Aquima: On Level Ground.

The last time we made a comparison like this we were talking about Aquima and ARIS which were quite different in approach. One is coded, the other is rule-based. One has extensive functionality, one has specialised tools. Today we're talking about two systems that couldn't be more similar- Aquima and Pegasystems. Incredibly similar in both functionality and expectations this should provide a unique insight into where Aquima performs best (even in similar markets).

Pegasystems
Pegasystems is a rule-driven business process management (BPM) suite that helps users to build, plan and manage processes throughout their entire lifecycle. SmartBPM blends process and practice rules to rapidly implement (and alter) solutions in response to changing needs or demands. Behind this is the PegaRules system which provides the rule-based functionality that the whole Pegasystems package thrives on, which allows it to optimise everyday business processes for use with the suite.

Similar yet different.
On the surface Pegasystems and Aquima seem to do exactly the same thing as both incorporate a front-end application with a constant running engine, not to mention they both use rule-based functionality and they're both easy to use with no coding whatsoever- but this is where the similarities end.
While, yes, the core of the software is similar, Aquima is better used where you require flexibility and a dynamic approach where human interaction is key. On the other hand Pegasystems is better used when you require a solution for process heavy environments, where a singular variable will change but the rest of the process will stay (for the most part) the same.

Customer base and progress.
Much like with the previous comparison Pegasystems once again out performs Aquima on the customer base and integration fronts. Both are successful, dynamic and fast-growing organisations but Pegasystems has a better front for marketing and promotion. Plus they have more initial users- but at the same time Aquima is arguably a more cost-effective solution.
Both points are more a reflection of how Aquima is still in its infancy and hasn't yet been adopted by the wider range of users, but as a new and exciting product this is only a matter of time.

Functionality, features and versatility.
In terms of their overall functionality and how each is used there are two major differences:

• Aquima has a unique look and feel with a Microsoft Office-esque layout which means even the most basic users have an idea of where things are. This helps and brings down the learning curve by a large degree which is often a problem, more with new software, in that it can be hard to learn to use and therefore discouraging.
• Pegasystems is still considered a technical piece of software and therefore (sometimes) to have a steep learning curve, however, that said, it does have a different approach to other BPM software suites. It is entirely possible, and likely, seasoned users will be able to approach it and utilise it for maximum effect- while new users have a hill to climb as it were.

In both cases they are suited to different approaches and can be used in relatively the same manner.
While, as mentioned above, the only real defining factor between the two is whether you have a process heavy or a dynamic organisation. In which case you will choose either Pegasystems or Aquima, respectively. As only then will you be utilising the full potential of either software package.

Pegasystems does have a very useful feature of providing pre-built standardised templates which provide information for how you can develop your own applications. However, in spite of this, the use of SmartBPM requires additional software to be installed before you can model processes.

In conclusion much like the last comparison we can see that each BPM software suite contributes a different set of advantages to users.

Thank you for reading!
Feel free to leave any comments and feedback you may have.

All information presented here is © copyright Carkean Solutions Ltd., 2010 - Not to be used without our permission - The views expressed here are the views of an individual not the corporation