What is our primary use case?
Blaze Advisor is a decision management tool or a rule engine. Currently, I'm working on one project which is for a financial institution. We are utilizing it here to manage the rules related to the compliance checks, as well as some eligibility checks and some funds-related information. We are checking to see if the funds are available or are there is any fundraising that needs to be done.
Currently, we are using FICO on-prem. We have planned to move to the cloud maybe next year.
How has it helped my organization?
FICO Blaze Advisor has improved our organization in a couple of ways. One is that it gives better control to the business users because it has a rule maintenance application which is their best UI, where business users can actually go and see the rule. They can modify the business rule on their own. They don't really need the technical person to do that. Once that framework is set, they can easily modify some basic rules and they can just deploy it with a few clicks. That is one valuable aspect. Another is that it has a centralized repository. The business logic is detached from the actual application. For example, nowadays there are different platforms - laptops, mobile apps and so many different types of apps. But still, the business logic is maintained in one place so that the same service can be utilized on any platform.
What is most valuable?
The feature that I have found most valuable is the algorithm they use in the retail version. The execution there is very optimized - so even though we have a huge service with huge counter rules, we still get the results in milliseconds. That is something amazing I found about this tool.
What needs improvement?
In terms of what could be improved, I think the developer's tools on their optimized version should be a little bit more user friendly. Additionally, it really doesn't pick up the actual exception or error of what the developers are getting. It gives a different level of exceptions and then somebody has to use their experience to dig down and get into the actual error of what is happening there.
I haven't really used the cloud version. We are planning to use it, but definitely, it should be more competitive compared to the other decision rules. For example, if we look at the IBM Audience, it has been way ahead of Blaze Advisor. Even though they started late, the way they designed the tool is commendable. With Blaze, a new person can get lost because there is no predefined specific path of development or execution and there are other tools. They have given a very nice execution path or development path - how things need to be developed.
They have basically given the test first and there should be some object model that needs to be in place. Then there should be a decision flow. Then there should be artifacts that are happening. They go step by step. When the first step is completed, they should show the second step, etc. That way, somebody can easily follow that part and develop any new application. I think this is missing in Fico Blaze.
Another thing that could be improved is the direct database connectivity with the relational database. Many times there are certain details we need from the relational database or any third-party tool, and that kind of connection or connectivity from the actual FICO Blaze is missing. If they could make some way to get the information from the third-party tool, that would be more helpful. If they did that, FICO would boom up like anything.
For how long have I used the solution?
I am currently using FICO Blaze Advisor.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
I have been seeing some glitches for a while, like in the last two, three versions, where the UI on the developer's tool takes lots of memory, and then the screen gets frozen. Then there are multiple artifacts that are open and if we try to toggle in between, that becomes really painful because you'll have to restart which takes time. This happens multiple times.
Blaze Advisor does have maintenance. They provide a one-year license with the version and every year it needs to be renewed. Once you renew the license, then those licenses need to be updated against all the services. That is one thing, then if there is a version change, definitely there would be upgrades and those things which come with it.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Scalability-wise, they don't have any deployment server so you will have to deploy it on an individual server. So, scale-wise, it depends on the infrastructure you are using for the deployment and the third party. If you are using something in the cloud, for example, it would have its own features to scale up. They really don't provide any of those features. Those are manual things.
Our clients are medium to large businesses. There are many clients and I guess we have a big practice where almost 30 + people are using it.
We are service providers. As long as we get the new plans, we definitely try to scale it up.
How are customer service and support?
I used support a couple of times and frankly they are difficult to reach.
It is difficult to get an actual person on call or to get an actual response from them. Even a first response you will get in two to three days. If you are working on something really burning, then it is really hard to get their support.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
I have used multiple decision rule engines, but this particular client, where I'm working right now, was using the Blade Advisor from day one. There was no switch. But there are different things which are available on the market. I haven't seen somebody switching from one to another, in my area at least.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup is pretty manual and that's why it is complex, at least on the on-premise version. I think the cloud version, the BMP version, has some process to do the CICD pipeline but I don't have much idea about that, because I've never worked with it. But if they could update or provide some predefined path for the on-premise version, that would be helpful.
What about the implementation team?
At least three people are required for setup. One is the Dev Ops person, who can really help to set up that CICD pipeline because it has to be done manually. Then the developer who has actually developed it, and lastly, the one experienced team leader who can really guide through the steps. So at least for the first deployment, to set up the pipeline and everything, it takes four to five basic techs for the initial set up. That's just because there are lots of possible errors which come up and you'll have to go and manually fix them. That's a high-level estimation.
What was our ROI?
The indirect returns are definitely there. They provide long-term solutions and stable services, and I have seen multiple clients who are using it for more than 10 years already. Definitely, there are returns. Indirect returns, I would say.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
FICO Blaze Advisor is expensive compared to other tools.
Because we are the service provider, the client purchases their own license and we work under those licenses.
What other advice do I have?
My advice to anyone considering it is that they should definitely go for it as long as they are able to. The cost is an issue many times. I have seen some small or mid-size clients hesitate to use this tool just because of licensing and the renewal fees. Apart from that, I don't see any difficulties anybody has had. Definitely, one should go for it as long as they can afford it.
On a scale of one to ten, I would rate FICO Blaze Advisor an eight.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
*Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
