SS&C Blue Prism Intelligent Automation

My primary use case for SS&C is managing migration projects. We are currently working on migrating from ViewStation's 3.5 version using K scripts to the new version in SS&C and rebuilding the application based on these scripts.

The solution improves our workflow efficiency, offering simpler design and implementation compared to earlier versions. The drag-and-drop features are familiar and useful for designing and implementing workflows with limited activities.

The key feature of SS&C that I find valuable is the general workflow visibility. SS&C's workflow design is straightforward, allowing even those with basic BPM  tool knowledge to easily understand the flow, conditions, exceptions, and paths. This transparency aids in the successful execution and testing of applications.

There is a need for improved integration with external systems in SS&C. Currently, integration is limited to web services and K scripts for connecting to third-party systems, which I believe can be expanded.

I have been using this solution since January 2024. I have 12 months of experience with it.

The solution is generally stable, though we have faced issues with increased transaction loads causing latency and occasional hang-ups. This affected database performance and required manual transaction management.

The scalability of SS&C is not high. It follows a set experience level path, which limits its ability to scale efficiently. I would rate its scalability as a four out of ten.

Customer service for SS&C is satisfactory yet could use improvement. We have encountered delays in support response, but ultimately they provided assistance in resolving issues.

Neutral

The initial setup of SS&C is easy and efficient. I would rate it ten out of ten.

My team, consisting of exclusive six members, is divided into development support and testing teams. We collaboratively manage applications.

In the future, expanding team usage is planned, with expectations to increase usage by another 20 members post-April. Currently, 34 internal team members use it. 

I would rate SS&C seven out of ten.

I use this solution to automate repetitive manual tasks, typically in back-office service industries.

I find the design studio, where I can build the automation, and the control room feature, which allows me to run and monitor the automation, to be the most useful.

I noticed that it lacks the ability to automatically record the process steps like some of its competitors. Having this capability could accelerate the process. The delivery methodology felt somewhat waterfall in style and not sufficiently agile. 

Additionally, the licensing model was somewhat prohibitive. It was not developed in a consumption-based manner, however, rather in a fixed-price licensing model that did not account for volumes.

I have used the solution for five years.

I found it to be high on stability, and I would rate it at nine out of ten.

I found it to be highly scalable, and I would say it rates at nine out of ten.

I rate customer service at six out of ten. It was slow to access and not always particularly useful. The response times were slow to turn around.

Neutral

The initial setup was not particularly complex compared to other competitors. I do not have anything more to add.

The pricing was not particularly competitive. It wasn't flexible for different geographies. For instance, in Africa, they didn't have a different pricing model to account for affordability. 

The pricing model was not modern, as it wasn't designed on a consumption basis or as a service basis. Instead, it involved a fixed annual cost that I had to commit to for three years. It could be considered a little bit old-fashioned.

It's SS&C with zero AI capabilities. I would rate the solution seven out of ten.