The following is an English translation of an interview summary that originally appeared on the Open Docs website. The author was Gerdy Heek, project manager at Open Docs. For the original Dutch version, click here.
If you’re looking for a workflow solution that’s easy to integrate with Sharepoint, you might be comparing Nintex vs. K2. Both market leaders, each company provides solutions for customers, with a couple of key differences.
FGH Bank recently finished the process of selecting a SharePoint workflow solution, and it chose K2; find out why from Guus van Wijk, project manager at FGH Bank.
What initiated the need for a workflow application at FGH Bank?
We are currently in the process of transitioning to a time- and place-independent work environment, and in the new context, we had to rearrange things. Things like printing, which we wanted to do centrally. We also wanted documents to be signed digitally, not physically. So, our questions were quite specific. We looked for a vendor that could help us realize these goals.
But, the solution we were after had to offer more. We also wanted to grow with this functionality, so the idea was to implement these two processes in a relatively simple and basic way, but also look to expand it more broadly in the future, particularly into the area of case management.
How did you get started?
We started by collecting requirements and invited vendors to present their solutions. We already knew Nintex, but we discovered other vendors by conducting research on the Internet, as well as looking at research done by Gartner. Based on those sources, we decided on our vendor.
What was the end result?
In the end we decided on K2. Nintex is very user friendly, and would have been great for the first two processes we wanted to tackle, but we were looking for a future-proof solution that would be helpful to us, for example, in case management. In that way Nintex fell short. Nintex was dropped because it is far too focused on SharePoint. We have a broader infrastructure (SAP, Livelink, etc.), and that’s only enterprise content management. We were looking for far more integration with other line-of-business systems, and, for that, K2 was more suitable.
We looked at other packages as well, but the other solutions weren’t mature enough, or were so extensive that they weren’t what we were looking for.
K2 simply looks great. There has to be something for the eye as well, and while this had no central role in our decision-making, it was a nice little extra.
What future do you see with K2 business apps?
We expect to be able to make our primary processes much more efficient using K2, and that was what it was all about for us — to be able to work more efficiently and location-independent, and with the best support facilities.