Avolution ABACUS Reviews

When a client is looking for information on how to leverage an EA tool or how to look at the analysis that can come from an EA repository using the tool to create reports and dashboards, I can demonstrate that to them. 

I can demonstrate capabilities of what EA tools should be doing and how they should be doing it. 

Whether the client has a current tool in place or not, I can compare the information that needs to be gathered when you're documenting your architecture. Then I can tell the client that this is why the information is important to document. It may seem trivial or non-important at the time but it's important for later on because it allows for analysis and to do things such as project interdependencies reporting. This provides the ability to identify lags in the project delivery, where projects may depend on capabilities being in place but are not in place already. You will now have a lag for another project that is going to deliver early.

It gives you things for capability overlaps, gaps, and standards. 

The most valuable feature is that it has a customizable meta-model, which is key. It has extensive uses of catalogs, which can also be called inventories or taxonomies, and that is important as an enterprise architect. A solution designer would need that.

Rather than starting from scratch, leveraging a section of the predetermined solution and then plugging it into the solution that they're trying to develop provides interoperability or greater potential for it.

One of the key things that Abacus does is that it has a 3D modeling capability that can identify multiple levels of connectivity of components through their 3D views.

An example is looking at if A is connected to B and B is connected to C and C is connected to D and so on, you can have multiple levels of connectivity which wouldn't necessarily be obvious because you don't document it. The tool makes the connection for you.

If you are going to change the tactical standard in your organization and you were going to make everything TCP/IPv6 and you are no longer going to use V4, everything has to be V6. You will want to know what the impact is going to be before you make the change. How many different solutions and how many different systems are out there that you have to change or modify.

You can do an impact assessment through Abacus. You can then model it better and you can manage your standards, and also you can manage your solutions simultaneously.

You can see which capabilities may impact where you wouldn't normally connect a standard to a business function or a business capability.

You can also do it through this nth degree of connectivity. It's making it less complex, but more aware of your business environment.

A good example would be if you were going to remodel your home and you want to know where every electrical plug-in is and what fuse it is connected to. That would be very helpful before just going in there and guessing. It's a lot more, as it will tell you if you have different levels of connectivity. For example, you want to go in and change one thing, but what is that change going to do? While you can change a fuse or a receptacle, if you don't know what it touches then you are going to shock yourself.

Another great feature is that you can create reports on the fly.

It's a role-based tool, where you can identify who can change what type of models. They have different permissions and you can manage those very easily within the tool.

One of the things I like about this tool is that you can do an "as is" and "to be" set of models and you can compare them.

It's an out-of-the-box capable tool. For myself, I think that it works extremely well and it's very useful because, for the most part, I know what I am doing. For some of the functionality, it might be a little complicated for people getting started.

The reporting could be easier to configure.

In the next release, I would like to be able to float some more menus. When I am inputting information about an object into the database, getting that information entered can be done in multiple ways. This is good but sometimes you have to go to a different screen in order to input additional information.

I have been using this solution for three years.

This is a stable solution and I have not had any problems with it.

I know that it's scalable. It's out there and has been in use. I assume that it is going to be very scalable.

I plan to use it more. At this time I am using a lot of the built-in repositories or examples that they have to create examples for my clients. I am going to start to try to populate my type of examples with what I can see as being particularly useful for clients to be able to leverage.

I have contacted technical support and asked them how to do things. 

They have contacted me back with no problems and got it to work.

The technical support is more than fair.

Previously, I used ProVision. I started with it when it was a Proforma company, which was approximately in 2004 and 2005. Then they were bought out. It was sold to a couple of companies. The first was Metastorm and then it was bought out for that tool by OpenText. When OpenText bought it, the product was shelved in many ways. They didn't appear to want to evolve anything and just left it to die. Many companies will buy their competitors, then they disappear and then all of a sudden it's released as a new solution.

The tool is very useful, but it was more of a business process management with some EA and more EA functionality being built into it. 

The tools are expensive, as they are very niche tools.

The initial setup was straightforward. I am the only user on my laptop, it's not like I am putting it in an enterprise solution. They have enterprise solutions and they are quite robust.

The setup may be straightforward for one computer but maybe a bit more complex for and enterprise situation.

It took a couple of hours to deploy.

I downloaded the software, then got my license and went through the steps that they provided and I was up and running.

To get a fairly extensive license for Enterprise Architects from Spark is approximately US $400.00, maybe less, but with Avolution Abacus it was approximately US $2000.00 per year, and that includes maintenance with the Abacus tool.

There are no additional costs other than the licensing fees.

Working with enterprise architecture, I set up the practice and evaluate the client's practices to see where they can leverage more consistent procedures and help with their program development.

Most of my experience in IT solutions is on the documentation of solutions through EA tools as opposed to getting into the details of the actual solutions and the internal workings of them.

From a recent email, Avolution has released a change being made in the latest version and they are explaining what changes need to be done. People who are on servers hosted by Avolution, need to log off by a certain time. You can host a solution either within your enterprise or they can host it for you.

A tool is only as useful as the people using it, so you want to have the training program associated with anything to get people aware of what models to use or what type of templates, viewpoints, or standards that need to be associated and then they can work with that. What you don't want is to have them going in and start changing things, as that would have catastrophic impacts.

Understand how you want to analyze your enterprise information and how you want to leverage that to make better decisions, and that will tell you what features of any tool you need to be considered as fundamental.

For example, if you are going to allow people to put information into a tool with no standardized approach, no rigorous rules, and no procedure on how to do things, then any tool will do because you are not going to get anything out of it. It's going to be garbage in and nothing out. Many organizations will go and buy a tool thinking that it will solve their problem but the tools won't solve the problem unless they understand how they want to leverage it to make better decisions.

You have to keep with it because this solution has so many options and features. I keep learning and I just have to review the tutorials if I have forgotten how to do something. It's not a one-person tool, it's multifaceted. It's role-based and just trying to go through and trying to do everything is a bit overwhelming.

One person can manage it but that also gives you the wrong impression too. You must understand how you want people or organizations to see how to leverage the tool and then assign building the catalogs of a process reference model or a technical reference model. You need to assign that to people to do, you are not going to do it all yourself.

In populating information about the projects, you have to delegate that to the project management office to make sure that they give you the information that you need. At this time, I have a client who's the federal government here and project managers don't like to be questioned or have to put more into a tool. 

it's a very powerful tool. It does what an enterprise architect needs it to do and it supports the business in knowing more about the business so that they can do better.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The portfolio management is really good. The dashboard and the reports for the end-to-end impact analysis are really good. These are the features I found most valuable in Avolution ABACUS.

What Avolution ABACUS can improve is their presence in the Middle East, e.g. they could have more partners in the region. Their local presence could also be scaled more, particularly in customer service.

Mobile dashboards for executive management out of the box is a feature I'd like to see in this product in the next release.

I've been using Avolution ABACUS for 10 years. I used it in my previous company, and in my current company, I'm trying to get it, but I'm still waiting on budget approval.

Avolution ABACUS is a stable product.

Avolution ABACUS is scalable. I have used it with complex architecture and in a complex environment where there was a lot of data in the repository. The performance was acceptable. It was good. I've never faced any slowness or hiccup while using it.

The technical support is okay.

As an EA, I didn't have a hands-on experience of setting this tool up myself, because it's the responsibility of a different team, but from the documentation and the interaction with the team, it's not that complex. Avolution ABACUS has a straightforward set up.

The cost of Avolution ABACUS is reasonable, given the features they offer in comparison to other tools. Their price tag is really, really okay.

I evaluated System Architect.

Avolution ABACUS is a really good product. I would rate it the best among the rest.

My rating for Avolution ABACUS will depend on the maturity of the team that uses it. If you're really good and you have good people who understand enterprise architecture, then they can really make good use of the tool. Assuming that the team is mature in enterprise architecture, I would rate this tool an eight out of ten.

There are plenty of features available such as the ability to test applications for issues and a user-friendly dashboard.

In the future, there could be improvements in integration and enhancements. A few important enhancements I would like to see would be advanced analytical reports, collective analysis, and real-time analytics. This would increase customer satisfaction.

I have been using the solution for approximately three and a half years.

The solution is stable.

We have had a good experience with technical support. They are helping us handle the digital transformation.

The setup is lightweight and straightforward.

There is a subscription for this solution. We are on an annual subscription because you sometimes receive special offers the longer you subscribe.

I have used three other EA solutions in the past, such as MEGA HOPEX, and this solution is better.

This solution is the leader in enterprise architecture, I would recommend it to others.

I rate Avolution ABACUS a six out of ten.

The primary use case for this solution is for our customers, but it's confidential so I cannot release that information.

The deployment model we are using is on-premises.

The most valuable feature is the traceability, you can trace any object to the other.

This solution needs to improve resource usage because it has a heavy browser. 

It is easy to use, but it takes time to load and to run other programs.

It's not about usability; it consumes a lot of resources and memory. The open-source alternative is very light and easy to use on any device.

This solution is expensive for some people's budgets and they need to offer a Lite version at a cheaper price.

While this is one of the most powerful tools on the market, it does not integrate well with Microsoft Office or others. In the next release, I would like better integration.

This solution is stable.

This solution is scalable.

I have not needed any technical support for this solution.

The initial setup was average.

The deployment was not difficult. It took a couple of hours.

I am not an implementer or a service provider, I offer consultation and provide solutions in enterprise markets.

Part of my job is to recommend and select the tools that are suitable for my clients and stay within their budget. 

There are times where the open-source tool is the most suitable, whereas at other times I can offer a more complex solution.

I would recommend this solution because it has some powerful aspects, but it won't fit everyone's budget.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I worked with this solution to access the code that other people had previously worked on. This included accessing the database to assess the methodology that people had used for development. In doing so, we had to evaluate some technical aspects of this solution.

We worked with an on-premises deployment.

This product is very strong in terms of the meta-model because you can customize a lot according to the business plan. You can customize the models to use, what kinds of objects, and what kinds of attributes, so you can customize almost everything before you start the project, as well as during the project. If you face new challenges or issues then you can dynamically customize according to the business needs.

The user interface needs improvement because it is not user-friendly. They need dashboards because I think that it is really important in the market at the moment. Dashboards seem to be the solid bridge between the business and IT departments, and I didn't see anything there. The people that are going to decide to buy the product are the top management, and they are not interested in seeing the everyday operational aspects. Rather, they want to see results, which is why you need dashboards. They have an open door for integration with the model, but that's all.

Integration with third-party tools needs to be improved. We did some research on this, and they have open doors with certain tools, but at least in this assessment, it was not clear how to do it. They say that you can do it, but we could not figure out how. So, this is an odd part that I think they can make more clear. I asked whether they have APIs available, or whether we had to create them from scratch, but I didn't get an answer.

There is a feature called the versioning of the models, and it is not easy. It is hard because it requires a lot of technical skill to work with a model, process, or another artifact.

If they want to expand in the European market then they are going to have to improve their technical support.

We had some technical problems, so I would say that the product is not stable. Sometimes a restart was required.

I think that it is possible to scale this solution because this is what they are saying to the customers, but it is not so clear.

Technical support for this solution needs to be improved. I am in Luxembourg, and I think that the issue is more or less in Europe. I think that they have a central office in Europe, in London, and sometimes the customer was complaining about them.

Our customer had some technical problems and they did not receive adequate answers. It was taking a lot of time to get the correct answers, so I don't think that they have knowledgeable enough people in London. I think that the issues had to be escalated to the technical team in Australia, and it takes a lot of time to get responses from them.

I have worked with similar products in the past, including ARIS. The difference is that the customers are very happy with the support. They are based in Germany, and when the customer asks a question they get an answer very quickly.

It is also a more stable product than ABACUS and does not crash as often. They can continue working, whereas with ABACUS the customers are stopping because of the crashes and they do not know what to do.

To me, these are the biggest differences between these two solutions.

The initial setup of this solution is a little bit complex. You can customize everything, so it is powerful, but it is not easy to do. Sometimes the customers prefer a black-box solution, where they know what they can do.

In this product, the package is very open and you can do everything. On the other hand, it is not easy because you have to prepare many things first, and customize many things before you start. This is like many products and not a problem with the solution. Rather, it's so powerful that the customization requires more time and more cost to set up.

I think that it would take at least a month and a half, or perhaps two months to set up a project. I don't think that it's possible to do it in less time. This is very subjective because I did not do it, but this is based on my feeling after what happened to us.

My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is to consider both the technical support and stability, as well as the technical aspects of the product.

Based on my experience, this is not a product that I recommend at the moment.

When the vender launches a new version they should guarantee the core things are really working so that they do not have problems like this. They need to focus on what is critical and important in order to last in the market. 

The integration with other tools should be more open and clear, as it seems to be quite closed and proprietary. The market does not like this kind of thing. If the customers are not trusting enough then they are not going to buy the product.

This is a very powerful product and it is very customizable, and the concept of the product is good, but they need to improve a lot, including the user interface. We also had some crashes when we were using this solution.

This product may be easy for the IT team to use, but it is not designed for them. It is designed for business users. This is why the user interface has to be more user-friendly than it is.

In terms of it being a powerful tool, I would rate it a ten out of ten. However, the user interface is very poor, which I would rate a one or two out of ten.

Overall, I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

We use the on-prem model. Our primary use is for enterprise architecture. 

The most valuable features are the catalog and the diagram. 

The workflow and the collaboration need improvement. 

It is stable. I haven't had any issues with it. 

It is vastly scalable but you can't run it on a Mac or Linux so it has limitations. We don't have plans to increase the usage. We're happy with what we're using it for. 

Their technical support is good. I get good responses from them from a technical perspective. 

I started off with this solution. 

I would definitely recommend it but it depends on the use case. If you want a data model of flexibility and catalog scalability I would recommend it from that perspective. 

For an architecture practice, there's more detailed architecture than enterprise architecture so for that, I wouldn't recommend Abacus. It's just for different use cases that Abacus is good to have. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Its Analytical and Simulation Engine.

It is great for EA Repository and various EA analysis.

It needs more flexible analysis parameters and more capability as a BPM tool and doing BPM simulation, compared with Bonita BPM or Bizagi.

Since 2015.

No.

No.

It needs more support from the Federated EA.

Best.

Best.

Yes, Abacus is more powerful and easier to implement.

Straightforward.

We are a consultant.

Yes, ARIS, MEGA, and Troux.

It's a good product with a complete set of templates, frameworks, and notations.