iServer Reviews

Surprisingly little.

It hasn't really improved the way our organisation functions. iServer provides a repository for the reuse of objects, but that is about all that is of use. It means we may save some time from not having to retype things, but the overhead of maintaining these objects is quite large. There is supposed to be features around impact assessments (i.e., what systems are being used by what), but that reporting is a bit clunky, and hence not used very often, if at all. Because the system relies on using Visio, and there is no live-link between them, the repository and what is displayed in Visio must be checked out and refreshed to reflect changes.

The display of relationships between objects is not automatic if they exist in the repository.

I've used it for 12 months.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

7/10 as the customer service is quite good, however, unfortunately the product itself isn't.

7/10.

We used Visio/PowerPoint. I'm not sure of the value of the switch, and if I had my way, I'd switch back.

It was straightforward.

We used a vendor team.

It's supposed to make us more efficient, but that hasn't been borne out during use.

I don't know the setup costs, but it's day to day ones are negligible.

Overall, I would say that it's a poor man's EA repository. It seems like a good idea, but doesn't really work in practice. It's really two components, Visio and the iServer repository, and there is no live-link between them, so the Visio diagrams can be out-of-date. Don't implement it, you should stick with Visio, as this is a solution that ends up having the worst of both worlds.

The solution is mainly used for technology architecture. Clients need to model infrastructure network solutions that they have. There is no focus on business modeling.

The solution has wide use within Microsoft products. The integration with Microsoft products, and, in particular, Microsoft Office, is great. 

It's a very simple tool, which makes me concerned with the performance. Performance is an issue for us because it takes a long time to load the document. It's a big issue.

The migration tool needs to be included in the main package, and not as a separate license.

I've been using the solution for one year.

The stability of the solution is okay. The performance is a question, however, largely, it's stable.

The solution can scale well. However, I worry about scaling due to the fact that the performance of the solution is generally poor. Once they solve the performance issues, I have no doubt scaling will be much better.

We've been in touch with technical support in the past. We found them to be highly responsive. They're very good. We've been satisfied with their level of service.

I have tried different solutions other than iServer. I've tried Avolution ABACUS. I've tried Sparx. I've tried Visual ParadigmiServer was well. This is based on these tools, especially how it converts things to components, and how the components are related to each other. This type of tool here in my country is particularly useful because there are not many projects taking advantage of its usage here. There is very big potential when using this tool.

The main difference between all of these solutions and iServer is the integration with Microsoft Office. Many users are using Microsoft Office Visio in terms of modeling. It's very easy to integrate or migrate what they have to the solution. 

It's also very simple. It's simpler than Avolution and Sparx, with a lot of reference architecture being within the solution, and a lot of templates ready to go. 

The initial setup is quite complex. 

The complexity is mainly in terms of installation and installing the web portal in particular. It requires a lot of consideration at the beginning. After that, it's easier. At the beginning of the configuration, however, its challenging. 

I'm a consultant. I work with the product, however, I am not a customer.

We typically deal with the on-premises deployment model as our clients aren't well-versed in the cloud just yet.

I'd advise that those who wish to implement the solution ensure they are well trained on it beforehand.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If the performance was better, I would rate it much higher.