Our primary use of ECS is to host all our services in the cloud. We work in the legal sector, and our workloads are often deployed on Fargate containers or Azure containers to abstract the hardware.

EC2 makes scaling horizontally incredibly easy, especially when working under the ECS service. Nowadays, I almost never need to create instances of virtual machines because most workloads can be deployed on Fargate containers. This abstraction of hardware reduces the need to think about it. 

My costs are reduced. Working with ECS and Fargate doesn't require saving processing units for idle services. Previously, using EC2 required keeping entire virtual machines running, however, Fargate eliminates this cost. ECS also allows for horizontal scalability with thresholds that can be configured for CPU or memory.

There is an issue where, in some situations, I need to scale up by observing both CPU and memory usage of containers, yet under the current options available at Amazon, this is not possible. I have to choose between monitoring CPU or memory to scale my solution. Not every software is built for deployment as a container service, although the current architecture trend is changing this.

I host everything in the cloud, and I have over ten years of experience. I use EC2 as a hosting technology and have been using it for a long time.

My services running on ECS are also on Azure Container Service. I have never experienced any flicker or downtime. These are highly available services. It's very stable.

ECS and Fargate make horizontal scalability very easy. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It allows for easy scaling, especially with ECS service configurations.

The AWS Support is incredible. They always invite us for meetings to showcase new solutions. I have a very good relationship with AWS, Microsoft, and GCP for support. AWS provides the best support, followed by Microsoft, and then Google.

Positive

Setting up ECS is simple, although there are some tricks involved. I usually have to define private and public networks and bind all related services. It's easy but not super straightforward. I had to repeat the process two or three times before I could teach others how to configure it.

Hosting services on Fargate reduces our processing costs since we don't need to keep virtual machines running for workloads anymore. This results in cost reductions.

AWS pricing is very competitive compared to Azure and cheap compared to Google. For some services, such as hosting databases, Google is really expensive.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate ECS a ten out of ten. It's an incredible service, and I prefer it over Kubernetes. I suggest checking the integration of software for deployment in a serverless environment. Some software can be challenging to deliver this way.

Camunda can be used in various workflow scenarios, such as policy administration systems, onboarding, account management in telecom, insurance products, policy issuance, claims management, and loan management. 

It is also suitable for customer service center activities where customers' accounts are created. Camunda can manage any workflow that requires customer interaction with the system. It is a competitor to other BPM solutions like Pega.

The architectural part of Camunda for workflow design is highly valuable, especially the Camunda Modeler, which allows quick process design and implementation. Camunda's DML is a competitor to the implementation of business rules. 

It integrates well with Java, making it suitable for various technology stacks. Camunda facilitates microservices integration. Its SaaS model provides scalability, automatically managing and scaling implementations.

The deployment model could be improved for easier implementation. More open documentation would be beneficial to understand the deployment process better and facilitate easier setup.

I began working with Camunda in 2013.

Camunda is quite stable, and I would rate its stability around eight to nine out of ten. There haven't been any significant outages in my experience with Camunda.

Camunda offers a high level of scalability, especially when using its SaaS model, which manages and scales implementations automatically. I would rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

Camunda's community is medium-sized, offering reasonable support. However, they provide better support for the enterprise edition. There was not a large community in the early years.

Positive

Other competing solutions include JBPM, Activiti, and Pegasystems.

The initial setup can be difficult, with a rating of seven on a scale from one to ten. While not very hard, some features present challenges.

For earlier versions, implementation involved bundling applications as WAR or EAR files using Maven, and deploying them on JBoss Server. I have yet to explore Camunda 8's implementation process.

There is a licensing cost for using the SaaS model and Enterprise edition of Camunda, although I am not aware of the specific pricing.

Other solutions evaluated include JBPM and Activiti.

For anyone considering using Camunda, it is essential to understand your workflow clearly. Camunda is the best among similar solutions like JBPM and Activiti. I love working with Camunda.

Since I completed the courses at my workplace, I have only used Camunda for testing and practice. We had assignments to create a flow for pizza delivery and another one for an electronic shop. This practice was verified by our professor.

We have one process that was migrated from our RPA department. It used a series of UI elements for client cases, but now it is streamlined using API calls in the background. The process is more stable and efficient because it processes cases faster without being affected by UI changes like new buttons or pop-ups.

The use of Java is a big plus for our intern developers, and Camunda scales well, as many of our departments are already using it in production with dedicated teams.

The setup process is a drawback as it has many dependencies, which affects our ability to migrate to Windows eleven due to security concerns. I would like to see better integration with the Microsoft suite and more language options, especially for our internal applications.

I've been using Camunda for a few months. 

I have not experienced any performance or stability issues. It runs smoothly.

Camunda is more scalable than Blue Prism. It supports entire process automation, including manual tasks, not just robotic processes.

There was no need to escalate any questions to Camunda's tech support. However, I have escalated issues for UiPath and Blueprints.

Positive

Our department used Blueprints since 2020. The transition to Camunda is challenging since people are familiar with the previous tool.

The initial setup was guided by the professor's guidelines and involved installing several programs and agreeing on a Java version. After setup approval and training, we encountered some issues that were addressed with help from the professor.

The transcript does not contain specific information about ROI.

I don't know the exact numbers behind cost-effectiveness. I know licenses for the other tools, like UiPath and Blueprints, become more costly over time since they require annual renewal.

I also have experience with other process automation solutions like Blue Prism, UiPath, Power Automate, and Blueprint.

I would recommend Camunda because Java is well-received and encourages clean code standards. The tool's visual appeal makes it accessible to both developers and business analysts. BPMN notation familiarity is a plus.

I'd rate the solution nine out fo ten.

We use the workflow only in Camunda. It acts as libraries for workflow visualization, focusing on automating my company's processes.

Camunda is used for process automation with the bot automation. We use API from IPT software, and Camunda serves as a service for workflows. It has improved the cost benefits on Google Cloud.

Camunda serves as an automation library and provides lightweight deployment to the cloud. The personal thing for workflow automation is significant.

Camunda needs to improve its user interface for low-code development and provide more user interface options beyond the basic workflow. It also requires further development to compete with platform features, like the deployment and development life cycle.

We started using Camunda one year ago and began implementing some processes on the platform.

Camunda has benefits concerning the cost on Google Cloud, however, we have to invest more in development for scalability.

We have used IBM BPM before, however, Camunda was adopted for certain processes. Camunda doesn't require a license and offers a free version.

Camunda is cheap because it doesn't require a license. We can use the free version and manage everything in the company.

We plan to use Camunda workflows and relate them to IBM BPM in the future.

Camunda's platform could benefit from better UI for low-code development. Other competitor platforms have more comprehensive tools for deployment and development.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Camunda has streamlined our automation processes, particularly in decision-making and BPMN modeling, reducing manual intervention.

The platform's approach to BPMN modeling is straightforward and versatile, making it easy to adopt and use effectively.

I've been using Camunda for about three to four months.

We haven't encountered any software bugs so far in terms of product stability. 

The platform is capable of scaling from small to complex applications.

We previously used Bizagi but switched to Camunda due to its superior BPMN and DMN modeling capabilities and better integration with other applications.

Initially, installation was challenging, but recent improvements have made it much easier. Following the Camunda website's instructions, we completed the setup in less than an hour.

We implemented the platform in-house without involving third parties, but we're considering future integrated applications with external software like UiPath and chatbots.

The product's robust toolset and integration for BPMN and DMN modeling makes it a worthwhile investment for our organization.

The product integration between BPMN and DMN is a standout feature. It eliminates the need for additional software and simplifies decision tool development.

We use the product to automate our workflows. It is used for task management.

Camunda is a good product. The product has a good task management engine. Camunda has had a good impact on our operational efficiency. The integrations are getting better. It has a lot of REST APIs. We can integrate the tool via REST. It is a good feature. It's much better than what it used to be.

Camunda is Java-based. It would be better if the tool were made less reliant on Java.

I have been using the solution for four to five years.

The solution is very stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The solution is very scalable. I rate the scalability an eight and a half out of ten. We have more than 100 users. I use the product twice a week.

We have used Flowable. We also used an IBM product, but it was not very good. We chose Camunda because it is more scalable. It has a smaller footprint. It is the most effective product.

The initial setup is easy. I rate the ease of setup a nine out of ten. The solution has multiple deployment options. It has its own cloud services. The deployment takes just a few hours.

We deploy the tool in-house. We've embedded it within our application. We need only one person for the deployment.

We use the free version.

The number of people required to maintain the tool depends on the application in which it is embedded. We might not need many people for maintenance. Our in-house team resolves all our issues, so we do not have to contact support. There is a lot of documentation available. They are very good. The solution has BPMN and DMN. DMN is very powerful when modeling business decisions. The rules engine is very good. I will recommend it for the rules engine. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I use it for designing my BPMN models for my company processes, but I don't use Camunda in-depth. 

So, the Camunda Modeler is a free version of Camunda. It's just one small part of it.

It has great value in terms of automation. We can automate processes. 

Another great thing is Camunda Cockpit. The interface is great. 

It would be great to have the ability to display more than one process collaboration in the same view. 

Ideally, we could collapse and expand each process within that view, clearly visualizing two different processes collaborating through messages.

I have been using it for a couple of years. I use version eight (v8).

It is a stable product. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

It is a scalable product. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. 

I didn't need the techincal support. I haven't needed to for Modeler. It's simple. 

But if I were to use their automation engine, I'm sure I would need support.

Camunda was my first option.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, with ten being easy. It is pretty straightforward. 

We use Camunda on the cloud. Camunda provides the cloud.

It is east to use. 

We didn't have to deploy anything. We just opened an account, signed up, and that was it.

It's costly and not accessible for small enterprises or startups. It would be great if Camunda offered a tier plan for smaller companies. I wouldn't recommend the paid version for small projects.

Camunda automation engine is quite complex and technical. It requires technical knowledge, and I don't think anyone can start by themselves. 

However, Camunda Modeler is different and doesn't require technical knowledge.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use it in telecom service management to automate and orchestrate our service order flows.

There is DMN (Decision Model and Notation) on the flows, but it depends on how the user interprets the question. If it's purely decision-making, then not really. It's a feature of the platform we use but not the main one. 

The main feature is the BPMN orchestration workflow engine.

We had to look for a replacement because our old tool didn't evolve anymore. Camunda is a further evolution or branch of activity. There are certain branches of workflow engine tools, and Camunda seems to have a lot of traction, maturity, and stability. It also matches the need for agile development. 

In terms of efficiency and execution, we're satisfied. In terms of design, you still need to create the design and give it to someone else, but the graphical user interface is fine.

The fact that it's open source is interesting. My colleagues like the support, even the free or basic support. We now have enterprise support, but they were quite satisfied with the basic one. 

The main feature is BPMN, in its totality. You have the design, editor, monitoring, execution, scaling, and deployment. So, it's the total package that they're quite happy with.

Probably one area I look forward to has to do with AI and how Camunda sees the AI angle on workflow. I know they're working on that or at least communicating about it. They already have versions to run on the cloud, so they've tackled that. We're looking at what they will come up with otherwise. 

As long as the product gets enough traction and evolves, we're happy. With open source, you can monitor what's happening. If the product is being left by many customers, that's a sign. We're also users of Camunda, and you can watch one of our guides' presentations in the States about one of our implementations.

Our focus now is on developing service management and DMN APIs for the platform. AI is something we take into consideration, but we'll see what additional benefits it could bring and how to interconnect it with our data or AI engineering.

I have been using it for three years. I use the latest version. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. No major things to worry about.

I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten, and it could be improved. I am not 100% sure of its scalability capabilities. We haven't done enough volumes on it. 

The system is primarily for automated flows. Maybe there are 20 or 25 people who use the production version as a user. It's not really a system with a lot of manual stuff. For us, I would assume the usage is rather limited at this stage.

It is used in production every day. We plan to increase the use of Camunda in the future. 

We now have an enterprise contract because of the increasing volume in production. We want to ensure we have good enough SLAs, so we probably bought the enterprise support. 

Positive

We had plenty of workflow engines in that domain. The company used Oracle BPEL, a workflow product that was originally open source but was bought by Oracle a long time ago and then became a paid license product.

Other products in different domains: 

We've got SAP HR modules and logistics modules, and we've migrated a few to SAP HANA, but I'm not the best reference for that domain. 

In our multiple domains, we have a mix of commercial and technical platforms. We use Camunda for custom development, and ClickSoftware for field work management, which we're migrating to IFS.

For the setup, I'd probably rate it a nine out of ten. I'm not personally involved, but it's quite easy.

• Deployment resources: It's probably only one or two people who were busy installing the product. I don't think it's a huge problem or challenge.

• Integration aspect: There was a bit of a challenge, but it was resolved by redesigning an activity in the process flow. It wasn't a huge problem, but the people had to figure out how to use existing mechanisms to solve it.
• We can resolve the challenges that might arise in Camunda using the features on the platform. It might not be immediately out of the box, but we can find a setup or pattern that brings us the solution. We can extend the framework. I haven't really seen blocking factors at this stage, and I know of other companies that use it, so it looks alright.

• For the maintenance part, I assume it's quite a small team. 

It's a license for support. So, it's not too expensive, in my opinion.

Development teams use open source components, do a small check on different tools, and then go for one. I don't think there was a specific RFP (request for proposal) process involved, but I'm pretty sure they looked at the market. They looked at other workflow engines like Activity in previous projects.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

My advice:

New buyers should definitely look at this option. It's a good option as the product is technically sound. There are quite a few customers running on the platform and good reference customers. There is a community forum, and the documentation is readily available. So, if you are investigating options, it should definitely be on your list, if not at the number one spot.

Recent trends around workflow automation:

We see a lot of cloud SaaS solutions coming up with their own workflow platforms. For example, SAP or Salesforce also come with workflow systems. You need to consider that these platforms have embedded options where you have no choice but to use them. But if you have spots where you do your own development or there is a package that uses Camunda, the interesting part will be what steps they provide to work with the data and AI to make the solution even more attractive.