Fraunhofer_IESE_Report_Bizagi_2014_EN.pdf

FRAUNHOFER BPMS STUDY 2014

"BIZAGI" RESULTS REPORT

Dr. Sebastian Adam Matthias Koch Fabian Neffgen Norman Riegel Justine Weidenbach

F R A U N H O F ER I N S TI TU T E F O R EX P E R I M E N TA L S O F T W A R E E N G I N E ER I N G I E S E

The Fraunhofer IESE is an institute of the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. The institute transfers innovative software development technologies, methods and tools to industrial practice. It helps companies to build up needs-based software skills and gain a competitive position in the market.

The Fraunhofer IESE is led by Prof. Dr. Dieter Rombach (Executive Director of the Institute) Prof. Dr.-Ing. Peter Liggesmeyer (Scientific Director of the Institute) Fraunhofer-Platz 1 67663 Kaiserslautern

Abstract

The development of Business Process Management (BPM) in recent years has been increasing at a very fast pace.

In view of the fact that many companies currently lack a qualitative overview of the BPM suites market, last year the Fraunhofer IESE conducted a market analysis as part of a transfer project organized by the German state of Rhine- land-Palatinate. Thanks to the positive response, the decision was made to repeat the analysis this year on a larger scale.

As part of this study, the BPM suites of AgilePoint, agito, Appian, Appway, AXON IVY, Bizagi, DHC Business Solutions, Groiss Informatics, HCM Custom- erManagement, IBM, Inspire Technologies, JobRouter, K2, Metasonic, Oracle, PROLOGICS, SoftProject and T!M Solutions were assessed.

As well as giving a breakdown of Bizagis results, the present version of the study also provides an overview of the procedure and the aggregated results for the other BPM software vendors. The individual results and ratings for all BPM suites assessed, including a decision-making guide for selecting a suitable solution, are available in the long version of the study report.

Copyright Fraunhofer IESE 2014

List of contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Procedure 2 2.1 Aim of the study 2 2.2 Test metrics 2 2.3 Assessment categories 3 2.4 Test scenarios and preliminary script 3 2.5 Provider selection 4 2.6 Conducting the assessment 5 2.7 Evaluation 5

3 Provider description 7

4 Individual Bizagi assessment 9

5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

Summary of the results 13 Overall rating 13 Process execution & runtime management 14 Process implementation & systems integration 15 Process modeling 16 Process control 16 Administration & BPM governance 17

6 Outlook 18

Copyright Fraunhofer IESE 2014

Introduction

1 Introduction

The development of Business Process Management (BPM) in recent years has been increasing at a very fast pace. With process automation as a backdrop, many more companies are now making the step towards the use of BPM Suites.

But what do users have to bear in mind if they wish to use suites such as these? What is new; what is state of the art; and what do these programs ac- tually deliver? The Fraunhofer IESE first considered these and similar ques- tions in 2013, and conducted an extensive market analysis in this sector. It did so in particular light of the fact that many companies currently lack a qualitative overview of the market and are increasingly seeking product evaluations.

Thanks to the positive response to the 2013 study, the Fraunhofer IESE de- cided to repeat it on a larger scale. With nine providers of BPM suites having participated in the 2013 study, this time there were 20 software vendors that were assessed not just by experts from the Fraunhofer IESE, but also by external experts such as Prof. Dr. Thomas Allweyer (Kaiserslautern University of Applied Sciences) as well as Prof. Dr. Andreas Gadatsch and Paul Bossauer (Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences).

In contrast to a number of studies conducted by other organizations in the past, this study focused on "BPM suites in practice". It was not the mere presence of features that was looked at, but rather non-functional aspects such as simplicity, capacity for change (flexibility), capacity for integration and usability in an everyday context.

This report section presents the individual rating for the Bizagi BPM suite. In addition, a summary of the overall study results and the adopted assessment methodology are summarized. In the full version, which can be purchased as an e-book through the Fraunhofer-Verlag, the results and individual ratings for the BPM suites from AgilePoint, agito, Appian, Appway, AXON IVY, DHC Business Solutions, Groiss Informatics, HCM CustomerManagement, IBM, In- spire Technologies, JobRouter, K2, Metasonic, Oracle, PROLOGICS, SoftPro- ject and T!M Solutions are also summarized in detail. Moreover, the long version contains a comparative guide to support the selection process.

Copyright Fraunhofer IESE 2014 1

http://www.verlag.fraunhofer.de/bookshop/buch/Business-Process-Management-Marktanalyse-2014/242699

Procedure

2 Procedure

This chapter outlines the procedure adopted to prepare, implement, and evaluate the study.

2.1 Aim of the study

The aim of the study was to examine and compare a selection of Business Process Management solutions (BPM suites) available in the market to estab- lish their Product Capabilities and their Ease of Use (see Section 2.2) in various assessment categories from the perspective of BPM experts and BPM users.

The purpose of the study was therefore to work out in which categories individual BPM suites display (particular) strengths and in which areas, by contrast, there are still flaws which among other things weigh against the particular BPM suite being selected. This is necessary because otherwise there can be no informed choice when it comes to deciding on a BPM suite in a particular organizational context.

2.2 Test metrics

The key test metrics of the study were: overall level of fulfilment, product capabilities, and ease of use of the BPM suites. In addition, a level of confidence was determined which describes the reliability of the metrics mentioned above. The individual test metrics were defined as part of the study as fol- lows:

Overall level of fulfilment: Cumulative, weighted level of ability of the

BPM suite to deliver all of the requirements on which the study is based.

Product Capabilities: Proportion of the study requirements which can be delivered without any manipulation of the BPM suite code, i.e. only by standard functions or expansion possibilities which should be expected within the remit of a BPM suite such as report configuration, process modeling, and so forth.

Ease of Use: Overall level of fulfilment of the BPM suite compared to the maximum achievable level of fulfilment of all requirements on which the study is based which can be delivered without any manipulation of the


Procedure

BPM suite code. The ease of use thus corresponds to the perceived efficiency and intuitiveness of the BPM suite. This involves the usability for both the end user as a process participant and for the developer or modeler.

Confidence: Rewarded based on the reliability of the test metrics and therefore can be used as a rating category in itself.

All of the test metrics (that is to say the overall level of fulfilment, product capabilities, ease of use, and confidence) were applied both across the individual assessment categories for each BPM suite and for all suites as a whole.

2.3 Assessment categories

The assessment criteria on which the study is based were produced from an extensive analysis of the requirements at the Fraunhofer IESE and from repu- table partners and customers. When it comes to analysis of requirements, one of the sources used by the Fraunhofer IESE is the experiences it has gained in customer projects in which the selection of a BPM suite was sup- ported in the past.

The requirements from the different sources were then consolidated to pro- duce a list of 115 requirements in total and categorized in a two-stage classification hierarchy. This ultimately resulted in eight main categories with a total of 35 subcategories against which the individual BPM suites were assessed using the test metrics mentioned above.

The main categories examined are: Process modeling, Process implementation, Systems integration, Process execution, Runtime management, Pro- cess controlling, BPM governance and Administration.

As the assessment scheme has changed compared with last year's study, it is not possible to compare the results with the results from the 2013 study.

2.4 Test scenarios and preliminary script

Based on the requirements prescribed within the assessment criteria, a test script with 113 test steps was developed in order to standardize the way that the study was conducted. The test script was logically divided up into "Run- ning through a process used as an example" (39 test steps), "Changing the

3 Copyright Fraunhofer IESE 2014

Procedure

process used as an example" (25 test steps) and "Other aspects" (49 test steps).

Based on this test script, a test protocol was drawn up which was intended to enable each examining person in the study to have a standardized way of as- sessing the various BPM suites. As well as being able to assess individual test steps on a standardized scale, it was also possible to record spontaneous comments about positive and negative aspects of the particular suite.

2.5 Provider selection

In order to rule out the possibility of providers being examined in a selective way in the study, first of all a complete list of predominant BPM suite providers was created, based on the Gartner BPM Suite Magic Quadrant 2010, the Forrester Wave Study of BPM Suites 2010, the BPM&O Market Overview of 2012 and our own supplementary research on the Internet. This list was consolidated and filtered based on companies that distribute in Germany or have a German contact address. These companies were written to by e-mail or via the contact form on their website using a standard text and asked to state whether they were interested in or wished to decline the opportunity of taking part in the study within a period of roughly four weeks.

A total of 20 providers stated that they were interested in taking part in the study and then registered a binding pledge to participate. One of these providers was removed from the assessment process as it became apparent following the workshop that the product presented was not a BPM suite of the kind that was expected. A second provider was removed following the conclusion of the evaluation process as the overall level of confidence ascer- tained represented a downward statistical outlier and a fair comparison with the other products was therefore not possible. The providers whose results are ultimately published as part of the study are the following:

1. AgilePoint Inc.

2. agito GmbH

3. Appian Software GmbH

4. Appway | Numcom Soft- ware AG

5. AXON IVY AG

10. IBM Deutschland GmbH

11. Inspire Technologies GmbH

12. JobRouter AG

13. K2 Northern Europe GmbH


Procedure

6. Bizagi Ltd.

7. DHC Business Solutions GmbH & Co. KG

8. Groiss Informatics GmbH

9. HCM CustomerManage- ment GmbH

14. Metasonic GmbH

15. ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG

16. PROLOGICS IT GmbH

17. SoftProject GmbH

18. T!M Solutions GmbH 2.6 Conducting the assessment

The assessment of the individual BPM suites took place in individual workshops, each of which lasted for one day, i.e. each provider was invited to an exclusive appointment. These workshops followed a fixed agenda which is outlined below: Company & solution presentation: In this slot, a brief overview of the

speakers, the company and the product was requested. Running through the example process: In this slot, the example process

which was outlined by the providers in advance was run through and a corresponding assessment was made.

Running through change scenarios: In this slot, changes were made by the providers "on the fly" and a corresponding assessment was made once again.

Presentation of other aspects: In this slot, the providers were asked to show other aspects / functions which it had not yet been possible to address in the previous two slots.

In terms of the people doing the assessment, a core team was formed con- sisting of two research assistants with a deep level of background BPM knowledge and appropriate tools and two practitioners involved in the field of BPM. In addition, up to three further participants from the academic field with a link to BPM were involved in some workshops.

2.7 Evaluation

The evaluation of the individual assessment workshops took place immedi- ately following each workshop. Initially the individual handwritten test proto- cols were consolidated, tallied and digitized.


Procedure

Then, on the basis of the previously defined formulae, the level of fulfilment was calculated as a whole for each requirement, for each subcategory, for each main category and for each BPM suite. Furthermore, the product capabilities, the ease of use and the confidence were calculated.

Following the conclusion of the individual evaluations and all assessment workshops, a comparison of all the BPM suites was drawn. On one hand, Likert-scale ratings were calculated (e.g. "Very good" for a level of fulfilment of 87.5% or higher, "Good" for a level of fulfilment of 62.5% or higher). On the other hand the assessment variations for each BPM suite were analyzed in the main categories in comparison to the average rating for the other BPM suites that were evaluated. In addition, all examined products were arranged in a coordinate system (quadrants) using the dimensions of "product capabilities" and "ease of use".


Provider description

3 Provider description

Bizagi was founded in 1989 in Bogot, Colombia, as Vision Software by five people in positions of responsibility who still work in the company today (Gustavo Gomez is the CEO). The company's main areas of activity primarily include the development of BPM tools. Bizagi has thus been involved with Business Process Management solutions (BPM suites) right from day one. The core product reviewed here is Bizagi BPM Suite Version 10.5.

Bizagi's head office is in Chalfont St Peter near London in the United King- dom. Bizagi also has branch offices in four other countries.

Bizagi currently employs around 320 people and in the last financial year generated sales of US$ 45 million.

Figure 1. Screenshot of the end user view

In total, more than 350 companies from 57 countries around the world use Bizagi BPM Suite, and they currently include three major customers (one of which is adidas) from Germany.

At the start, Bizagi's typical customers were companies from the financial sector, but now Bizagi BPM Suite is utilized by a wide variety of very different companies (ranging from 150 up to 14,000 users) from almost all sectors.


Provider description

This suite is particularly prevalent in places where rapid changes to the business processes are required or adjustments to reflect new circumstances are frequently demanded.

Figure 2. Screenshot of the Reporting & Analytics view in Bizagi V10.5 Bizagi sees the following characteristics as its particular strengths and unique selling points:

1. Simple & intuitive user interface

2. Short implementation / adaptation times

3. Enables close working relationship between Business & IT

4. Scalability in the number of processes, users and complexity

5. Transparent business model: all tools are available free of charge from Bizagi's website.

In 2014, Bizagi was recognized with two winners in the WfMC BPM Excellence Awards.

Contact:


Bizagi Ltd. 3 Chiltern Park, Chiltern Hill, Chalfont St Peter Buckinghamshire SL9 9FG (United Kingdom)

+44 (0) 777 0800004 +44 (0) 1753 379270 [email protected] www.bizagi.com

mailto:[email protected]://www.bizagi.com/

Individual Bizagi assessment

4 Individual Bizagi assessment

Bizagi BPM Suite Version 10.5 makes a good overall impression in the study. Apart from in the Runtime management category, in all other categories the solution scores higher than the average of the other providers that were looked at, in particular in the categories of Process modeling and Process implementation. The scores achieved by this BPM suite compared to the other providers are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Bizagi in comparison

The individual results are discussed below:

In the Process modeling category, Bizagi achieves a good rating (80.9%) which is above the average score of the rest of the providers. Particular men- tion can be made of the very good Model export, that is to say the options



for saving process models, which is compelling thanks to numerous options for export into various formats.

In the Process implementation category, Bizagi is also considered to be good (84.6%)1, which is above the average score of the rest of the providers that were reviewed. In all subcategories Bizagi BPM suite covers a high proportion of the requirements and always scores good and very good ratings. Particular praise should be given to the Roundtrip, which represents the in- terplay between the professional and technical model. Only one model is used in which technical information is encapsulated and can be hidden.

In the Systems integration category, Bizagi also posts a good score (85.4%), which is above the average score of the rest of the providers that were looked at. This impression is confirmed by very good System integration, that defines the interaction with external applications, and also good Data integration, meaning the interaction with external data sources.

In the Process execution category, Bizagi achieves a good rating (66.2%), which is the average score of the rest of the providers. There is very good coverage of the requirements in the subcategories of Absence, that is to say the correct handling of defined process operations if individual people are not available, and Accessibility, providing possible options for using different channels and devices. By contrast, the subcategory of Provision of information, that is to say the help pages and end user support, is only deemed to be adequate. Even without standard help from the Bizagi Portal, users still have the option to incorporate process-specific help topics. Likewise, Process initiation is also rated adequate, indicating the possibility of starting process instances. One negative aspect that is apparent here is the lack of possibilities for carrying out a task externally in response to a notification e-mail and starting a process externally in response to the receipt of an e-mail.

In the Runtime management category, Bizagi is to be viewed as adequate (49.6%), which is the average score for the rest of the providers. The subcategory of External intervention, meaning changing and controlling process instances in relation to the runtime, is currently still rated as good. Here the sidestepping of business rules and the skipping of tasks must be explicitly modeled in order to be able to do this for the runtime. The BPM suite dis- plays a particular weakness in the subcategory of Task delegation that is to

1 Despite a high level of confidence (90.9%), it is impossible to rule out the possibility that the product ought to receive a worse score (adequate) in this cate-

gory. This is because a number of test cases could not be shown by the provider in the manner that was expected.



say in the passing on of tasks. Neither the delegation of tasks to user classes nor the delegation of classes of tasks to other users is possible, which results in a poor rating.

In the Process control category, Bizagi achieves a good rating (66.3%) which is slightly above the average score of the rest of the providers that were looked at. Whereas the solution posts a very good score in the subcategories of Progress controlling, which provides progress traceability for specific process instances, as well as Instance control, meaning checking in specific process instances, it is less than adequate when it comes to Task controlling, that is to say in checking individual tasks. The fact that neither reports on past tasks of other users nor reports on one's own past tasks can be viewed results in an unsatisfactory rating.

In the BPM governance category, Bizagi achieves an adequate rating (46.9%) which is the average score of the rest of the providers that were assessed. The subcategory of BPM management, that is to say the portrayal of the enterprise-specific BPM procedure, is considered to be poor as it is not possible to portray the BPM cycle itself in the suite. Moreover, the scope of the modeling language cannot be limited, but rather it is only possible to hide elements.

In the Administration category, Bizagi makes a good impression (76.9%) which is above the average score of the rest of the providers. This impression is confirmed by good coverage of the requirements in all subcategories.

This means that, on the basis of the ratings in the individual categories, an overall rating of good (70.3%) is produced for Bizagi's solution, which places this BPM suite in the upper third of the twenty products that were assessed.

The Product capabilities of the solution are considered overall to be very high (90.1%) and are thus above the average level of the rest of the solutions that were looked at.

The Ease of use of the solution from Bizagi is to be rated overall as high (78.0%), which is above the average score of the rest of the solutions that were included in the study.

The assessment team was impressed by the intuitive and attractively de- signed modeling environment, with the form designer being particularly easy



to use. The possibilities for reporting and analysis were also admired. Nega- tive aspects were occasional performance problems and the need to resort to complicated xPath expressions from time to time.

Table 1 shows how the Bizagi BPM suite scored in the individual categories. In the case of ratings marked with an asterisk (*), a variation is possible due to the reduced level of confidence in this category.

Criterion Rating Process modeling Good (80.9%) Process implementation Good (84.6%)* Systems integration Good (85.4%) Process execution Good (66.2%) Runtime management Adequate (49.6%) Process control Good (66.3%) BPM governance Adequate (46.9%) Administration Good (76.9%) Overall level of fulfilment Good (70.3%) Product capabilities Very high (90.1%) Ease of use High (78.0%) Confidence High (96.5%)

Table 1. Bizagi ratings


Summary of the results

5 Summary of the results

In this chapter, the results of the study are summarized. 5.1 Overall rating

An examination of the overall ratings from the study shows that virtually all of the BPM suites that were assessed display a high level of product capabilities with regard to the requirements examined. The distribution is slightly wider for the overall usability of the BPM suites. A high level of ease of use in respect of the overall solution is only offered by very few products. In particular with regard to ease of use but in some cases also in respect of "product capabilities", all of the products examined still display weaknesses in one or more areas. Figure 4 shows an overview of the overall rating with regard to product capabilities and ease of use. The dividing lines at 75.0% for product capabilities and 66.6% for ease of use represent the middle of the achievable range of scores. In addition, the color of the markings indicates the level of confidence in the products. In the case of a black dot (), the level of confidence is between 90% and 100%; a dark-grey dot () indicates a level of confidence of between 70% and 90%.



Figure 4. Overall rating quadrant

Figure 5 shows the distribution of individual overall scores in the study. It is evident that all products are rated as either "good" or at least "adequate" and none of the BPM suites examined scores very highly or very poorly.

Figure 5. Distribution of overall rating scores

5.2 Process execution & runtime management

A relatively similar picture as that for the overall rating is produced when the categories of "Process execution" and "Runtime management" are looked at.



Apart from one exception, all providers achieve a high score for the capabilities of their products. However, with regard to ease of use a diversified middle section can be seen, with both upward and downward outliers. Among other factors, this is down to the fact that a number of BPM suites already provide extensive functions for process execution and runtime management in one standard portal whereas in other solutions this must first be individu- ally configured or even programmed.

The distribution of the scores for the two categories combined can be seen in Figure 6. With only a very small number of exceptions, the products were able to post a good or adequate rating.

Figure 6. Distribution of scores awarded for process execution & runtime management

5.3 Process implementation & systems integration

In the "Process implementation" and "Systems integration" categories, many products are able to offer a persuasive choice with a very high level of product capabilities. At the same time, it is striking that in relation to ease of use considerable differences exist between the BPM suites. The reasons for this are primarily that some solutions provide numerous functions and configuration wizards for performing standard programming tasks whereas other BPM suites prefer a more manual approach to development that is heavily reliant on coding.

Figure 7 shows the distribution of the scores in the two categories. While two products receive a poor score, at the same time there are also several solutions that are rated good.



Figure 7. Distribution of scores awarded for process implementation & systems integration 5.4 Process modeling

A very wide range of scores can be identified in the "Process modeling" category. At one end there are BPM suites which are able to score points for both a high level of product capabilities and a high level of ease of use. At the other end, by contrast, a number of products are disappointing in both aspects. This is partly down to the fact that some BPM suites see themselves primarily as development tools and therefore rely on proprietary and in some cases also non-graphical modeling, whereas others want to allow fairly simple modeling with customary standards even for expert users.

The distribution of the scores is shown in Figure 8. A very high proportion of poor solutions can be found in this category.

Figure 8. Distribution of scores awarded for process modeling 5.5 Process control

In the "Process control" category, a large number of BPM suites offer a high level of product capabilities. At the same time, there are enormous differences in the level of ease of use, which is due in particular to the fact



that only a few solutions already provide good controlling options and pre- defined reports out-of-the-box.

The distribution of the scores is shown in Figure 9. The majority of the providers are located in the "adequate" section.

Figure 9. Distribution of scores awarded for process control 5.6 Administration & BPM governance

The results in the "Administration" and "BPM governance" categories are spread over a very wide range. This means that both in relation to product capabilities and ease of use there are both good and poor products here, which is mainly down to the fact that these aspects are given a different weighting in the product philosophies of the different vendors.

In addition, Figure 10 shows the high proportion of products rated as adequate, with only relatively few good and poor outliers.

Figure 10. Distribution of scores awarded for administration & BPM governance


Outlook

6 Outlook

The results of this year's study demonstrate that in 2014 the BPM suites are already very well advanced and a large number of good solutions are available in the market. Although no solution is yet "perfect" and able to post a very good score in all of the categories examined at the same time, it should still be stated for the record that strong products are available in each category.

The choice of a suitable product is thus dependent on the individual requirements that are placed on a BPM suite. The results of this study can help the process of making initial preliminary decisions, but they are no substitute for an informed examination of suitability for one's own particular application.

The long version of the study makes a crucial contribution in helping the selection of suitable solutions: it contains the detailed description of the procedure adopted, including all of the metrics and assessment categories which were only briefly touched on in this individual report. In addition to a general description of all the participating providers, the individual results for all products are discussed in detail and precise information about the strengths and weaknesses is specifically highlighted. Furthermore, the long version of the study report contains a decision tree which helps users, based on individual requirements, to identify possible products which can relate to the required profile.

You can purchase the long version of the study as an e-book through the Fraunhofer-Verlag2.

2 http://www.verlag.fraunhofer.de


http://www.verlag.fraunhofer.de/bookshop/buch/Business-Process-Management-Marktanalyse-2014/242699http://www.verlag.fraunhofer.de/bookshop/buch/Business-Process-Management-Marktanalyse-2014/242699http://www.verlag.fraunhofer.de/

Outlook

Annex A: Detailed overview of ratings

In the following table, the overall rating for the Bizagi BPMS is presented in all subcategories. However, the level of confidence in the individual areas is not taken into account.

Category Rating Process modeling Good (80.9%) Model export Very good (100.0%) Modeling support Adequate (62.5%) Process definition Good (85.4%) Rule definition Good (80.6%) Process implementation Good (84.6%) Exception performance Very good (91.7%) Notification Good (63.9%) Data implementation Good (83.3%) Form design Very good (100.0%) Process data export Very good (88.9%) System connections Good (80.6%) Test support Very good (100.0%) Reuse & roundtrip Good (87.5%) Systems integration Good (85.4%) Data integration Good (75.0%) System integration Very good (95.8%) Process execution Good (66.2%) Absence/presence Good (87.5%) Provision of information Adequate (50.0%) Organizational changes Good (77.1%) Process implementation Good (65.6%) Process initiation Adequate (48.5%) Interactions Good (75.0%) Accessibility Very good (96.9%) Runtime management Adequate (49.6%) Task management Adequate (62.5%) Task delegation Poor (25.0%)


Outlook

Category Rating External intervention Adequate (39.6%) Handling of special cases Adequate (56.3%) Process control Good (66.3%) Task controlling Unsatisfactory (0.0%) Instance control Good (87.5%) Conflict recognition Good (70.8%) Progress controlling Very good (93.8%) Value controlling Adequate (58.8%) BPM governance Adequate (46.9%) BPM management Poor (25.0%) Rights management Good (68.8%) Administration Good (76.9%) User administration Good (75.0%) Process administration Good (81.3%) Self-administration Good (70.8%)


Document information

Title: Fraunhofer BPMS Study 2014 "Bizagi" Results

Report

Date: 30 November 2014

Report: IESE-071.14/D Status: Final

Classification: Public Unlimited

Copyright 2014, Fraunhofer IESE. All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, saved or transmit-

ted for commercial purposes without the prior written consent of the publisher

in any way, also not as extracts, in particular electronically or mechanically, as a

photocopy or as a recording or in any other form. Written permission is not re-

quired for reproducing or distributing the publications from or to people for pri-

vate purposes.

This is a professional English translation by RWS Group. You can find the

original in German here.

http://www.rws.com/http://www.bizagi.com/docs/Fraunhofer_IESE_Report_Bizagi_2014_DE.pdf

AbstractList of contents1 Introduction 13 Provider description 7Summary of the results 136 Outlook 18

1 Introduction2 Procedure2.1 Aim of the study2.2 Test metrics2.3 Assessment categories2.4 Test scenarios and preliminary script2.5 Provider selection2.6 Conducting the assessment2.7 Evaluation

3 Provider descriptionContact:

4 Individual Bizagi assessment5 Summary of the results5.1 Overall rating5.2 Process execution & runtime management5.3 Process implementation & systems integration5.4 Process modeling5.5 Process control5.6 Administration & BPM governance

6 OutlookAnnex A: Detailed overview of ratings

Fraunhofer_IESE_Report_Bizagi_2014_EN.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Fraunhofer_IESE_Report_Bizagi_2014_EN.pdf