Selección de una plataforma BPM: más allá de los criterios de evaluación tradicionales
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24054/rcta.v1i47.4357Palabras clave:
BPM, BPMs, plataforma BPM, comparación de plataformas de softwareResumen
La Gestión de Procesos de Negocios (BPM) mejora la eficiencia, la adaptabilidad y la competitividad al alinear los procesos con la tecnología, favorecer la agilidad, reducir los costos y los errores y mejorar la satisfacción del cliente. Con la abundancia de datos y herramientas de integración, el uso de un sistema de gestión de procesos de negocio (BPMs) se ha vuelto esencial. Objetivo: Este estudio propone una metodología para seleccionar BPMs que cuenten con una buena puntuación en los criterios tradicionales y en los criterios de presencia global y comunidad involucrada. Procedimiento: utilizamos el método de análisis de decisión multicriterio para seleccionar los criterios y asignar un valor a cada uno de ellos. Acto seguido, consultamos dos fuentes sobre sistemas BPM para compararlas y aplicar los criterios establecidos. Resultados: Utilizando los criterios de comparación de usabilidad, cobertura, opinión de expertos, comunidad y tendencia, Camunda fue la plataforma BPM seleccionada. Conclusiones: Camunda es el sistema BPMS que mejor se ajusta a nuestros criterios de evaluación (es gratuita, de código abierto, se utiliza ampliamente en muchos países y cuenta con la mayor comunidad a su alrededor). Llegamos a esta conclusión después de comparar 107 sistemas BPM. Este estudio ofrece una perspectiva diferenciada para ayudar a los profesionales y académicos a elegir sistemas BPM más allá de los criterios de evaluación tradicionales.
Descargas
Referencias
M. Dumas, M. La Rosa, J. Mendling, and H. A. Reijers, Fundamentals of business process management: Second Edition. is-bmsd.org, 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-56509-4.
C. Abbott, W. Bandara, E. French, M. Tate, and P. Mathiesen, “A Stakeholder Engagement Model for Process Improvement Initiatives,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Springer, Cham, 2021, pp. 455–472. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-85469-0_28.
A. Gazová, Z. Papulová, and D. Smolka, “Effect of Business Process Management on Level of Automation and Technologies Connected to Industry 4.0,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 200, pp. 1498–1507, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.351.
P. Harmon and J. Garcia, “The State of Business Process Management 2020,” BPTrends, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://www.bptrends.com/bpt/wp-content/uploads/2020-BPM-Survey.pdf
A. Jiménez-Ramírez, “Humans, Processes and Robots: A Journey to Hyperautomation,” in Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, Cham, 2021, pp. 3–6. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-85867-4_1.
R. Plattfaut and V. Borghoff, “Capabilities for Digital Process Innovation: Results of an Ongoing Action Research Study,” in Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, Cham, 2022, pp. 232–242. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-94343-1_18.
V. H. Ribeiro, J. Barata, and P. R. Cunha, “Business Process Improvement in Industry 4.0: An Interorganizational Perspective,” in Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, Cham, 2022, pp. 286–298. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-94343-1_22.
S. Rinderle-Ma and J. Mangler, “Process Automation and Process Mining in Manufacturing,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Springer, Cham, 2021, pp. 3–14. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-85469-0_1.
M. Röglinger, C. Van Dun, T. Fehrer, D. A. Fischer, L. Moder, and W. Kratsch, “Automated process (re-)design,” in CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2021, pp. 28–33. [Online]. Available: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2938/paper-PROBLEMS-28.pdf
M. Dumas, J. Recker, and M. Weske, “Management and engineering of process-aware information systems: Introduction to the special issue,” Apr. 2012, Pergamon. doi: 10.1016/j.is.2011.09.003.
Y. Pacheco Cardenas and Y. Pacheco Cardenas, “Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to the Selection of Software Measures,” Computación y Sistemas, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 203–213, 2018, doi: 10.13053/CYS-22-1-2765.
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) and IEC (the International Electrotechnical Commission), ISO/IEC 25010:2023(en), Systems and software engineering — Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — Product quality model, 2nd ed., vol. 1. ISO/IEC, 2023. Accessed: Aug. 27, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso-iec:25010:ed-2:v1:en
R. Baxter and R. S. Pressman, Software Engeneering A Practitioner ’s Approach, 9th ed. McGrawHill, 2020.
I. Sommerville, Software Engineering, 10th ed. Pearson, 2021.
N. Bryson, O. K. Ngwenyama, and A. Mobolurin, “A qualitative discriminant process for scoring and ranking in group support systems,” Inf. Process. Manag., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 389–405, May 1994, doi: 10.1016/0306-4573(94)90052-3.
M. Hesse, “BPMN Tool Matrix,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://bpmnmatrix.github.io/#license
Gartner, “Business Process Management (BPM) Tools & Software Reviews 2022 - Gartner Peer Insights,” 2022, Gartner. [Online]. Available: https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/business-process-management-platforms
O. L. Vega-Márquez, “BPM Platforms comparison for a traceability framework construction,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://olvegam.github.io/bpm_pc/
Gartner, “Market Guide for Business Process Automation Tools,” Gartner, Dec. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-28L5QNLO&ct=220104&st=sb
Gartner, “Magic Quadrant for Intelligent Business Process Management Suites,” Gartner, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3899484
Forrester, “The Forrester Wave: Digital Process Automation Software, Q4 2021,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://reprints2.forrester.com/#/assets/2/2085/RES176608/report
Forrester, “The Total Economic Impact Of Camunda,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://page.camunda.com/wp-forrester-tei-study-success?submissionGuid=6797bb3b-0854-40d2-8765-4ba7c5d888a7
Forrester, “Hyland Accelerates Its Path To Cloud By Acquiring Alfresco Software,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.forrester.com/blogs/hyland-accelerates-its-path-to-cloud-acquires-alfresco-software/?ref_search=0_1646976541465&_gl=1*baa1va*_ga*MTI4NTQ1NzgzLjE2NDY5NzUzMzU.*_ga_PMXYWTHPVN*MTY0Njk3NTMzNC4xLjEuMTY0Njk3NjU0Ny4w
Danilo Nuñez-Gil, Olga Lucero Vega-Márquez, and Óscar Agudelo-Varela, “Stack OverFlow Issues Searcher - SOFIS,” GitHub. Accessed: Aug. 24, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/BPMN-sw-evol/SOFIS
Google, “Google Trends,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://trends.google.com/trends/?geo=CO
Bizagi, “Bizagi,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.bizagi.com/en
Docker Inc., “Developers - Docker,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.docker.com/get-started/
Trustradius, “Business Process Management (BPM) Tools,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.trustradius.com/business-process-management-bpm
PeerSpot, “Best Business Process Management (BPM) Software for 2022,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.peerspot.com/categories/business-process-management-bpm
L. Liakhovych, “MANAGEMENT OF BUSINESS PROCESSES OF COMPANIES: MODERN TOOLS AND PRIORITY AREAS,” Market Infrastructure, no. 75, 2023, doi: 10.32782/infrastruct75-20.
W. E. Jimenez, “Automatización de procesos de negocio en la Pequeña y Mediana Empresa mediante herramientas libres BPM,” 2011. [Online]. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/10554/7536
A. Mesa, C. Lochmuller, and M. S. Tabares, “Comparativo entre herramientas BPMN,” Revista Soluciones de Postgrado, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 95–108, Jun. 2014, doi: 10.14508/sdp.2014.6.12.95-108.
M. D. Gallego, F. D. Giraldo, and B. Hitpassy, “Adapting the PBEC-OTSS software selection approach for BPM suites: An application case,” in Proceedings - International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, SCCC, IEEE Computer Society, Feb. 2016. doi: 10.1109/SCCC.2015.7416578.
H. Hou, Q. B. Song, J. Yang, and K. G. Hao, “The research of BPM software trustworthy evaluation model,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science, ETCS 2009, 2009, pp. 815–823. doi: 10.1109/ETCS.2009.719.
L. C. Silva, T. Poleto, V. D. H. De Carvalho, and A. P. C. S. Costa, “Selection of a business process management system: An analysis based on a multicriteria problem,” Conf. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Syst. Man Cybern., vol. 2014-January, no. January, pp. 295–299, 2014, doi: 10.1109/SMC.2014.6973923.
R. C. Papademetriou and D. A. Karras, “Towards a thorough evaluation framework of software tools suitable for small and medium size enterprises focusing on modelling and simulating business processes,” in Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer Verlag, 2017, pp. 161–182. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-57222-2_8.
E. R. Serrano and H. C. Castellanos Granados, “Estudio comparativo de herramientas software libre para la Gestión de Procesos de Negocio,” Revista EIA, vol. 16, no. 31, pp. 171–187, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.24050/reia.v16i31.1148.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Olga Lucero Vega Márquez, Helga Duarte Amaya, Oscar Manuel Agudelo Varela
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
