Avolution ABACUS Reviews

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.

ABACUS is an Australian product that provides its users with the ability to model different types of enterprise architectural approaches, e.g. Zachman and more. They've got so many models within their product, that depending upon your expertise or experience, you can use this product to do BPM (business process management) modeling to various types of models, roadmaps, etc. It's an enterprise architecture platform.

Because I'm focusing on the Zachman framework or the Zachman ontology, and everything else is basically a hybrid of Zachman, I've been using the Zachman approach, the Zachman framework, but it's not really a framework: It's an ontology, so one of the things I love about ABACUS most is that it enables users to utilize and be in touch with all the enterprise architecture models or hybrids that have come out of the Zachman ontology. Because all models or hybrids are all there, this solution provides a better understanding for where enterprise architecture has come from the spinoffs that have happened.

The product features of ABACUS are comprehensive which I also find valuable.

I suggested to them one software product development enhancement. It was a way of handling their page. If you can imagine a virtual page, everything on the page is in view when you're only using half of the page.

My suggestion to them was for the application to become more aware of page usage, so that if I'm not using the other half of the page, why keep it in context with the overall view? When I save, then only bring back up that which I've used. Don't bring up the entire page and all the blank spaces or space within it. I suggested for them to have a way of segmenting their page based on the object position and rendering that has been actually drawn out on that page, so they could make better use of the virtual page based on the diagrams or the entities that are within the page.

Whatever they're using to handle what I would call virtual page mapping with the objects that you're drawing on the page, I would have liked to see the product interface be more aware of the dimensions of the overall page that they present, and where the last position of the object that you placed on the page is, and make it go in print. I don't want to see all the free space.

For example, the right margin: If I only used half a page to put an object onto their overall page size which they've allocated virtually, don't give me the free space on the right hand side, just wherever the object is ending. Allow for that and maybe a little bit more, so that the object appears as large as it possibly can be, because it's not just one page.

A drawing can consist of multiple pages. What I want is to be able to draw on the page size set by Abacus, and when it ends up being a four by four virtual page: four individual pages, I don't want my object to go across two and a half pages out of the four pages.

When I say print, get rid of where my object on the right hand side ends or at the bottom, and only render within the page, which could initially be a four by four matrix. Only bring back in the print part of it that which my drawing utilizes, not all of the predetermined four by four matrix: the combination of pages that you provided me for drawing on. In this way, the object when it's actually rendered either in the print mode or on screen is as large as possible, as opposed to just trying to fit it within the dimension of what you predetermined a page size should be.

I've forgotten another product that actually did that quite well, and this is why I was able to suggest to them. I even suggested that they look at that particular product to get the concept. This is what needs to be improved in ABACUS. 

Whether or not they've added my suggestion in their research and development life cycle, still remains to be seen. I should follow up this year, and see what they thought. They received it. They thought it was well thought out. I provided them with some samples, because I had experienced another product that did that quite well. I just thought it would be a good thing as a feature. Other than that, I love what they do within their enterprise architectural space as a software solution.

The only one that I found which I would like included in their next release was the utilization of print. Print primarily, if you have a page set up, and you have the ability to have contiguous pages going vertically and horizontally based on the size of your drawings, I would prefer at some time to be able to say that my drawing is one and a half pages as opposed to the full two pages. I would like to be able to say: "Well, hey, this is where my drawing ends."

What I'd like is for this product to fix my drawing. What would be ideal is for it to fix my page size so I'll have control over the page size after I complete my drawing, because that way, when you render it on screen, you get to control the viewpoint or the view size based on the utilization of objects on the page, as opposed to defaulting to what the product says, e.g. "Oh, you've gone onto two pages." When really, I've only used up one and a half of those pages. That's what I was trying to indicate to them. What I'd like is to be able to give you my virtual page size and I'm holding you to that.

I've been using ABACUS for two years. I've used it within the last year.

The technical support for this product was good.

They have fairly extensive support manuals built right in their product.

When I raised questions, or if there were any further concepts that I was willing to dialogue on, they were right there. I could fire off a chat if I didn't understand something from their manuals. They were right there.

Setting up this product was straightforward. It's self configuring. It also has a wonderful set of manuals that helps support its users. The examples they provided were great.

I was fairly impressed with this product. As a previous software developer, I thought it was quite nice.

As a semi-retired consultant in the industry, when I think of solutions that I've experienced: database management solutions and similar solutions I've developed in Oracle, and COTS, a few that I have experienced, they're vague now. I haven't been in that part of the industry for a while. I've been focusing on enterprise architecture, and one of the products that provide enterprise architecture which I have experience with is ABACUS.

I'm still getting familiar with this solution and all that it has available within it.

In terms of utilizing this product, I had two months to utilize it. I used it for a month and I haven't been back to it, because from a software perspective, I've been focused on enterprise architecture as a discipline without the use of a software tool. I've been more focused on the actual discipline of enterprise architecture, from a techniques point of view, rather than a tools point of view, as it's applied to understanding an organization.

The tool only helps to graphically capture information, but I haven't been focused on the tool side from a software point of view for the latter half of 2021. I've been focused on the body of knowledge of enterprise architecture.

I've been reading worldwide and studying from various mentors of this particular discipline. Right now, software is not the practiced area, even though I thought the ABACUS product was great, and you have TOGAF as well. Those are the two heavy hitters in the industry for me.

I thought that ABACUS had a lot to offer, so I chose to spend time on it, and I was looking at it from a software point of view, delivering enterprise architecture. I chose ABACUS initially. At some time though, I may double back and take a look at the TOGAF and the ADM part of what they do with ABACUS, but I'm not yet certain if that's going to be in 2022. I may definitely break it up by half a year, and take some time to actually look at TOGAF from a tools point of view within 2022.

I never really got around to acquiring the product and using it from a licensing point of view. I was evaluating the product as it related to the discipline of utilizing and supporting enterprise architecture. That was my initial interest. I never got around to actually acquiring it, procuring it, and putting it into what I call, functional use for any organization. I was a consultant trying to stay on the curve of understanding what's available to the world of enterprise architecture.

The discipline and the acquisition of a tool for an organization, I never really got into that, although I used the knowledge and passed that on to organizations as I'm practicing as a consultant. No one chose to implement an enterprise architecture tool for the entire organization. They liked the principles, the concepts, some of the road mapping that helped them out from a strategic point of view, but they never went for implementing enterprise architecture to the entire enterprise.

My advice to others thinking about implementing ABACUS is that it all depends as each practitioner will gravitate to whatever features they find best suited for the application, for the business, or for the enterprise. I don't have any hard and fixed advice for implementation, because I never really got to implement it. I saw some features that I liked, and I utilized those features to further my understanding and further my client's understanding for what they were looking for at the time, which was basically how to align things from an as-is perspective to where they think they were going, which came up with roadmaps. That's what I did as a person contracted to do, or to help strategic management understand where they're going based on where they are.

I'm rating this tool an eight out of ten. It's definitely high on my purview of tools within the enterprise architecture scheme of things, because it's more than just that. It's a communications tool as well: meaning that you can work almost like Microsoft Team.

This platform offers more than just the ability to draw diagrams across a multiple set of object management group, the BPM, etc. All those drawings that we have out there in the industry that we utilize across business and science: It has those things in it. Not only does it have that, but it has a work approach as well, similar to a Microsoft Team.

You can function like a Microsoft Team so you could be corresponding and have members of your team looking at your objects, and saying: "This is what I'm trying to do."

Another example is if you implemented an enterprise architecture approach electronically across an organization, and you are now in the real world of putting data into catalogs, and trying to look at it from an as-is point of view to potentially what you're going to work towards in the next five years, then it could function as a simulator, e.g. you could simulate what you're trying to work towards.

ABACUS is a really forward thinking product with a lot of nice features in it. It's not just all talk. It actually works.

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.

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.

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.

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.