Editorial standards

ProcessMgr publishes two titles. Process Daily covers the practice of improving processes: methods, metrics and worked examples. Process Reviews covers the software used to map, model and simulate those processes.

Every article carries the name of the person who wrote it, and each writer keeps to one beat, so the reading on a subject stays consistent from piece to piece.

Our comparisons are built from published documentation, product materials and pricing pages, dated at the time of writing. We do not claim hands on testing.

Where a capability cannot be established from a public source, we say so and the entry reads not stated. We do not guess, and we do not record missing evidence as a missing feature.

Every product on Process Reviews is scored against the same published rubric, at the same weights, whoever writes it.

Read the rubric in full

Every factual claim about a product carries a source and the date it was checked.

Most vendors in this category do not publish prices. Where one is published we cite it. Where it is not, we say so.

If we get something wrong, write to us and we will fix it. Corrections are made on the page itself and noted there, so the record shows what changed rather than quietly replacing it. Write to [email protected].

We do not present anything paid for as editorial. If a placement is paid, it is labeled as paid, on the page where it appears.

Some vendors covered on our titles are commercial partners of the publisher. That relationship is set out in full on the disclosure page, and it does not change how any product is scored.