1%),
which is within the average for the other providers. A score of good went to
the subcategory User Administration, i.e. management of BPM suite users.
One low outlier was the subcategory Self-Administration, i.e. user
customization options. All individual adjustments, including viewing and
changing one’s own master data can be done only through individual
implementation.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, Appway received an

Appway’s ease of use can be considered moderate (64.0%), which also
makes it average for the solutions examined.
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.

Individual results
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.
Process implementation good (71.1%)
Process review satisfactory (59.5%)*
BPM governance unacceptable (12.5%)
Chart 7. Appway evaluation

Individual results
4.5 AXON IVY
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
Administration
Total Runtime
AXON IVY Average
Figure 44. AXON IVY in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, AXON IVY made a good impression

examined. In the subcategory Model Export, i.e. the ability to store process
models, and the subcategory Modelling Support, i.e. tools for fast, easy
modelling, AXON IVY rated good. Especially impressive are the options for
inspecting syntactic correctness of process models.

Individual results
On the other hand, the subcategory Rule Definition, i.e. visualization of

organizational guidelines, was rated only as satisfactory. This is because
implementation of business rules, especially distinguishing between hard and
soft rules, required programming.
In the Process Implementation category, AXON IVY was also considered

good (64.3%), which is within the average for the other providers studied.
Receiving a rating of very good were Test Support, i.e. tools for quality
assurance of implementation, and Mask Design, i.e. definition of graphical
user interfaces. Especially positive was the animated process preview
capabilities during simulations. The Round Trip rated good; it is the
interaction between professional and technical models. There is a purely
professional model that can be overridden in an implementation model.
However, the opposite direction is not possible. The BPM suite also shows
weaknesses, however: In the subcategory Data Implementation, i.e.
representation of data structures and authorizations, it rated only satisfactory.
Because the editor included was being reworked at the time of the study, it
would not be tested reliably in its current state. In the subcategory Exception
Performance, i.e. in representation of sample performance in exceptional
and special cases, AXON IVY scored only satisfactory. The reason is that
transactions could only be carried out with workarounds.
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.

Individual results
In the Runtime Management category, AXON IVY rated as satisfactory

(60.9%) 11, which was slightly above the average for the other providers
examined. The subcategory External Intervention, i.e. change and control of
process instances for runtime, all subcategories were in the good range. In this
case, however, the missing capability to influence business rules at runtime
resulted in a score of satisfactory.
In the Process Review category, AXON IVY was also considered

satisfactory (59.0%) 12, which is within the average for the other providers
studied. Progress Review, i.e. sequence traceability for specific process
instances, was rated good, but in the other subcategories the BPM suite was
not very impressive and continuously got satisfactory ratings. Especially in
Instance Review, i.e. inspection of specific process instances, there were no
filtering capabilities. Also in Value Review, i.e. definition and analysis of
relevant indicators, AXON IVY rated satisfactory, because individual
indicators could be defined only through do-it-yourself SQL queries.
In the BPM Governance category, AXON IVY achieved a good evaluation

(75.6%), which is above average for the other providers studied. The product
scored as very good in the subcategory Rights Management, i.e. definition
and administration of BPM-specific roles and rights, because of the fine-tuned
rights system. However, BPM management, i.e. visualization of company-
specific BPM processes, only scored as satisfactory. This is because the
scope of the modelling language can only be implemented by adapting the
meta-model using XML.
In the Administration category, AXON IVY was considered satisfactory

(57.9%), which is within the average for the other providers studied. Here the
subcategory Self-Administration, i.e. end user customization options, rated
as poor. This is because administration of one’s own user and master data is
not possible in the portal.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, AXON IVY received an

overall evaluation of good (66.7%), which puts this BPM suite in the upper third
of the 20 products evaluated.
11
12
this category.

Individual results

AXON IVY’s ease of use can be considered moderate (70.5%), which puts it
slightly above the average for the other solutions examined.
The evaluation team especially liked the visually attractive portal and the
controlling overviews. The fine-tuned rights assignment was also impressive.
One negative was use of a proprietary scripting language, which was also
needed relatively often. Evaluators also criticized how differently the end user
portal looked and worked, compared to the development environment.
Chart 8 shows how the AXON IVY BPM suite scored in the individual
due to the confidence in this category.
Runtime management satisfactory (60.9%)*
BPM governance good (75.6%)
Overall performance good (66.7%)
Chart 8. AXON IVY evaluation

Individual results
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
Figure 45. Bizagi in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, Bizagi achieved a good evaluation

(80.9%), which is above average for the other providers studied. One
highlight was the very good Model Export, i.e. the ability to store process
models, which was impressive for its many options for exporting to various
formats.

Individual results
Bizagi also rated as good in the Process Implementation category

(84.6%) 13, which was above average among the other providers considered.
In all subcategories, the BPM suite met the requirements well and only
scored ratings of good and very good. The Round Trip received special
praise; it is the interaction between professional and technical models.
However, only one model is used, in which technical information is
encapsulated and can be hidden.
In the Systems Integration category, Bizagi was also considered good
(85.4%), which is above average for the other providers studied. This
impression was due to very good system integration, i.e. interaction with
external applications, and good Data Integration, i.e. interaction with
external data sources.
In the Process Execution category, Bizagi also achieved a good evaluation

(66.2%), which is within the average for the other providers studied. Scores
of very good were earned for the subcategories Absence, i.e. correct
performance of defined processes when individual people are not available,
and Accessibility, i.e. usage options through various channels and devices.
On the other hand, the subcategory Information Delivery, i.e. help pages
and end user support, rated only as satisfactory. Even though no help is
included with the standard portal, it is possible to integrate process-specific
help. Also just satisfactory is Process Initiation, i.e. the ability to start
process instances. The negative here was the lack of options to perform a
task externally by responding to a notification e-mail and to launch a process
externally through receipt of an e-mail.
In the Runtime Management category, Bizagi was considered satisfactory
(49.6%), which is within the average for the other providers. The subcategory
runtime, rated good. Here handling of business rules and skipping tasks must
be explicitly modelled for runtime. The BPM suite is particularly weak in the
subcategory Task Delegation, i.e. forwarding of tasks. It is not possible to
delegate tasks to user classes or to delegate task classes to other users,
which resulted in a rating of poor.
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.

Individual results
In the Process Review category, Bizagi achieved a good evaluation (66.3%),

which is slightly above average for the other providers studied. In the
subcategory Progress Review, i.e. sequence traceability for specific process
instances, and Instance Review, i.e. inspection of specific process instances,
the software rated as very good. However, in Task Review, i.e. inspecting
individual tasks, the software completely failed. Since neither reports on
previous tasks of other users nor reports over one’s own previous tasks could
be viewed, the rating was unacceptable.
In the BPM Governance category, Bizagi achieved a satisfactory evaluation
(46.9%), which is within the average for the other providers studied. The
subcategory BPM Management, i.e. visualization of company-specific BPM
processes, scored only poor, because it is not possible to represent the BPM
cycle itself in the suite. Moreover, the modelling language cannot be limited;
elements can merely be hidden.
In the Administration category, Bizagi made a good impression (76.9%),
which was above the average for the other providers. This was because it
covered the requirements well in all subcategories.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, Bizagi received an
The software’s capabilities generally scored very high (90.1%), making it

average among the other solutions considered.
Bizagi’s ease of use can be considered high (78.0%), which puts it above the
average for the other solutions examined.
The evaluation team liked the attractive, intuitive modelling environment, in
which the form designer is especially easy to operate. The reporting and
analysis capabilities also appealed to the evaluators. Negatives included
occasional performance problems and the need to fall back on complicated
XPath expressions from time to time.
Chart 9 shows how the Bizagi BPM suite scored in the individual categories.

Individual results
Process review good (66.3%)
Ease of use high (78.0%)
Chart 9. Bizagi evaluation

Individual results
4.7 DHC Business Solutions
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
Administration
Total Runtime
DHC Business Solutions Average
Figure 46. DHC Business Solutions in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, DHC Business Solutions was

considered satisfactory (44.9%), which is slightly below the average for the
other providers studied. In the subcategory Model Export, i.e. the ability to
store process models, the suite rated as very good. In the subcategories
Modelling Support (tools for fast, easy modelling) and Rule Definition
(visualization of organizational guidelines) it rated poor. In the former,
traceability between models was not possible, and the non-universal use of
BPMN 2.0 was viewed as negative.

Individual results
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.
In the Systems Integration category, DHC Business Solutions was also

considered poor (34.4%) 14, which is below the average for the other providers
studied. In the subcategory Data Integration, i.e. interaction with external data
sources, the software rated good. However, for System Integration, i.e.
interaction with external applications, it rated unacceptable, because no web
services could be integrated with the BPM suite.
In the Process Execution category, DHC Business Solutions was

considered satisfactory (49.4%), which was below the average for the other
providers. The subcategory Absence scored good; that is the correct
performance of defined processes in the absence of individual people.
However, in the subcategory Process Initiation, i.e. the options for starting
process instances, the BPM suite rated as poor. This is because starting
tasks or processes externally through e-mails or service calls was either
impossible or called for programming.
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.

Individual results
In the subcategory Interactions, i.e. mutual influence of process instances, a

score of unacceptable had to be issued, because it is impossible to manage
process instances from other instances.
In the Runtime Management category, DHC Business Solutions was

considered satisfactory (50.8%), which is within the average for the other
providers studied. Task Management, i.e. management and execution of
tasks, rated as good. However, in the subcategory Task Delegation, i.e.
forwarding of tasks, the rating was only poor. Task classes cannot be
delegated to other users, and delegation of tasks to user groups is possible
only after previous definition in the process model.
In the Process Review category, DHC Business Solutions was considered

satisfactory (43.0%) 15, which is below the average for the other providers
studied. The BPM suite’s weaknesses were mainly in Task Review, i.e.
inspecting individual tasks, and in Conflict Recognition, recognizing
deviating or problematic process instances. Here DHC Business Solutions
was rated as poor. Reports on one’s own tasks cannot be viewed at all by
other users, and one’s own previous tasks can be collected together only with
workarounds. Recognition of deviations from process indicators is not
provided as standard but can be built in manually.
DHC Business Solutions rated as good in the category BPM Governance

(81.3%), which is above average for the other providers studied. In the
subcategory Rights Management, i.e. definition and administration of BPM-
specific roles and rights, the BPM suite is impressive and scores as very good.
BPM Management, i.e. visualization of company-specific BPM processes,
also rated as good.
In the Administration category, DHC Business Solutions achieved a good

evaluation (65.8%), which is slightly above average for the other providers
studied. Except for the subcategory of Process Administration, i.e.
management and deployment of process versions, the software was rated as
good. The score of satisfactory in Process Administration is due to the fact
that, while the requirements were met, there is still room for improvement
when it comes to ease of use.
15
this category.

Individual results
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, DHC Business

Solutions received an overall evaluation of satisfactory (46.2%), which puts
this BPM suite in the lower third of the 20 products evaluated.
The software’s capabilities generally scored high (82.5%), making it slightly

below average for the other software studied.
DHC Business Solutions’ ease of use was rated as low (56.0%), which also
puts it below the average for the other solutions examined.
The evaluation team made positive mention of the use of Visio as a modelling
tool, and of the comprehensive end user portal. This allows Office documents
to be edited right in the window, for example. The interface was considered a
negative, because it was unclear and overloaded. Additionally, elaborate
programming is required, so many ease-of-use functions are lacking.
Chart 10 shows how the DHC Business Solutions BPM suite scored in the
individual categories. For evaluations marked with an asterisk (*), deviation is
possible due to reduced confidence in this category.
Process implementation poor (25.0%)
Systems integration poor (34.4%)*
BPM governance good(81.3%)
Chart 10. DHC Business Solutions evaluation

Individual results
4.8 Groiss Informatics
The BPM suite “@enterprise” version 9, from Groiss Informatics, generally

made a satisfactory impression in the study. While the software is below
average for the other providers studied in the category Process
Implementation, it is especially above average in the category Process
Review. This BPM suite’s results in comparison to the other providers are
shown in Figure 47.
Administration
Total Runtime
Groiss Informatics Average
Figure 47. Groiss Informatics in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, Groiss Informatics achieved a satisfactory

evaluation (51.1%), which is within the average for the other providers studied.
In the subcategory Model Export, i.e. the ability to store process models, the
suite rated as good. In the subcategory Rule Definition (visualization of
organizational guidelines) it rated poor. This is mainly because the business
rules required in this study could be set up and changed only by programming.

Individual results
Even in the Process Implementation category, Groiss Informatics was

considered satisfactory (47.7%), which is below the average for the other
providers studied. In the satisfactory Exception Performance, i.e. in
representation of sample performance in exceptional and special cases, the
software was rated as good. However, the subcategory Notifications, i.e.
definition of process event notifications, and Test Support, i.e. tools for
quality assurance of implementation, both were rated poor. All functionalities
associated with e-mail notifications had to be implemented manually. Even
when it comes to testing, the standard BPM suite offered no sufficient
support. 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.
In the Systems Integration category, Groiss Informatics was also considered

good (66.7%), which is within the average for the other providers studied. In
the subcategory Data Integration, i.e. interaction with external data sources,
the result was good. In the subcategory System Integration, i.e. interaction
with external applications, it even scored very good. Although the software
completely met those requirements, web services can be connected only at
high cost.
Groiss Informatics also rated as good in the category Process
Implementation (72.8%), which was above average among the other
providers considered. The BPM suite was especially impressive in the
subcategory Information Delivery, i.e. in help pages and end user support.
The testers were enthusiastic about the context-sensitive help, which can be
called up in the portal at any time. Also receiving scores of very good were
the subcategories Accessibility, i.e. access options from various channels
and devices, and Absence, which is the correct performance of defined
processes when individual people are not available. The portal’s design is as
impressive as the substitution concept with fine settings options. A bit less
positive was the evaluation of the subcategory Organizational Changes, i.e.
correct execution of defined processes for runtime during organizational
changes. The satisfactory score is due to problems performing the process
when supervisors were promoted.
In the Runtime Management category, Groiss Informatics also made a

satisfactory impression (61.7%), which was slightly above average for the other
providers studied. The software scored as good in the subcategories Task
Management, i.e. administration and execution of individual tasks, and Task
Delegation, i.e. forwarding of tasks.

Individual results
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.
In the Process Review category, Groiss Informatics achieved a good

evaluation (79.2%), which is above average for the other providers studied. In
the subcategories Progress Review, i.e. sequence traceability for specific
process instances, and Task Review, i.e. inspecting individual tasks, the
BPM suite scored as very good due to extremely detailed representation of
information. One small weakness in regard to notification of deviations in
process indicators is that programming is required. This led to the software
being scored as satisfactory for Conflict Recognition, i.e. recognizing
deviating or problematic process instances.
In the BPM Governance category, Groiss Informatics was considered
satisfactory (50.0%), which is within the average for the other providers
studied. Things are divided here: On the one hand, in Rights Management,
i.e. definition and administration of BPM-specific roles and rights, the
software met all rights management requirements thanks to very refined
settings capabilities. On the other hand, in BPM Management, i.e.
visualization of company-specific BPM processes, the software could meet
none of the study requirements.
In the Administration category, Groiss Informatics also achieved a
satisfactory evaluation (57.5%), which is within the average for the other
providers studied. For User Administration, i.e. management of BPM suite
users, the software rated as good. However, its support for Self-
Administration, i.e. end user customization options, rated poor. This means
that the adaptation options are very limited, and management of some user
and master data is just rudimentary.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, Groiss Informatics

received an overall evaluation of satisfactory (62.2%) 16, which puts this BPM
suite in the middle range of the 20 products evaluated.
16

Individual results

Groiss Informatics’ ease of use can be considered moderate (65.8%), which
also makes it average for the solutions examined.
The evaluation team found the BPM suite impressive for its standard
functionalities, such as forwarding, substitution rules and the end user portal.
On the other hand, ease-of-use functions are missing from the modelling
interface. Overall, a lot of programming must be done, even for simple
scenarios.
Chart 11 shows how the Groiss Informatics BPM suite scored in the individual
categories. For the evaluations marked with an asterisk (*), deviation is
possible due to reduced confidence.
Overall performance satisfactory (62.2%)*
Chart 11. Groiss Informatics evaluation

Individual results
4.9 HCM CustomerManagement
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
HCM CustomerManagement Average
Figure 48. HCM CustomerManagement in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, HCM CustomerManagement achieved a

satisfactory result (45.3%), within the average for the other providers studied.
The subcategory Process Definition, i.e. visualization of procedural
behaviour, scored as good, but the remaining subcategories were evaluated
as poor. In regard to Model Export, i.e. the ability to store process models,
the BPM suite lacks a simple option for saving a process model as an image.
In the subcategory Modelling Support, i.e. tools for fast, easy modelling,
there are no options for ensuring traceability between the models offered.
There is also no process model layout optimization.

Individual results
Furthermore, the modelling language BPMN is not supported. The

subcategory Rule Definition, i.e. visualization of organizational guidelines, is
therefore poor, because business rules cannot be set up across processes,
and there is no way to distinguish between hard and soft rules. 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.
In the Process Implementation category, HCM CustomerManagement was
considered satisfactory (52.2%), which is slightly below the average for the
other providers studied. In the subcategory Test Support, i.e. tools for tools
for quality assurance of implementation, the software offers no functionality.
Rated as poor are the subcategories Exception Performance, i.e.
representation of sample performance in exceptional and special cases, and
Reuse and Round Trip, i.e. tools for reusing process parts, and the
interaction between professional and technical models. In regard to the
former, the software has no functionalities for defining transactions or
protecting against system errors. Also not supported is definition of process
parts for later reuse. Finally, no distinction is made between professional and
technical models; there is just one implementation model with all information.
In the Systems Integration category, HCM CustomerManagement was
considered satisfactory (54.7%), which is below the average for the other
providers studied. In Data Integration, i.e. interaction with external data
sources, the software rated good. However, for System Integration, i.e.
interaction with external applications, it rated just poor, because web services
could be integrated only through manual programming.
In the Process Execution category, HCM CustomerManagement also

achieved a satisfactory evaluation (59.9%) 17, which is within the average for
the other providers studied Rated as very good was the subcategory
Accessibility, i.e. access options from various channels and devices, in
which the evaluators especially liked the mobile application. On the other
hand, in the subcategories Process Initiation, i.e. options for starting
process instances, and Interactions, i.e. mutual influence of process
instances, the software rated as poor.
17

Individual results
For starting processes and tasks through e-mails or service calls,

programming is necessary. Similarly, when it comes to managing a process
instance, it takes its behaviour from another instance.
In the Runtime Management category, HCM CustomerManagement also

made a satisfactory impression (58.5%) 18, which was slightly above average
for the other providers studied. The subcategory Task Management, i.e.
management and execution of tasks, was rated as good, there are
weaknesses in the other subcategories. For Task Delegation, i.e. forwarding
of tasks, there is no capability to delegate tasks to user groups, resulting in a
score of satisfactory. The same applies to the subcategory External
Intervention, i.e. change and control of process instances for runtime, for
which there is little ability to handle business rules.
In the Process Review category, HCM CustomerManagement was

considered satisfactory (52.0%), which is within the average for the other
providers studied. Progress Review, i.e. sequence traceability for specific
process instances, was rated as good. However, the BPM suite rated only as
poor in the subcategory Value Review, i.e. analysis of relevant indicators.
This is because, in principle, all of the functionality required in this study has
to be configured and realized through an external tool.
In the BPM Governance category, HCM CustomerManagement was

considered poor (37.5%), which is nonetheless within the average for the
other providers studied. In the subcategory Rights Management, i.e.
definition and administration of BPM-specific roles and rights, the software
received a good rating. However, in the subcategory BPM Management, i.e.
visualization of company-specific BPM processes, it meets none of the study
requirements.
In the Administration category, HCM CustomerManagement only achieved

a satisfactory evaluation (54.4%), within the average for the other providers.
In the subcategory User Administration, i.e. management of BPM suite
users, the BPM suite rated as good. However, in the subcategory Self-
Administration, i.e. end user customization options, it rated only as poor.
The reason is that it is not possible to change one’s own master and user
data in the portal.
18
this category.

Individual results
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, HCM

CustomerManagement received an overall evaluation of satisfactory (53.3%),
which puts this BPM suite in the lower third of the 20 products evaluated.
The software’s capabilities generally scored high (81.1%), making it below
average for the other software studied.
HCM CustomerManagement’s ease of use can be considered moderate
(65.7%), which also makes it average for the solutions examined.
However, the evaluation team was impressed by the BPM suite’s end user
portal, and the developer tool also has a good form editor. Overall, a lot can
be achieved without programming. However, the testers did not like the
included reporting functionality, which offers little out of the box and usually
requires a change to an external tool.
Chart 12 shows how the HCM CustomerManagement BPM suite scored in the
Systems integration satisfactory (54.7%)
Process execution satisfactory (59.9%)*
BPM governance poor (37.5%)
Chart 12. HCM CustomerManagement evaluation

Individual results
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
Figure 49. IBM in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, IBM achieved a good evaluation

(69.9%), which is slightly above average for the other providers studied. The
only subcategory in which the software was not scored as good is Modelling
Support, i.e. tools for fast, easy modelling. Here the lack of layout
optimization led to a score of satisfactory.
IBM also rated as good in the category Process Implementation (74.7%),

which was above average among the other providers considered.

Individual results
In the subcategory Test Support, i.e. tools for implementation quality

assurance, IBM scored as very good. It got the same score in the
subcategory Reuse & Round Trip, i.e. tools for reuse of process parts and
interaction of professional and technical models. Especially in the latter
aspect, the software offers very good work support by encapsulating
technical information in the professional model. On the other hand, only
satisfactory ratings went to the subcategories Notifications, i.e. definition of
process event notifications, and System Connections, i.e. use of adapters to
connect external systems. The requirements for e-mail notifications are met,
but the ease of use has room to improve. The same applies to connecting
databases to the system.
In the Systems Integration category, IBM achieved a good evaluation

(75.0%), which is slightly above average for the other providers studied. This
impression is confirmed by the good results in the two subcategories System
Integration and Data Integration, i.e. interaction with external applications
and data sources.
In the Process Execution category, IBM was considered satisfactory

(62.4%) 19, which is within the average for the other providers studied. The
BPM suite ranked as very good in the subcategory Accessibility, i.e. access
options from various channels and devices. The interface with mobile devices
and PCs was also impressive. In the subcategory Interactions, i.e. mutual
influence of process instances, the software got a score of very good.
However, the software did not meet any of the requirements posed in this
study in the subcategory Absence, i.e. correct execution of defined
processes when individual people are absent, because the BPM suite
contains no handling of absences.
In the Runtime Management category, IBM rated as satisfactory (60.2%),

which was slightly above the average for the other providers examined. Task
Management, i.e. management and execution of tasks, was rated as good.
However, Handling Special Cases, i.e. dealing with tasks and processes in
exceptional cases, scored only as poor. Cancellation and revocation of
process instances must be explicitly modelled. Moreover, defining
transactional compensations requires a switch from BPMN to BPEL as the
modelling language.
19

Individual results
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
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
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.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, IBM received an

overall evaluation of good (68.1%), which puts this BPM suite in the upper
IBM’s ease of use can be considered moderate (71.5%), which puts it slightly
above the average for the other solutions examined.
20
this category.

Individual results
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
Process execution satisfactory (62.4%)*
Chart 13. IBM evaluation

Individual results
4.11 Inspire Technologies
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
Inspire Technologies Average

Figure 50. Inspire Technologies in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, Inspire Technologies achieved a good

studied. In the subcategory Model Export, i.e. the ability to store process
models, the software rated very good; the comprehensive process manual
was especially impressive. On the other hand, in the subcategory Rule
Definition, i.e. visualization of organizational guidelines, it offers only poor
support, because programming is required to make the adjustments that
meet the requirements set in this study

Individual results
Inspire Technologies rated as good in the category Process Implementation

(75.5%), which was above average among the other providers considered.
The Round Trip rated good; it is the interaction between professional and
technical models. However, only one model is used, in which technical
information is encapsulated. All other subcategories here also rated as good,
except the subcategory Notifications, i.e. definition of process event
notifications. The satisfactory score here is due to the fact that programming
is needed to send e-mail notifications with attachments.
Inspire Technologies rated as good in the category Systems Integration

(87.5%), which was above average among the other providers considered. The
score of good in the subcategory Data Integration, i.e. interaction with external
data sources, was outdone by the very good score in System Integration, i.e.
interaction with external applications. The sophisticated data mapping for
connecting web services was especially impressive.
In the Process Execution category, Inspire Technologies was also considered

good (70.7%), which was slightly above average among the other providers
considered. The subcategory Accessibility, i.e. access options from various
channels and devices, regarding both the mobile end user portal and the PC
view, ranked as very good. However, Information Delivery, i.e. help pages
and end user support, scored only as poor, because the provider sees no need
for help pages and did not include them in the software.
In the Runtime Management category, Inspire Technologies achieved a

satisfactory evaluation (57.0%) 21, which is within the average for the other
providers studied. This impression is confirmed in all subcategories, which
were also rated as satisfactory.
In the Process Review category, Inspire Technologies achieved a satisfactory

evaluation (37.8%) 22, which is below average for the other providers studied.
The software did not impress in any of the categories.
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
22 Due to mediocre confidence (88.9%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of poor in this category.

Individual results
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.
Inspire Technologies rated as good in the category BPM Governance

(66.7%) 23, which was above average among the other providers considered.
This software is a mixed bag: Inspire Technologies succeeds in meeting all
requirements for Rights Management, i.e. definition and administration of
BPM-specific roles and rights, through an extremely finely defined rights
system. However, in the subcategory BPM Management, i.e. visualization of
company-specific BPM processes, it cannot meet the requirements for
customizing the modelling language.
In the Administration category, Inspire Technologies was considered

satisfactory (52.5%), which is slightly below the average for the other
providers studied. User Administration, i.e. management of BPM suite
users, was rated as good. However, Self-Administration, i.e. end user
customization options, rated poor, because adjustments to the portal and
management of custom master data had to be set up individually and were
not contained in the standard software.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, Inspire Technologies

received an overall evaluation of good (62.8%) 24, which puts this BPM suite
in the middle range of the 20 products evaluated.

above average for the other products evaluated.
Inspire Technologies’ ease of use can be considered moderate (65.4%),

which also makes it average for the solutions examined.
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.

Individual results
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
BPM governance good (66.7%)*
Chart 14. Inspire Technologies evaluation

Individual results
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
Figure 51. JobRouter in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, JobRouter was considered satisfactory

(44.9%), which is slightly below the average for the other providers studied. It
barely gets a good score for the subcategory Process Definition, i.e.
visualization of procedural behaviour. While many aspects can be handled
quickly and easily, others require programming. JobRouter is especially
unimpressive in the subcategory Modelling Support, i.e. tools for fast, easy

Individual results
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.
In the Process Implementation category, JobRouter also achieved a

providers studied. Here, most of the categories were rated good. However,
the software could not do better than a poor rating in the subcategory Reuse
and Round Trip, i.e. tools for reusing process parts and interaction between
professional and technical models. JobRouter provides neither reuse nor
separation into a professional and technical model.
In the category Systems Integration, JobRouter was rated good (67.5%),

which is within the average for the other providers studied. The good Data
Integration, i.e. interaction with external data sources, was especially
impressive. In the subcategory System Integration, i.e. interaction with
external applications, it only scored a satisfactory rating, because connection
of web services had to be programmed manually.
In the Process Execution category, JobRouter achieved a good evaluation

(76.1%), which is above average for the other providers studied. The
subcategory Absence, i.e. correct performance of defined processes when
individual people are not available, scored as very good, thanks to a well-
thought-out absence system. However, the subcategory Interactions, i.e.
mutual influence of process instances, was only poor. The reason is that
complex SQL statements are necessary to access other process instances.
In the Runtime Management category, JobRouter also achieved a good

evaluation (72.8%), which is again above average for the other providers
studied. Ranking as very good was the Task Management, i.e. management
and execution of tasks, in which all requirements were convincingly met. On
the other hand, there are slight weaknesses in Handling Special Cases, i.e.
dealing with tasks and processes in exceptional cases. Because no
transactional compensations are possible, the rating here was just satisfactory.
In the Process Review category, JobRouter was considered satisfactory

(59.5%), which is within the average for the other providers studied. The BPM
suite was rated as very good in Instance Review, i.e. inspection of specific
process instances, and in Task Review, i.e. inspecting individual tasks.

Individual results
In both categories, the standard product offers clear, easily configurable

reports. A downward outlier of poor was received for Value Review, i.e.
defining and analysing relevant indicators. When the study requirements were
actually met, it was only possible through manual SQL programming.
In the BPM Governance category, JobRouter was considered satisfactory

software scored as good in the subcategory Rights Management, i.e.
definition and administration of BPM-specific roles and rights. However, in the
processes, none of the study requirements could be met.
In the Administration category, JobRouter achieved a satisfactory evaluation

(57.5%), which is within the average for the other providers studied. A score
of good went to User Administration, i.e. management of BPM suite users.
However, a weak point was the subcategory Self-Administration, i.e. end
user customization options. Because no master and user data can be edited
by the user, and there is no end user portal customization, the score was
poor.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, JobRouter received an

overall evaluation of satisfactory (62.0%) 26, which puts this BPM suite in the

The JobRouter software’s ease of use can be considered moderate (72.3%),

which puts it above the average for the other solutions examined.
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.

Individual results
Criticism went to the use of a proprietary modelling notation, in which the

created model had no semantic connection to the stored functionality. This
meant, for example, that aspects could be drawn in the graphic model without
being reflected in the implementation.
Chart 15 shows how the JobRouter BPM suite scored in the individual
Overall performance satisfactory (62.0%)*
Chart 15. JobRouter evaluation

Individual results
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
Figure 52. K2 in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, K2 achieved a satisfactory result

(47.7%), within the average for the other providers studied. The subcategory
Process Definition, i.e. visualization of procedural behaviour, ranked as
good. However, in the subcategory Model Export, i.e. ability to store process
models, it rated as only poor. It is possible to export the model as an image
file only with workarounds. Process manual creation is not provided for.

Individual results
In the Process Implementation category, K2 was considered good (67.3%),

which was slightly above average among the other providers considered. In
the subcategory System Connections, i.e. use of adapters to connect
external systems, the software ranks very good, due to easy connection of
web services or databases. On the other hand, the subcategory Reuse and
Round Trip, i.e. tools for reusing process parts and the interaction of
professional and technical models, only scored as satisfactory. The reason is
that there is only one model, with no separation between technical and
professional information. On the other hand, there were broad reuse options.
In the Systems Integration category, K2 was also considered good (79.7%),

which was slightly above average among the other providers considered.
This impression was confirmed by good performance in the two
subcategories Data Integration and System Integration, i.e. interaction with
external data sources and applications.
In the Process Execution category, K2 also achieved a good evaluation

(66.3%) within the average for the other providers studied. In the subcategory
Process Implementation, i.e. correct execution of processes, the BPM suite
scored as good, because it met all requirements. However, the BPM suite
showed weaknesses in the subcategory Information Delivery, i.e. help
pages and end user support. Although process-specific help is not provided
at all, other help can be accessed online.
In the Runtime Management category, K2 achieved a satisfactory result

(55.8%) within the average for the other providers studied. Good ratings went
to Task Management, i.e. management and execution of tasks, and to
runtime. Only a poor rating went to the subcategory Handling Special
Cases, i.e. dealing with tasks and processes in exceptional cases. The
reason is that revocation or cancellation of process instances must be
explicitly provided in the process model, while transactional compensations
are not possible at all.
In the Process Review category, K2 was considered satisfactory (47.9%),

which is slightly below the average for the other providers studied. The
was evaluated as very good. However, Task Review, i.e. inspecting
individual tasks rated only poor. To see reports on past tasks of other users,
the appropriate view must be created manually.

Individual results
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.
In the BPM Governance category, K2 was considered poor (28.1%), which is

slightly below the average for the other providers studied. The subcategory
Rights Management offers satisfactory functionality for definition and
administration of BPM-specific roles and rights. However, in the subcategory
BPM Management, i.e. visualization of company-specific BPM processes,
the software met none of the study requirements.
In the Administration category, K2 was considered poor (30.0%), which is

below the average for the other providers studied. The software showed
special weaknesses in the subcategory User Administration, i.e.
management of BPM suite users. Because no functionality is offered here,
the score was unacceptable. Even in the subcategory Self-Administration,
i.e. end user customization options, K2 came out poor, because custom user
data can be managed only with workarounds and the end user portal views
cannot be customized at all.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, K2 received an overall

evaluation of satisfactory (55.6%), which puts this BPM suite in the lower third
The software’s capabilities generally scored moderate (79.8%), making it

below average for the other software studied.
K2’s ease of use can also be considered moderate (69.6%), which puts it
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.

Individual results
Administration poor (30.0%)
Capabilities moderate (79.8%)
Chart 16. K2 evaluation

Individual results
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
Administration
Process Process review
Metasonic Average
Figure 53. Metasonic in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, Metasonic achieved a satisfactory result

(47.8%), within the average for the other providers studied. The subcategory
Model Export, i.e. ability to store process models, was rated very good.
However, in the subcategories Modelling Support, i.e. tools for fast, easy
programming, and Rule Definition, i.e. visualization of organizational
guidelines, the software rated only as poor. In the former subcategory, one
major negative was not using a standard notation, such as BPMN, along with
the lack of layout optimization for process models.

Individual results
In regard to rule definition, cross-process business rules must be realized

through sub-processes.
In the Process Implementation category, Metasonic was also considered

studied. A very good rating went to Data Implementation, i.e. representation
of data structures and authorizations for these data. On the other hand, the
BPM suite rated only poor in the subcategory Exception Performance, i.e.
representation of behaviour patterns in exceptional cases, because it was not
possible to define transactions and associated compensations. In the
subcategory System Connections, i.e. use of adapters to connect external
systems, the software also ranks poor, because systems can be connected
only through manual programming or by accessing an external integration
tool. In the subcategory Reuse and Round Trip, i.e. reuse of process parts
and interaction between professional and technical process models, the
software was graded as satisfactory. While definition and reuse of templates
is supported, the model makes no distinction between professional and
technical information.
In the subcategory Systems Integration, Metasonic only achieved a

providers studied. In the subcategory System Integration, i.e. interaction with
external applications, the rating was good, Data Integration, i.e. interaction
with external data sources, was only satisfactory.
In the Process Execution category, Metasonic also achieved a good

evaluation (64.8%) 27, within the average for the other providers studied. This
impression is mainly confirmed by a rating of very good in the subcategory
Information Delivery, i.e. help pages and end user support. However, in the
subcategory Process Initiation, i.e. the options for starting process
instances, the grade was just satisfactory. The reason is that programming is
always needed to start tasks or process instances through events or e-mails.
In the Runtime Management category, Metasonic was considered

studied.
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.

Individual results
There were special weaknesses in the subcategories Task Delegation, i.e.

forwarding of tasks, and Handling Special Cases, i.e. dealing with tasks and
processes in exceptional cases. The study requirements in both categories
could be met only through explicit modelling — there were no standard
functions for this.
In the Process Review category, Metasonic achieved a satisfactory evaluation

instances, was rated very good. However, the subcategory Value Review, i.e.
defining and analysing relevant indicators, was rated only poor. For defining
and calling up individual queries, as required in this study, manual
implementation was required.
In the BPM Governance category, Metasonic was considered poor (36.1%) 28,
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.
In the Administration category, Metasonic was considered satisfactory

(49.3%), which is slightly below the average for the other providers studied. A
score of good went to the subcategory User Administration, i.e.
management of BPM suite users. However, Self-Administration, i.e. end
user customization options, ranked as poor. The standard solution has no
functionality for managing one’s own master data or for customization.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, the Metasonic solution

received an overall evaluation of satisfactory (54.5%), which puts this BPM
suite in the lower third of the 20 products evaluated.

28
Due to mediocre confidence (75.0%), it is possible that the product deserved a better grade of satisfactory in this
category.

Individual results
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
Systems integration satisfactory (60.9%)
BPM governance poor (36.1%)*
Chart 17. Metasonic evaluation

Individual results
4.15 Oracle Corporation
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
Administration
Oracle Average
Figure 54. Oracle in comparison
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.

Individual results
In the Process Implementation category, Oracle achieved a satisfactory

studied. The software was especially impressive for its Test Support, i.e.
tools for implementation quality assurance. The debugging capabilities and
playback options for processes got a score of very good. However, the
subcategory Process Data Export, i.e. storage options for process variables,
scored only poor, because export of process variables from Office
documents, for example, and definition of templates do not come standard.
In the Systems Integration category, Oracle was also considered

satisfactory (55.6%) 29, which was below average for the other providers
studied. On the one hand, System Integration, i.e. interaction with external
applications, was rated good. On the other hand, in Data Integration, i.e.
interaction with external data sources, the software could meet none of the
study requirements, because a programming error partly prevented the test
script from running to completion. The Round Trip rated satisfactory; it is the
interaction between professional and technical models. It allows a
professional model to be maintained separately from a technical one.
In the Process Execution category, Oracle achieved a good evaluation

(65.0%) 30, within the average for the other providers studied. In almost all the
categories, the ratings were good or at least satisfactory. The only real
weakness was in Interactions, i.e. mutual influence of process instances. A
process instance can be managed from another process instance through
individual programming.
Oracle also ranked as good in the category Runtime Management (75.0%),

which was above average among the other providers considered. Especially
in the subcategory Task Delegation, i.e. in forwarding of tasks, the
functionalities are impressive and earned a score of very good. At least a
satisfactory rating went to Handling Special Cases, i.e. dealing with tasks
and processes in exceptional cases. Cancellation of process instances and
execution of transactional compensations could at least be handled with
workarounds.
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.

Individual results
In the Process Review category, Oracle achieved a good evaluation

(65.8%) 31, which is slightly above average for the other providers studied. For
example, Progress Review, i.e. sequence traceability for specific process
instances, rated as good. However, there are slight weaknesses in Task
Review, i.e. inspecting individual tasks, because the overviews required by
the study partly require manual creation at first. The same applies to the
subcategory Value Review, i.e. defining and analysing relevant indicators,
which here also led to a satisfactory score.
In the BPM Governance category, Oracle was considered poor (33.3%),

specific roles and rights, offers at least satisfactory settings capabilities.
However, for BPM Management, i.e. visualization of company-specific BPM
processes, the software was not convincing. The missing functionality for
customizing the modelling language and the fact that BPM processes could
be represented only through workarounds led to this rating.
In the Administration category, Oracle achieved a good evaluation (68.9%),

which is slightly above average for the other providers studied. In the
subcategories Process Administration, i.e. management and deployment of
process versions, and User Administration, i.e. management of BPM suite
users, the software scored as good. Only a satisfactory rating went to Self-
Administration, i.e. end user customization options. In the standard solution,
Oracle does not allow modification of master data, which must be installed
afterward.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, Oracle received an

overall evaluation of good (64.2%) 32, which puts this BPM suite in the upper

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.

Individual results
Oracle’s ease of use can be considered moderate (68.0%), which also

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
Process modelling good(65.7%)
Systems integration satisfactory (55.6%)*
Chart 18. Oracle evaluation

Individual results
4.16 PROLOGICS
The BPM suite “FireStart” version 2, from PROLOGICS, generally made a

good impression in the study. While, in the BPM Governance and Process
Modelling categories, the software is above average among the providers
considered, it is average in the other categories. This BPM suite’s results in
comparison to the other providers are shown in Figure 55.
Administration
Total
Runtime management
PROLOGICS Average
Figure 55. PROLOGICS in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, PROLOGICS was considered good

(82.7%), which is above average for the other providers studied. All
subcategories were rated as good. The real standout, however, was
Modelling Support, i.e. tools for fast, easy programming, which rated very
good. The modelling interface offers all required functionalities and is
impressive for its ease of use.

Individual results
In the category Process Implementation, PROLOGICS was also rated good

Round Trip rated good; it is the interaction between professional and
technical models. It is possible to import a professional model, transfer it into
an implementation model, and export it back into a professional model. The
subcategory Data Implementation, i.e. representation of data structures and
authorizations, even received a very good rating. However, Process Data
Export, i.e. storage options for process variables, was only poor, because the
standard version does not allow process variables to be exported from Office.
In the Systems Integration category, PROLOGICS achieved a good

evaluation (68.8%), within the average for the other providers studied. In the
subcategory System Integration, i.e. interaction with external applications, the
rating was very good. However, the subcategory Data Integration, i.e.
interaction with external data sources, rated only satisfactory, because of the
amount of work needed to display information in the portal.
In the category Process Execution, PROLOGICS was also rated good

(64.1%) 34, which is within the average for the other providers studied. Also
good is Process Initiation, i.e. the ability to start process instances. In the
subcategories Process Implementation, i.e. correct execution of defined
processes, and Absence, i.e. correct execution of defined processes when
individual people are absent, the software scored as satisfactory. In both
cases, the reason for the score was that the BPM suite could not completely
handle absences and substitution rules. It is also not possible to create
dynamic groups for runtime. The BPM suite’s greatest weaknesses in this
category were in Information Delivery, i.e. help pages and end user support.
The fact that help had to be set up and linked externally resulted in a score of
poor.
In the Runtime Management category, PROLOGICS was considered

satisfactory (47.4%), which is slightly below average for the other providers
studied. The software scored as poor in the subcategories Task Delegation,
i.e. forwarding of tasks, and
33
Due to mediocre confidence (86.4%), it is possible that the product deserved a worse grade of satisfactory in this
34

Individual results
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.
In the Process Review category, PROLOGICS was also considered

studied. Especially the subcategories Progress Review, i.e. sequence
traceability for specific process instances, and Instance Review, i.e.
inspection of specific process instances, were rated as good. However,
scores of poor went to the subcategories Value Review, i.e. defining and
analysing relevant indicators, and Conflict Recognition, i.e. recognizing
deviating or problematic process instances. Definition and evaluation of
individual indicators requires custom-programmed reports. The same applies
to recognition and notification of problematic process instances.
In the BPM Governance category, PROLOGICS rated as satisfactory

examined. Things are divided here: Rights Management, i.e. definition and
administration of BPM-specific roles and rights, rated as very good. On the
other hand, in the subcategory BPM Management, i.e. visualization of
company-specific BPM processes, the software could not meet the
requirement for customizing the modelling language.
In the Administration category, PROLOGICS was considered satisfactory

subcategory Process Administration, i.e. management and deployment of
process versions, rated as very good. However, User Administration, i.e.
management of BPM suite users, rated only poor, because functionalities for
viewing all users and modification of user data are not provided.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, the solution from

PROLOGICS received an overall evaluation of good (62.8%) 35, which puts
this BPM suite in the middle range of the 20 products evaluated.
35

Individual results
The software’s capabilities generally scored very high (90.8%), making it

average among the other solutions considered.
PROLOGICS’ ease of use can be considered moderate (69.1%), which puts it

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
Chart 19. PROLOGICS evaluation

Individual results
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
Administration
SoftProject Average
Figure 56. SoftProject in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, SoftProject achieved a good evaluation

(66.8%), which is slightly above average for the other providers studied. The
BPM suite scored good in the subcategories Model Export, i.e. the ability to
store process models, and Process Definition, i.e. visualization of procedural
behaviour. However, in the subcategory Rule Definition, i.e. visualization of
organizational guidelines, it had a hard time handling the business rules
required by the study, which led to a score of poor.

Individual results
SoftProject also rated as good in the category Process Implementation

(74.6%), which was above average among the other providers considered. A
score of very good went to the subcategory Test Support, i.e. tools for
implementation quality assurance, because of an appealing debug mode with
graphical support. The Round Trip rated good; it is the interaction between
professional and technical models. However, only one model is used, in
which technical information is encapsulated. However, Data Implementation
i.e. representation of data structures and authorizations, rated only poor,
because this required either manual programming or use of a very spartan
editor.
In the Systems Integration category, SoftProject was considered good

(78.1%), which was slightly above average among the other providers
considered. This impression was confirmed by good performance in the two
subcategories Data Integration and System Integration, i.e. interaction with
external data sources and applications.
SoftProject also rated as good in the category Process Implementation

(69.9%), which was slightly above average among the other providers
considered. The subcategory Interactions, i.e. mutual influence of process
instances, was evaluated as very good. However, for Information Delivery,
i.e. tools for end user support, the BPM suite scored as poor, because help had
to be integrated with a custom deposit.
In the Runtime Management category, SoftProject achieved a satisfactory

studied. The satisfactory impression was confirmed in most subcategories.
However, the subcategory External Intervention, i.e. change and control of
process instances for runtime, the score was poor, because business rules
could not be changed for specific instances, which prevented intervention in a
process instance.
In the Process Review category, SoftProject was also considered satisfactory

instances, was rated good. However, Value Review, i.e. defining and
analysing relevant indicators, was rated only poor. Here the provider
recommends switching to external controlling tools.

Individual results
In the BPM Governance category, SoftProject achieved a good evaluation

(81.3%), which is above average for the other providers studied. Rights
Management, i.e. definition and administration of BPM-specific roles and
rights, rated as very good, thanks to a very finely tuned rights system. BPM
Management, i.e. visualization of company-specific BPM processes, also
rated as good.
In the Administration category, SoftProject achieved a good evaluation

subcategory User Administration, i.e. management of BPM suite users,
rated as good. However, the subcategory Process Administration, i.e.
management and deployment of process versions, rated as satisfactory. One
weakness here is that no differences between process versions can be
represented here.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, SoftProject received an


above average for the other products evaluated.
SoftProject’s ease of use can be considered moderate (67.8%), which also

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.

Individual results
Process implementation good(74.6%)
BPM governance good(81.3%)
Chart 20. SoftProject evaluation

Individual results
4.18 T!M Solutions
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
Administration
T!M Solutions Average
Figure 57. T!M Solutions in comparison
In the Process Modelling category, T!M Solutions was considered

satisfactory (37.9%), which is below average for the other providers studied.
A score of unacceptable went to the subcategory Rule Definition, i.e.
visualization of organizational guidelines, because the BPM suite does not
provide business rules as such. A score of poor goes to the subcategory
Modelling Support, i.e. tools for fast, easy programming. The reason is that
there is no layout optimization, and the ability to trace between models is
inadequate.

Individual results
In the Process Implementation category, T!M Solutions achieved a

providers studied. The subcategory Reuse and Round Trip, i.e. tools for
reusing process parts and interaction of professional and technical models,
scored as good, mainly because of the separation of professional and
technical information in the model. However, the subcategories Data
Implementation, i.e. representation of data structures and authorizations,
and Test Support, i.e. tools for implementation quality assurance, were seen
as poor. To change process data rights and define data fields, programming
is required. For test purposes, external tools sometimes had to be used.
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.
In the Process Execution category, T!M Solutions achieved a good

studied. A score of very good went to the subcategory Accessibility, i.e.
access options from various channels and devices. The testers liked the tidy
portal on both PCs and end devices. In the subcategory Organizational
Changes, i.e. correct execution of defined processes during organizational
changes to runtime, the BPM suite scored only poor, however. The reason is
that forwarding of substitution rules did not work for group tasks, which leads
to problems when changing substitutes.
In the Runtime Management category, T!M Solutions was considered

satisfactory (46.1%), which is slightly was below average for the other
providers studied. A score of poor went to the subcategories Task
Delegation, i.e. forwarding of tasks, and Handling Special Cases, i.e.
dealing with tasks and processes in exceptional cases. The software does not
provide full functionality for delegating tasks, so it is not possible to delegate
task classes to other users, for example. Process instances can be revoked
or cancelled only using workarounds, while execution of transactional
compensations is not provided at all.

Individual results
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.
In the BPM Governance category, T!M Solutions was considered satisfactory

specific roles and rights, scored as good. However, the result in the
processes, was poor, because the BPM cycle cannot be displayed in the
software.
In the Administration category, T!M Solutions achieved a good evaluation

(76.9%), which is above average for the other providers studied. This
impression is confirmed in all subcategories, which were also rated as good.
Thus, based on evaluation of the individual categories, T!M Solutions

received an overall evaluation of satisfactory (58.8%), which puts this BPM
suite in the middle range of the 20 products evaluated.

T!M Solutions’ ease of use can be considered moderate (65.7%), which also
The evaluation team especially liked the good out-of-the-box controlling

overviews, which can be expanded with SQL. The negative was that quite a
bit of programming work is necessary, so the ease-of-use functions weren’t
there.
Chart 21 shows how the T!M Solutions BPM suite scored in the individual
categories.

Individual results
Chart 21. T!M Solutions evaluation

Summary
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.
5.1 Overall evaluation
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 58 shows an overview of the evaluated products in regard to

capabilities and ease of use. The dividing lines at 75.0% for capabilities and
66.6% for ease of use represent the mean of the achievable score range.
Additionally, the highlight colour indicates the confidence in the products. A
black dot (•) indicates confidence between 90% and 100%. A dark grey dot (•)
stands for 70% to 90%, and a light grey dot (•) indicates a value below 70%.
The same highlighting is used for all subsequent quadrants in later sub-
chapters.

Summary
Figure 58. Overall evaluation quadrant
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
Figure 59. Overall evaluation score distribution
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

Summary
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
The categories Process execution and Runtime management came out

similarly to the overall evaluation. With one exception, all providers’ products
scored high in capabilities. However, ease of use shows a broad mid-range
with outliers both above and below. Among other things, this is because some
BPM suites already have comprehensive process execution and runtime
management functions in a standard portal, while in other suites these first
have to be configured individually or even programmed. In this category, the
overall score for all BPM suites examined was 58.9%. The average for
capabilities was 91.8%, and the average for ease of use was 64.0%.
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 60. Process execution & runtime management quadrant

Summary
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
Figure 61. Process execution & runtime management score distribution
JobRouter scored highest in this category at 74.4%. This BPM suite

also had the greatest ease of use in this range at 76.9%. For
capabilities, however, five other suites received the maximum
evaluation of 100%: agito, AXON IVY, Groiss Informatics, Metasonic
and Oracle.

Summary
5.3 Process implementation and systems integration
In the categories Process implementation and Systems integration, many

products were impressive for their very high capabilities. At the same time, it
is striking that there are considerable differences in ease of use among the
BPM suites. The reason is primarily that some suites offer many functions
and assistants for handling standard programming tasks, while other BPM
suites favour a manual, code-intensive approach to development. In this
category, the overall score for all BPM suites examined was 63.5%. The
average for capabilities was 91.9%, and the average for ease of use was
68.9%.
Figure 62 provides an overview of the suites’ evaluation in the Process

implementation and Systems integration categories.
Figure 62. Process implementation and systems integration quadrant

Summary
Figure 63 additionally shows the score distribution in the two categories.

While one product was rated as poor, there were also many suites evaluated
as good.
very good
good
satisfactory
poor
unacceptable
Figure 63. Process implementation and systems integration score distribution
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%.
5.4 Process modelling
The Process modelling category showed very wide-ranging results. On the

one hand, there are BPM suites that score highly for both capabilities and
ease of use. On the other hand, some products are disappointing in both
respects. This is partly because many BPM suites are primarily considered
development tools. They therefore rely on proprietary and in some cases non-
graphical modelling. Others, meanwhile, try to allow simpler modelling with
current standards even for technical users. In this category, the overall score
for all BPM suites examined was 56.3%. The average for capabilities was
85.8%, and the average for ease of use was 65.2%.
The diagram in Figure 64 shows the breakdown for the products regarding
capabilities and ease of use in the Process modelling category.

Summary
Figure 64. Process modelling quadrant
Figure 65 additionally shows score distribution visually. It shows even

distribution of good and satisfactory suites in this category.
very good
good
satisfactory
poor
unacceptable
Figure 65. Distribution of scores for process modelling
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%.

Summary
In regard to capabilities, however, the suites from AXON IVY, Groiss

Informatics, Inspire Technologies, Oracle and PROLOGICS each scored
100%.
5.5 Process review
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.
Figure 66. Process review quadrant
The score distribution is shown in Figure 67. Again, most providers were in
the satisfactory range.

Summary
very good
good
satisfactory
poor
unacceptable
Figure 67. Process review score distribution
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.
5.6 Administration & BPM governance
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%.
Figure 68 gives an overview of the suites in regard to capabilities and ease of

use in the Administration and BPM governance categories.

Summary
Figure 68. Administration & BPM governance quadrant
Figure 69 additionally shows a large number of the products evaluated as

satisfactory, with relatively few outliers rated good or poor.
very good
good
satisfactory
poor
unacceptable
Figure 69. Administration & BPM governance score distribution
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%.

Summary
5.7 Decision tree
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.
It is therefore important to remember that the decision tree is no substitute for

thorough examination of the products. The tree is merely a rough orientation
for choosing which candidates merit closer examination. This tree should also
not be interpreted as devaluating certain suites, even if some products did not
rate as “above average” in specific categories.

Summary
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

Summary
5.8 Overview of results
The following charts give a summary overview of all the BPM suites studied.
The complete overview is in the appendix to this report.
Category AgilePoint agito Appian Appway AXON IVY Bizagi
Process modelling satisfactory satisfactory good good good good

(62.4%) (42.6%) (62.9%) (69.1%) (68.7%) (80.9%)
Process implementation good satisfactory satisfactory good good good

(64.2%) (57.1%) (61.1%) (71.1%) (64.3%) (84.6%)
good satisfactory good good good good

Systems integration
(74.7%) (45.8%) (82.1%) (73.4%) (71.3%) (85.4%)
Process execution good good satisfactory satisfactory good good

(64.8%) (63.2%) (58.1%) (60.3%) (77.7%) (66.2%)
Runtime management Good good satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory

(65.8%) (63.3%) (48.0%) (41.4%) (60.9%) (49.6%)
Process control good satisfactory good satisfactory satisfactory

good (66.3%)
(69.0%) (54.2%) (63.2%) (59.5%) (59.0%)
BPM governance satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory unacceptable good satisfactory

(38.3%) (48.4%) (42.9%) (12.5%) (75.6%) (46.9%)
Administration satisfactory satisfactory good satisfactory satisfactory good

(56.0%) (45.6%) (63.5%) (58.1%) (57.9%) (76.9%)
Overall performance good satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory good good

(63.7%) (55.0%) (59.5%) (59.4%) (66.7%) (70.3%)
Capabilities high very high high very high very high very high
(89,0%) (93.8%) (86,4%) (92.8%) (94.6%) (90.1%)
Ease of use moderate low moderate moderate moderate high

(71.5%) (58.6%) (68.8%) (64.0%) (70.5%) (78.0%)
Confidence moderate high high high high high

(87.0%) (98.3%) (95.7%) (96.5%) (97.4%) (96.5%)

Summary
HCM
Category DHC Business Groiss IBM Inspire JobRouter
Customer
Solutions Informatics Technologies
Mgmt.
Process modelling satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory good satisfactory

good (63.8%)
(44.9%) (51.1%) (45.3%) (69.9%) (44.9%)
Process implementation satisfactory satisfactory good satisfactory

poor (25.0%) good (75.5%)
(47.7%) (52.2%) (74.7%) (57.7%)
good satisfactory Good good good

Systems integration poor (34.4%)
(66.7%) (54.7%) (75.0%) (87.5%) (67.5%)
Process execution satisfactory good satisfactory satisfactory good good

(49.4%) (72.8%) (59.9%) (62.4%) (70.7%) (76.1%)
Runtime management satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory good

(50.8%) (61.7%) (58.5%) (60.2%) (57.0%) (72.8%)
Process control satisfactory satisfactory good satisfactory satisfactory

good (79.2%)
(43.0%) (52.0%) (75.4%) (37.8%) (59.5%)
BPM governance good satisfactory satisfactory Good satisfactory

poor (37.5%)
(81.3%) (50.0%) (56.9%) (66.7%) (48.3%)
Administration good satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory

good (68.3%)
(65.8%) (57.5%) (54.4%) (52.5%) (57.5%)
Overall performance satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory good good satisfactory

(46.2%) (62.2%) (53.3%) (68.1%) (62.8%) (62.0%)
Capabilities high very high very high very high

high (81.1%) high (85.8%)
(82.5%) (94.6%) (95.3%) (96.1%)
Ease of use low moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate

(56.0%) (65.8%) (65.7%) (71.5%) (65.4%) (72.3%)
Confidence moderate high high high moderate High

(89.6%) (96.5%) (92.2%) (92.2%) (89.6%) (98.3%)

Summary
Category K2 Metasonic Oracle PROLOGICS SoftProject T!M Solutions
Process modelling satisfactory satisfactory good good good satisfactory

(47.7%) (47.8%) (65.7%) (82.7%) (66.8%) (37.9%)
Process implementation good satisfactory satisfactory good good satisfactory

(67.3%) (54.3%) (58.0%) (65.1%) (74.6%) (56.5%)
good satisfactory satisfactory Good good good

Systems integration
(79.7%) (60.9%) (55.6%) (68.8%) (78.1%) (65.6%)
Process execution good good good good good good

(66.3%) (64.8%) (65.0%) (64.1%) (69.9%) (69.8%)
Runtime management satisfactory satisfactory good satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory

(55.8%) (52.7%) (75.0%) (47.4%) (51.7%) (46.1%)
Process control satisfactory satisfactory good satisfactory satisfactory

good (68.8%)
(47.9%) (54.0%) (65.8%) (55.5%) (51.7%)
BPM governance satisfactory good satisfactory

poor (28.1%) poor (36.1%) poor (33.3%)
(62.5%) (81.3%) (50.0%)
Administration satisfactory good satisfactory good good

poor (30.0%)
(49.3%) (68.9%) (56.3%) (62.8%) (76.9%)
Overall performance satisfactory satisfactory good good satisfactory

good (62.8%)
(55.6%) (54.5%) (64.2%) (65.3%) (58.8%)
average very high very high very high very high high
Capabilities
(79.8%) (92.4%) (94.3%) (90.8%) (96.3%) (89.5%)
Ease of use moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate

low (59.0%)
(69.6%) (68.0%) (69.1%) (67.8%) (65.7%)
Confidence high high high high high high

(94.8%) (91.3%) (92.2%) (94.8%) (94.8%) (99.1%)

Summary
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 choice of a suitable product always depends on the specific requirements

placed on the BPM suite. This study’s results can help in reaching preliminary
decisions. However, it is no substitute for thorough examination of the products’
suitability to a specific application.

Appendix A: Detailed overview of ratings
Appendix A: Detailed overview of ratings
The following charts show the overall evaluation for all participants in all
subcategories. However, confidence in the individual areas is not considered
here.

Summary
DHC Business HCM Customer

Category AgilePoint agito Appian Appway AXON IVY Bizagi Groiss Informatics
Solutions Management
Process modelling satisfactory (62.4%) satisfactory (42.6%) good (62.9%) good (69.1%) good (68.7%) good (80.9%) satisfactory (44.9%) satisfactory (51.1%) satisfactory (45.3%)
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 Poor Poor

Rule definition satisfactory (38.3%) good (68.8%) good (71.4%) good (66.7%) satisfactory (41.7%) good (80.6%)
(25.0%) (25.0%) (33.3%)
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%)
Poor poor Poor

Notifications very good (90.0%) good (63.1%) good (81.3%) satisfactory (55.0%) good (63.9%) good (85.4%)
(25.0%) (16.7%) (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%)
very good unacceptable

Form design good (71.7%) good (87.5%) good (81.0%) very good (95.8%) very good (88.3%) good (81.3%) good (83.3%)
(100.0%) (0.0%)
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%)
Poor poor poor Poor unacceptable

Test support - good (68.8%) very good (95.8%) very good (100.0%)
(25.0%) (25.0%) (25.0%) (25.0%) (0.0%)
poor Poor Poor

Reuse & round trip good (78.1%) poor (18.8%) good (73.4%) good (66.7%) good (87.5%) poor (18.8%)
(27.5%) (18.8%) (37.5%)
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%)

Appendix

unacceptable poor
System integration good (74.4%) poor (25.0%) good (87.5%) satisfactory (62.5%) very good (90.0%) very good (95.8%) satisfactory (58.3%)
(0.0%) (25.0%)
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%)
Poor unacceptable very good

Absence/presence good (87.5%) good (81.3%) good (87.5%) good (78.1%) very good (90.6%) good (75.0%)
(25.0%) (0.0%) (95.0%)
Poor poor unacceptable Poor very good

Information delivery good (85.0%) satisfactory (50.0%) good (75.0%) satisfactory (62.5%)
(25.0%) (25.0%) (0.0%) (25.0%) (100.0%)
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%)

Summary

unacceptable
BPM governance satisfactory (38.3%) satisfactory (48.4%) satisfactory (42.9%) good (75.6%) satisfactory (46.9%) good (81.3%) satisfactory (50.0%) poor (37.5%)
(12.5%)
unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable

BPM management poor (25.0%) poor (25.0%) satisfactory (57.5%) poor (25.0%) good (71.9%) unacceptable (0.0%)
(12.5%) (0.0%) (0.0%)
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%)

Appendix
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 unacceptable satisfactory

Model export good (75.0%) good (87.5%) very good (90.6%) good (77.1%) good (87.5%) good (77.1%)
(34.4%) (12.5%) (50.0%)
Satisfactory poor poor poor very good satisfactory Poor

Modelling support good (71.3%) good (76.0%)
(59.4%) (18.8%) (14.1%) (26.6%) (95.3%) (60.4%) (31.3%)
satisfactory Satisfactory satisfactory

Process definition good (74.7%) good (68.8%) good (81.3%) good (66.1%) good (82.8%) good (78.4%)
(61.3%) (56.3%) (49.2%)
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%)
Process satisfactory satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

good (74.7%) good (75.5%) good (67.3%) good (65.1%) good (74.6%)
implementation (57.7%) (54.3%) (58.0%) (56.5%)
Exception Satisfactory poor satisfactory satisfactory

performance (43.8%) (30.6%) (52.1%) (50.0%)
satisfactory Satisfactory satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory satisfactory

Notifications good (83.3%) good (79.2%) good (66.7%)
(50.0%) (50.0%) (60.0%) (50.0%) (62.5%) (43.8%)
Satisfactory poor poor poor

Data implementation very good (90.6%) good (80.0%) good (75.0%) very good (90.6%) good (87.5%)
(46.9%) (37.5%) (25.0%) (25.0%)
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 Poor Poor

Process data export good (81.3%) good (77.5%) good (75.0%) good (66.7%) good (73.6%) good (72.9%)
(53.1%) (33.3%) (37.5%)
satisfactory poor satisfactory satisfactory

System connections good (73.3%) good (68.3%) good (87.5%) good (70.8%) good (84.7%)
(56.3%) (37.5%) (55.6%) (47.9%)
satisfactory satisfactory very good Satisfactory very good poor

Test support very good (93.8%) good (65.0%) good (70.0%)
(62.5%) (50.0%) (100.0%) (50.0%) (100.0%) (25.0%)
poor Satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory

Reuse & round trip very good (91.7%) good (83.8%) good (76.6%) good (81.3%) good (84.4%)
(20.0%) (40.6%) (43.8%) (43.8%)
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%)

Summary
Inspire
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%)
unacceptable poor satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory

Absence/presence good (87.5%) very good (90.0%) good (83.3%) good (84.4%)
(0.0%) (37.5%) (59.4%) (53.1%) (50.0%)
Poor poor poor poor

Information delivery good (68.8%) good (80.0%) very good (93.8%) good (83.3%) good (81.3%)
(25.0%) (25.0%) (25.0%) (25.0%)
Organizational Satisfactory satisfactory poor

good (75.0%) good (83.3%) good (75.0%) good (75.0%) good (75.0%) good (73.3%)
changes (50.0%) (52.1%) (37.5%)
Process Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory satisfactory

implementation (58.8%) (57.6%) (46.9%) (61.7%)
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 Poor Poor poor

Interaction very good (91.7%) good (75.0%) good (68.8%) good (87.5%) good (75.0%)
(60.0%) (25.0%) (25.0%) (25.0%)
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%)
Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory Satisfactory

Runtime management good (72.8%) good (75.0%)
(60.2%) (57.0%) (55.8%) (52.7%) (47.4%) (51.7%) (46.1%)
Satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory Satisfactory

Task management good (76.0%) good (87.5%) good (69.8%) good (69.8%) good (79.9%)
(62.5%) (53.5%) (60.5%) (60.4%)
Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory poor poor satisfactory Poor

Task delegation good (68.3%) very good (91.7%)
(50.0%) (50.0%) (43.8%) (25.0%) (35.4%) (43.8%) (33.3%)
Satisfactory satisfactory poor Satisfactory

External intervention good (68.8%) good (66.7%) good (68.8%) good (84.4%) good (79.2%)
(60.0%) (60.4%) (35.4%) (50.0%)
Poor Satisfactory Satisfactory Poor poor satisfactory poor satisfactory Poor

Handling special cases
(37.5%) (50.0%) (58.8%) (31.3%) (25.0%) (53.1%) (37.5%) (52.9%) (31.3%)
Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory

Process control good (75.4%) good (65.8%) good (68.8%)
(37.8%) (59.5%) (47.9%) (54.0%) (55.5%) (51.7%)

Appendix
Inspire
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 Satisfactory very good satisfactory satisfactory

Instance review good (87.5%) good (66.7%) good (75.0%) good (87.5%)
(40.6%) (62.5%) (93.8%) (53.1%) (60.0%)
Poor Poor satisfactory poor satisfactory

Conflict recognition very good (92.2%) good (70.3%) good (77.1%) good (64.1%)
(25.0%) (18.8%) (44.4%) (25.0%) (51.5%)
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%)
Satisfactory Poor Poor Poor poor satisfactory poor Poor Satisfactory

Value review
(62.5%) (16.7%) (15.0%) (35.9%) (34.4%) (53.1%) (37.5%) (32.0%) (50.0%)
Satisfactory Satisfactory poor poor poor satisfactory Satisfactory

BPM governance good (66.7%) good (81.3%)
(56.9%) (48.3%) (28.1%) (36.1%) (33.3%) (62.5%) (50.0%)
Satisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable satisfactory unacceptable unacceptable Poor

BPM management good (72.9%)
(43.8%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (58.3%) (12.5%) (0.0%) (34.4%)
Satisfactory poor satisfactory

Rights management good (83.3%) very good (100.0%) good (72.5%) very good (93.8%) very good (89.6%) good (65.6%)
(56.3%) (25.0%) (54.2%)
Satisfactory Satisfactory Poor satisfactory satisfactory

Administration good (68.3%) good (68.9%) good (62.8%) good (76.9%)
(52.5%) (57.5%) (30.0%) (49.3%) (56.3%)
Satisfactory Unacceptable poor

User administration good (68.3%) good (80.0%) good (75.0%) good (73.3%) good (72.2%) good (75.0%)
(52.8%) (0.0%) (20.8%)
Process Satisfactory Satisfactory satisfactory very good

good (82.8%) good (65.0%) good (79.7%) satisfactory (55.2%) good (75.0%)
administration (61.3%) (62.5%) (60.9%) (92.2%)
Poor Poor Poor Poor satisfactory satisfactory

Self-administration good (64.6%) good (63.6%) good (81.3%)
(25.0%) (25.0%) (16.7%) (16.7%) (50.0%) (43.8%)

Summary
Appendix B: List of all software vendors contacted
• Action Solutions AG • inubit (Bosch Software Innovations)

• Active Endpoints • ipro consulting
• Adobe Systems • IQ-optimize Software AG
• AgilePoint • ISIS PAPYRUS
• agito GmbH • itp commerce ltd.
• iWay Software (Information
• Appian
Builders)
• Appway • JobRouter
• ARCWAY AG • JOOPS Informationstechnik GmbH
• AristaFlow GmbH • C2
• arvato systems - BERTELSMANN • KANA
• Autonomy • Kern AG
• Axway • kiwiw Systems GmbH
• Barium • KTC - Karlsruhe Technology
• binner IMS GmbH Consulting GmbH
• Bizagi • LINTRA Solutions GmbH
• BOC Information Technologies • Metasonic AG

Consulting GmbH
• BPM-X GmbH • Method Park Software AG
• BPS-Solutions GmbH • Microsoft
• BTC AG • MID GmbH
• Casewise • Open Text
• Comindware • Oracle
• Consideo GmbH • Pegasystems
• CORAK Unternehmensberatung
• Ploetz + Zeller GmbH
GmbH
• process4.biz GmbH
• Cordys
• ProcessGene
• Covum AG • Progress Software
• CURSOR Software AG • PROLOGICS
• DHC Business Solutions GmbH & Co.
• RS Systeme GmbH
KG
• Dr. Lürzer management solutions • Run My Process
• • SAP
Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE

2014
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

150

Fraunhofer IESE - 2014 - Full Report - English Translation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fraunhofer IESE - 2014 - Full Report - English Translation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fraunhofer

FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR EXPERIMENTAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING IESE

BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT -

Fraunhofer Institute for

Bibliographic information at the German National Library

The German National Library has recorded this publication in the

ISBN (e-book) 978-3-8396-9389-6

© by FRAUNHOFER VERLAG, 2015

All rights reserved.

Dr. Sebastian Adam

BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT -

Fraunhofer IESE in Kaiserslautern is one of the world’s leading research

Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014 v

In recent years, Business Process Management (BPM) has developed at a

vi Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014

About Fraunhofer IESE v

Table of contents vii

Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014 vii

Appendix A: Detailed overview of ratings 140

Appendix B: List of all manufacturers contacted 149

viii Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014

In recent years, Business Process Management (BPM) has developed at a

• Dr. Thomas Allweyer (Kaiserslautern University)

In contrast to some past studies by other organizations, this study involved

Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014 1

Chapter 2 describes the study’s preparation, execution and evaluation, and it

2 Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014

This chapter describes the procedure for preparing, conducting and

2.1 Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study was to investigate a selection of business process

2.2 Test metrics

Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014 3

𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖 = 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴ℎ𝑙𝑙 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴

Confidence: The portion of the study’s requirements that can actually be

4 Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014

2.3 Assessment categories

The study’s assessment criteria are based on a comprehensive requirements

MC1. Process modelling

Modelling support Tools for simpler/faster modelling

Process definition Visualization of procedural issues

Rule definition Visualization of organizational guidelines

MC2. Process implementation

Notifications Definition of notifications in process events

Data implementation Representation of data structures and authorizations

Form design Definition of graphical user interfaces

Process data export Storage options process for variables

System connections Use of adapters for connection to external systems

Test support Tools for quality assurance of implementation

Tools for reusing process parts and interaction of

MC3. Systems integration

System integration Interaction with external applications

Copyright © Fraunhofer IESE 2014 5

MC4. Process execution

Information delivery Help pages and end user support

Correct completion of defined procedures with

Process implementation Correct completion of defined procedures

Process initiation Options for starting process instances

Interactions Mutual influence of process instances

Accessibility Access options from various channels and devices

MC5. Runtime management

Task delegation Forwarding of tasks

External intervention Changing and storing process instances at runtime

How tasks and processes are executed in special or