AVEVA Work Tasks vs. quickBPM

Anything where form input is required, data presentation and custom interface screens, connected to a database or API backend. Also good at process orchestration, where tasks need to be allocated and completed as part of a workflow, it supports delegation and escalation. It does fit well tieing together other AVEVA products.

Incentivized

• Wysiwyg form editor
• Desktop and mobile display
• Extensibility with JavaScript and c#
• Web API calls

Incentivized

• Workflow editor user interface, a little clunky and has a learning curve
• Permissions model is complex
• Themes and corporate branding requires detailed css
• Upgrades require very thorough testing of developed artefacts

Incentivized

The features and capability is very good, but there is a learning curve to develop within it. It does take some effort to become proficient and build forms and workflows, however once deployed and running they are extremely reliable. The mobile application is quite good but best suited to be on an on-prem network rather than internet facing.

Incentivized

Power Apps is good for microsoft, and basic forms, Work Tasks is more powerful. Other middleware is better for pure data integration but doesnt enable user interaction. There are some other options, Redhat has a similar product as well but it wasnt as mature when we were evaluating.

Incentivized

• We have built our entire EOM reconciliation process for production management, this is not possible without Work Tasks
• We have complete standalone processes and applications built in Work Tasks, where complex steps and integrations are required. It is faster and cheaper than multiple bespoke products
• The API integration has allowed us to tie applications together where user input is required and middleware doesnt quite work

Incentivized