BiZZdesign HoriZZon Reviews

We use it for enterprise architecture information, with the main purpose today being to analyze our IT investment portfolio and the architecture related to it. That includes process, data, applications, and infrastructure. We collect all of that information by each of our initiatives or projects and we analyze it there. It gives us a single source of data.

We're using the latest cloud version.

It requires a lot of effort to really standardize and have a single source of truth. All of that effort can pay off when we scale and grow more and we can keep building on top of that. The functionality allows us to do that, even though I don't think we are using the full range of its capabilities yet. Because we are using the cloud version, they keep bringing new functionality. That sometimes allows us to do things in a better way.

We now have one way for communicating between IT and business, and that's true, as well, for our partners or implementers when we do IT projects. That way, everybody is talking about the same elements and we don't have different versions to refer to. The benefit is mainly in communication and collaboration.

In addition, the HoriZZon portal allows us to generate visualizations and charts that can be understood by people who aren't enterprise architects. We just started using that more extensively one month ago. It requires some understanding of how the data source works, but after you get to that point, it's pretty easy to start generating charts and information that non-technical people will get and understand. And at the end of the day, that is our purpose: to communicate to our broader audience. These visualizations and charts help business stakeholders assess and make investment decisions on technology to really optimize our IT investments, and they provide the right capabilities to achieve this strategy.

It will also help us to quickly identify where there are risks in our technology portfolio. We are implementing some metrics that allow us to measure and do a risk assessment of our applications. So far we have prepared all of the foundations to allow us to start creating that type of analysis. This is a very important aspect because it's a way that we can provide value to the organization, from the architectural perspective. So it's not only to help on the investment side, but also to prevent risk. In terms of putting plans in place to mitigate those risks, we are not there yet, but I think it will. We are still more at the stage of implementing the methodology, determining how we do assessments, and creating all of the metrics. When we finish those pieces, we will be able to use it to make decisions and plans.

BiZZdesign helps us look at everything in our enterprise architecture through a business capability lens, rather than in EA language. We are translating almost every single action from the infrastructure or technical level into what it means in terms of our capabilities or functionality.

The solution also brings high visibility into the costs of how we are set up in our infrastructure. It comes down to two main areas: helping us to decide where we should put our investment in the portfolio, and at the same time, how we mitigate risk in our current landscape. Of course, that includes costs. But because we are just building the foundation, we haven't done that yet, but that's what we are going to end up using it for: our IT investments and analyzing our operating models.

I like the flexibility of the modeling part for standards like ArchiMate and, at the same time, BPMN. It allows us to connect elements from different areas and to have a single repository and a single source of truth. It gives us one place to do analysis throughout the organization. I also like the dashboards.

Its breadth of capabilities is very good from the modeling perspective, as it really covers all of the standards that we use in our company and even some that we haven't really used yet. I'm sure we will use those others as well because we keep growing our information.

They are already working on this, but there is room for improvement in making it more seamless between the modeling and the analysis pieces. Sometimes you have to do some work in the backend to ensure that the HoriZZon portal really gets all of the information the way you want it. They are working on the seamlessness between what they call Enterprise Studio and HoriZZon. It's something we have voiced to their team and I believe it's in their roadmap.

I have been using BiZZdesign HoriZZon since May of 2019.

The stability is pretty good. I have never lost any data, even if my connection has gone down. Because it's on the cloud, you really need to have an internet connection all the time if you're using it. But whenever my connection has gone off, I have never lost data.

So far, the scalability is pretty good. We could keep growing and adding a lot more use cases that we don't have today.

We want to keep growing more use cases, more metrics, more analyses, and that means getting more data into it. One of the bigger challenges is how we ensure that the data is consistent and that it's the right data. And we need more people to maintain that data. Ideally, you should be connected to the source, even if it's done automatically with less people. That's where we need to keep growing, to make the ingestion of data more automatic.

Our experience with their technical support has been very good. They have a system where you raise a ticket in their online support. By answering different questions you are able to raise how critical the issue is. For the ones that I have raised that were very critical—and that has only happened on a couple of occasions—they have responded very quickly; within one hour. For the other ones that are not that critical, there is still a good response time. Overall, it's pretty good.

We were using Excel and Visio and SharePoint. In addition, I and maybe one other person were using the free software called Archi, which has some modeling capabilities based on ArchiMate. We are still using Visio for business process modeling and that's mainly because it's quite expensive to give licenses to everybody. So some people are creating business process models in Visio, and then we upload them to BiZZdesign. We also still have a lot of data in SharePoint.

We brought in BiZZdesign to have consistency in our information and so that we don't have to update an Excel file 10 times, just to produce one analysis. With Excel we also didn't know which one was the latest version and that created a lot of challenges. Now we know the information is in one place and that we should just be looking there from now on.

In terms of making the business case for bringing on BiZZdesign, the vendor helped by providing insights and charts we could share with business leaders. We also got some guidance from third-party reviews. We agreed that we needed an enterprise architecture tool to help us to mature and organize our information and analysis. After that, it was more a matter of which one to choose, and that came down to a cost-benefit analysis. 

The initial setup was straightforward because we are using the cloud version. The part that took us slightly longer, but it was not that bad, was to ensure that our IT directory was connected to BiZZdesign. We used the same security setup that we have in the company. But that was okay.

We did the whole implementation within three months. It only took a couple of weeks to have the system running, and after that it was more up to us to decide and define how we were going to start using the tool. The tool is really open to whatever you are using in your company. So there's some work to do in defining your metamodels and what kind of data you want in it, and around how to implement or define the processes that you want around management of data.

We used consultancy services from BiZZdesign. They were with us for four days. They not only helped us to learn how to use the tool, but from the enterprise architecture perspective, they showed us how to take advantage of it as well. That was pretty good.

From our side there were just three people involved. And that was more because of the data that we wanted to collect from different areas. We had to understand the current situation, what information we had available and whether we could upload it straight into BiZZdesign or we needed to do some compression of the data to allow us to use it.

Our whole team is involved in maintaining it. Everybody is responsible for their own information, so everybody has to add different pieces. Ours is a small team today with seven people, although I am the sole administrator. The team of seven is using the modeling piece and ensuring the data is being collected, but we have around 80 users who are reading and consuming the information from HoriZZon. They are mainly the IT community, in different IT areas. We have some business users, what we call "business sponsors," at least one per function. We also have an internal auditing team that is doing all of the analysis of risk in BiZZdesign.

We have seen ROI, but more from the non-financial benefits. The ROI is that our architectural practice has matured and BiZZdesign tools have supported that maturity process.

The speed to value is more dependent on the team than the tool. It's more a matter of the number of resources and the amount of time that we can dedicate to it, rather than the tool having any limitations. But the time to value is pretty fast, considering that we are a small team.

It took us almost a year to start showing value, and we are still in that process. It's only now that we have the foundation there and have established the processes where we can start seeing the different analyses and perspectives.

There are no costs in addition to their standard licensing fees.

We evaluated MEGA, Orbus and LeanIX.

LeanIX didn't have the whole modeling capability and we really wanted that. Orbus was connected to Microsoft and, in theory, that gave us some good options, but their pricing model was based on every single functionality having a price. The pricing was comparable but if we wanted to scale, it would have ended up being a lot more expensive. BiZZdesign gave us one price with all of the functionality, and we could scale as much as we needed.

Start simple and be consistent and understand what is the longer-term vision, as well. That way, you know what the next step is and can keep growing in that direction. If you try to start with a complex model and to capture every single piece of data that is important from the beginning, it's going to be a bit bigger task. And because you really need to start showing value, you need to start with a small amount of information and keep growing from there.

HoriZZon, is an important part of the solution. For any use case that you create, you should really create it in parallel on the HoriZZon dashboard and analyses. That will allow you to start showing the value of the information that you are putting in to a bigger community. We took slightly longer to start doing that.

We use it as our enterprise architecture tool, for keeping our enterprise architecture documentation. That not only includes infrastructure components but everything else as well. For example, what are the different components that we have, enterprise-wide? What are the technologies being used? What are the technology services being used? Who are the business actors and what are the business departments? What are the business capabilities that we have in the organization? We keep everything in BiZZdesign. 

We are also using the tool for architecture governance and the gating process, and all the different business-view needs. Whenever they're implementing any application, they document the solution architecture of that application in BiZZdesign. It then goes through our weekly governance process in front of our architecture review board. Based on the documentation quality and on certain standards, we evaluate whether this application is fit for implementation. If not, we provide feedback: what the corrections are that need to be done. Once again it goes through that feedback process and, once approved by all the relevant stakeholders, the application is ready for implementation.

There are certain applications that are transformation-type projects. We use BiZZdesign Enterprise Studio to document the current architecture, the transition architecture, the future architecture, as well as the network, monitoring, infrastructure, and security views. These are the things that we usually cover as part of the governance process.

It is running on AWS cloud. We don't use the desktop version.

We are, of course, able to generate visualizations and charts that can be understood by people who are not enterprise architects. Primarily, it depends on the person who is creating that chart and how much information they put in. But if they use it properly and create the charts with all the relevant information and publish it, it is definitely going to help the business users and others understand what we are doing.

For example, our CTO wanted to have a "10,000-foot view" of everything. Previously, that was not possible. Now, with BiZZdesign, we have started publishing those views in HoriZZon. She just logs in to HoriZZon and can take a quick glance at the different artifacts published there and provide feedback. That view includes the different business areas and covers things like the costs we are incurring, the technologies being used, and our overall reference architecture. It includes almost everything.

Among the valuable features is the ability to document standards. For example, we have mandatory operating standards that need to be followed by every application and every architecture. We use things like table charts and pie charts for documenting the costs incurred across the systems. All of these are good features.

Another good feature is for documenting architectures. We use the classic view to put together all the components and to establish the relationships among them.

A third important feature is the HoriZZon part, where we actually publish all these views. We control access privilege in BiZZdesign, restricting edit permissions, meaning Enterprise Studio access, to only the architects. HoriZZon, on the other hand, is exposed to pretty much everybody across the organization, because it provides view-only access.

The breadth of capabilities the solution provides is also good. The best part is that it follows the ArchiMate principle, which is something of an industry-wide accepted principle.

First and foremost within the scope of improvement for the solution would be the cost. It's very costly, which restricts us from using it more extensively and requires us to get approval from the CFO level on how many people we are going to expose the tool to and how many people are actually going to use it. For example, if a particular team has three architects, we always restrict access to only one because of the cost impact, even though those three architects may be taking care of three different areas. We first expose it to one architect and let him complete his part and then we revoke the permission from that person and give it to another architect to take care of his areas, etc.

So every time somebody requests BiZZdesign access, we have to recalculate our existing licenses and how we can effectively prioritize and reuse them. We understand that enterprise architecture is not cheap, but I still believe that there is room for improvement from BiZZdesign on this issue.

The second point is the user experience. When somebody is documenting solutions in BiZZdesign, it's not very user-friendly at all. There is a learning curve for people to get accustomed to it. The drag-and-drop features and adding properties are okay. But suppose somebody has drawn something incorrectly. The way that type of thing is reverted requires training. There are things that a user can't figure out on his own. He definitely has to sit with somebody from BiZZdesign, if his organization does not have any experience with the solution. Or, if his organization has people with experience, then he has to sit with a person who has already worked on it. Otherwise, he will have to spend quite a significant amount of time learning it. It's not at all user-friendly and requires a lot of practice to get the hang of it. I feel that there is a lot of room for improvement here. A tool like this should be intuitive.

I have seen table charts where, if the chart is a little too big, it does not fit in HoriZZon and it is not at all visible. Even if you zoom out and scroll, it's nasty. I don't know an enterprise architecture tool like this—and HoriZZon, in particular, is meant for viewing things. The visibility of things and the user experience in HoriZZon are horrible. There have been several times where we could not publish a chart properly and we had to break the chart into small tables and create multiple artifacts, creating a complete mess. This should be seriously taken up by BiZZdesign because there is a lot of scope for improvement in terms of usability. It's not at all good, unfortunately.

There is documentation, of course, and the documentation is good, but not everything is written in the documentation. You will definitely need some intervention either from BiZZdesign's paid consultancy or from a person who has experience working with BiZZdesign. Without that, there will be areas where people will be stuck, for sure. They cannot just figure it out on their own, reading the documentation.

In addition, if an organization does not have experience with the solution and needs to work with BiZZdesign, the BiZZdesign consulting cost is also very high.

I would rate the solution’s ability to help us manage costs and risks when it comes to the IT and application portfolios in our organization at six out of 10. The pros in this respect are that we can load the costs, create charts, and create different artifacts and publish them to HoriZZon for the key stakeholders to look at. The con is that, while BiZZdesign does have API capabilities, they come with a different licensing strategy. Also, when we looked into it about one year ago, it was not that mature. We have various systems where these costs are stored. We have to export the data from those systems into a spreadsheet and then import it into BiZZdesign. The entire process is manual.

Cost is something that is dynamic. For example, we are heavily using AWS cloud, and we get a bill from the vendor every month. How can we monitor those costs? BiZZdesign is not suitable for that kind of monitoring. There are other tools, like CloudHealth by VMware, that give us more of a real-time view of these costs. Whereas with BiZZdesign, because it's a completely manual process, every month-end somebody has to confirm receipt of the bill, get the export of the cost from the system, import it into BiZZdesign and then notify the CxOs. But it's not a real-time view. By the time we load the cost, it's already late. It's a six out of 10 because it has some capability, but it does not have the capability of showing data in real-time. And it's not only cost data. It has connectivity with ServiceNow and SQL Server, but nothing else. We mostly rely on spreadsheet input, but that's a completely manual process.

Finally, BiZZdesign has some capabilities in terms of business process flow, but it's not comparable with other tools. Our organization is already spending a lot of money on BiZZdesign. But since BiZZdesign does not have business-process documentation capabilities, our organization had to go for another product called BusinessOptix, to document the business process. We are actually losing the goal of having everything in a single repository. Our enterprise-architecture-related artifacts are in BiZZdesign and our business-process-related artifacts are in BusinessOptix. A compromise solution we have come up with is that, because BiZZdesign is able to provide a hyperlink, we have included all the business process flows as hyperlinks from BiZZdesign, so that people can refer to them from BiZZdesign. But we ended up having two licenses for two very costly products. We have a few users in this one and a few users in that one and some users in both systems. From a business process perspective, the bottom line is that BiZZdesign is not ideal.

If these things can be improved, a lot of people will start using BiZZdesign. These are the areas that are restricting organizations from using it.

I have been using BiZZdesign HoriZZon for around close to a year.

The stability of HoriZZon is good. There have been outages, at times, a couple in the last year, but they have not been very frequent. Because it's an enterprise architecture tool, a couple of outages for a couple of hours is acceptable because it is not something that is going to destroy the business. Maybe people are not able to document, or people are not able to view something, but it's not stopping the business. The effect of the outages has been minimal and the number of outages has also been minimal.

We don't have a huge number of people in our organization. Scalability-wise, there has been no issue. We are growing the number of artifacts and there is a huge difference between the number of artifacts we had initially and what we have now. But we have never faced issues in this regard.

We have 15 to 20 designers and about 50 users. Those 50 people are mostly using HoriZZon, while the 20 people are using both HoriZZon and the Studio. And there are three or four people who are admins.

Their technical support is good. They're really professional and they respond quickly to any queries. They are good, but they're costly.

Return on investment is definitely there because we never had a single view of everything. Although we are not there yet, there is still a lot more work to do, we are slowly getting there.

Be very clear about your objectives, what you want to use BiZZdesign for. It is an enterprise architecture tool. It's not for documenting low-level designs. A good use case would be if an organization is trying to transform its overall enterprise. They obviously need to know what they currently have, where they want to go, and how they are going to get there. If these kinds of things are being discussed in your organization today, then business design tools like BiZZdesign will be very effective and valuable. But if you are only looking to document solutions, BiZZdesign might not be a good investment because BiZZdesign is very costly. You should probably look for other tools.

We are thinking of making BiZZdesign as a single source of truth for the entire American Century organization. We have found out a lot of information through their enterprise architect, scattered here and there, and it is very difficult to track. Our aim is to consolidate all the information and do something with that data/information, where meaningful insight can be extracted and presented to the executive level and other departments at American Century.

People have created many artifacts or system architecture diagrams for different American Century systems. These are now scattered here and there. We are currently working to load the architecture diagrams into BiZZdesign, which can't just be copied and pasted because of PPT. The way things do not work exactly in the same way with HoriZZon. So, we are redrawing all those artifacts and putting them systematically into the BiZZdesign system. This is the use case that I have been working on for the last month and a half to two months. Two people besides me are working on this.

We are currently in the process of starting things. We will start with its capabilities. From those capabilities, we will then go from the business to application level. After that, we will go from the application level to the technology level, then from technology level to infrastructure level, if required. In this way, we are tagging things. In American Century, there are many different applications that have different properties and parameters. Once we link everything, then it will be easier for us to generate different fields to determine, for example, what type of relationships application A has with other technical layers or the infrastructure layer. With these types of views, we can easily generate, then show the application's linkage and how this particular application can be used in a business unit, related to its capability. These types of things are currently going on. We have categorized some capabilities for Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 to tag.

We have an Adobe license, which is currently being used for investment management, distribution, enterprise architecture, etc. Now, I can generate how much I am paying for distribution, investment management, or enterprise architecture. Our senior management is very much interested in cost-related stuff, which helps them out.

We can find out why the cost is there. For example, if I have spent $10,000 in the last six months for some AWS licenses, then this information was found in different systems and scattered. Now, by using BiZZdesign and generating some charts, this information can be easily viewed and helpful for others to see.

It has different process flow diagrams. In American Century, we do something a bit different because BiZZdesign, the company, bought another software mostly for the process flow part. Now, process flow diagrams can be drawn and very easily referenced from BiZZdesign. 

We classify architecture in three ways: business layer architecture, application layer architecture, and technology layer architecture. Within these layers, different artifacts can be found. So, we are working to convert our PPTs into meaningful information. 

Once things are put in BiZZdesign, it is very easy to use. I can just click on an application component and find out if we are using this particular component. This provides us flexibility.

This solution enables us to generate different charts or graphs that can be understood by people who are not enterprise architects. We are mainly preparing these charts and graphs for senior management who don't understand much technical stuff. So, this feature can be useful. Our CEO or other executive-level personnel don't have a lot of time to look into the details. There is the BiZZdesign HoriZZon platform and their Enterprise Studio, which are two different things. The executive-level personnel don't go into Enterprise Studio at all. With the HoriZZon platform, it is very easy to link everything in a dashboard on the HoriZZon site. So, somebody goes there, clicks it, and then they can see everything. Hopefully, once everything is in place, the charts should be useful for business stakeholders to make decisions more quickly.

BiZZdesign follows the ArchiMate principle, which is very good because it is standard practice. For the last year, from architecting, enterprise, and microservices perspectives, this particular tool has been good. This is a good tool with ArchiMate capabilities. 

One good thing that I found out about Enterprise Studio is its import and export capabilities. For example, if an Excel is properly added, and that particular meta model is done in HoriZZon, then we can import thousands of records and assess their relationship very easily. This import function is a good feature in that context. HoriZZon has very good connectivity with ServiceNow, SQL tables, and Excel.

In HoriZZon, there are different matrices. In some of the cases, there is an option to aggregate them, but in other cases, we have not done this, e.g., to see the proper costs. For example, if I have 10 different matrices, then I need to create an aggregate view out of those 10 matrices somewhere. That is where we have been struggling a bit. We have a counterpart from the HoriZZon product team with whom we have bi-weekly discussions. We have suggested to him that this can be improved. He said, "He will take care of it," but he will probably give it to someone.

They have some capabilities where there is significant room for improvement when exporting. Sometimes, some of the enterprise application systems may need to be disenabled for some queries, and then I will get different returns. Once I get different returns, then the components and relationships will be created from that. I think HoriZZon should work on this. While the Excel connectivity is working, I don't think this particular REST API capability is quite there.

I have been using it for around a year.

It is deployed with AWS, so scalability should not be an issue.

The enterprise architects are using it everyday. 

For the entire staff, we make some arrangements, like admin access has only three enterprise architects, including me, at American Century. Now, for different system architects and other fellows who also need BiZZdesign, we usually try to categorize them into two parts: 

1. Somebody needs to contribute, like a designer. 
2. Somebody who only wanta to see the dashboard and information, but usually is not going to contribute. 

For this, we have set up a single sign-on mode and somebody needs to raise a request, if somebody is interested, that will come to us. One of our people will validate and approve the request after the role is assigned so the access is relevant.

Currently, we are educating people in system architecture, because somebody may only be comfortable doing something in PowerPoint. Now, if we need to put something into BiZZdesign, then some extra things need to be done. Therefore, we are currently working very closely with their enterprise architect. We are meeting with them biweekly and weekly. We are shown how some meaningful information can be extracted, which is already there, and how some meaningful information can be added to BiZZdesign.

Support is very good. I would give it 10 out of 10 because I usually receive very prompt responses from their support guys.

Previously, I worked with IBM Rational Rose, which is also very good software. It is very difficult for me to compare because I am not familiar with the latest version of Rational Rose. I used it seven to eight years ago. So, I do not know what features they currently have. 

Another guy worked with others to set the solution up for American Century.

I haven't found any issues with the scalability and licensing parts that are access-related.

This tool is good for enterprise architecting. It should be used for architecting purposes only. We can derive some meaningful insights from whatever data that we have, which is the main thing.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10.

We use it primarily for architecture and capability-based modelling. We plan to use it more as an analysis rather than a modelling tool.

We previously used System Architect and Provision, which did not work for us. Since implementing BiZZdesign HoriZZon, many of our solutions and technical and segment architects have been using it actively. We recently changed how we developed BiZZdesign HoriZZon and have completely moved away from the word-based SAHLD, the high-level architecture design, to a fully automated and dynamic solution intent. The advantage of doing that is if one project finishes, the architecture can pick up from there, and all the architectural artifacts are already available in one place for the next project team to pick up.

The enterprise studio where the modelling happens is valuable and a critical part of the tool for non-architects and business stakeholders. In addition, the HoriZZon, where we share most of our models with the stakeholders, is a feature that businesses appreciate because it makes it a collaboration tool.

We are working with BiZZdesign to improve the interfaces with ServiceNow. There are also other tools where we bring the data application components, and data objects into BiZZdesign HoriZZon, and not all the offices are mastered. The initial design assumed that all of the content would be mastered there. So that's one area of improvement that BiZZdesign HoriZZon is working on.

There could be simpler modelling so that instead of users drawing the diagrams in the tool, they can create a table of contents that can automatically be used to create diagrams. In addition, it will make it simpler for non-architects to create representative models.

We have used this solution since the beginning of 2019, using SaaS from AWS.

I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

There is room for improvement with the scalability, and we have been working with BiZZdesign on that. So I rate the scalability a six out of ten. We have 750 active architects using this solution and developing models and about 5,000 stakeholders. We don't have any place to increase the usage right now, and I don't see a considerable increase in the active architects modelling in the BiZZdesign HoriZZon. However, there may be an increase in the number of stakeholders because only certain business stakeholders currently provide consumer access.

I rate technical support an eight out of ten. They're good at solving problems and have good lines of communication internally, so if the first line of support cannot solve the issue, the second line of support does. If the second line of support cannot resolve the issue, they escalate it to their development or product management team.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, and I rate the features available a five out of ten. When we were implementing the solution, the product itself was being evolved. So the implementation was not that difficult, and it was relatively easy. However, many features you would expect from an enterprise architecture tool were still missing. I think a lot of the missing features are covered now, but a lot of them are still on their roadmap.

BiZZdesign technical support was primarily involved in the setup. There were third parties involved, and the documentation provided by BiZZdesign was helpful. The deployment took about three months, and it was not complicated. A lot of the challenges were post-implementation, and not everything is mastered in BiZZdesign. At the core team, four people from our organization were involved in the deployment comprising three consultants and the account manager from BiZZdesign. In addition, there is a support organization that looks after maintenance.

We are still working with BiZZdesign on some of the issues. So while we are in this transition period, we are still investing in the solution. So calculating ROI metrics is difficult at this point.

I rate the pricing a six out of ten, but I can't share more details about the costs. However, the pricing model could be improved considerably.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten.

One of the main advantages of this solution is that they have representation in the Open Group Forum, which means that any changes in ArchiMate are immediately implemented in BiZZdesign. The other big advantage is its ability to interweave various modeling languages and provide a seamless view between them that allows one to navigate from one language to the other through the integrated links and cross-model relations.

This tool is something of a beast - it takes a long time to learn, and it isn't possible for casual users and most architects. Unless a person spends 500 or 1,000 hours on the tool or does very concentrated sessions using all its functionalities, it's very difficult to master. Improving the capability of architects to use the tool would be a big improvement. In the next release, I'd like to see better integration with other product companies in this space, like CMDB and ServiceNow, and for BiZZdesign to introduce knowledge-sharing sessions to showcase new best practices, what's being promoted, client success stories etc.

I've been using this solution for the last four-and-a-half years.

This is a fairly stable tool in terms of integrity and performance.

BiZZdesign's technical support could be improved. For example, we have given them access to our environment, but when we log tickets, they're taken by their level-one team and only go to the experts with access to our environment once they progress. It would be better if when we're logging a specific problem in our environment, it could go directly to a person with access, which would propel the turnaround time. 

Implementation was fairly complex because of constraints on resources when it comes to architects. Layers get implemented at various speeds, so there are gaps, which creates problems because the core layers are supposed to be addressed in parallel. The documentation is also not up to standard, and we would expect better support material in general.

The pricing model is slightly on the high side and could be more competitive for long-term partnerships.

I've evaluated ARIS (which has an additional capability of process mining on its BPM layer and the Alfabet to handle enterprise architecture), TransUnion (whose Sparx tools are loose in the standards and haven't had good feedback), and Signavio.

If you're thinking of implementing BiZZdesign, take it from a capability perspective. The first and primary element to be covered is the architecture capability the organization wishes to establish. Then have your use cases defined very clearly and factor in a fair bit of time for implementation to give it time to produce results. I'd rate this solution as seven out of ten.

We use this solution to publish our customers' enterprise models.

I find the publishing on the web feature to be the most valuable. The interface is intuitive enough as well.

The users of BiZZdesign should be able to enter their data or make modeling changes via HoriZZon.

I've been working with BiZZdesign HoriZZon since 2018.

It is stable, and I would rate the stability at eight out of ten.

BiZZdesign HoriZZon is scalable, and I'd give it an eight out of ten for scalability. Our customers are enterprise level companies, but the solution is suitable for small and mid-sized companies as well.

My experience with technical support has been good.

We used Software AG previously and switched to BiZZdesign because it is more scalable.

HoriZZon is a cloud platform, and we need to install it for our customers due to certain regulations. Thus, an easier implementation process would definitely help. If it is on-premises, it usually takes at least two days. Two dedicated staff can handle the implementation.

The price is reasonable.

My advice would be to scale your organization and project well, and BiZZdesign will fit your requirements.

Overall, I would rate this solution at eight out of ten.