MEGA HOPEX Reviews

We are using the solution in one bank in Colombia. We are going to start implementation in two financial entities in Ecuador.

The support experience in Latin America is great. For us, it's very important to have local connections and use cases. MEGA has had a lot of partners in Latin America. It's the differentiation with the other companies. Many others use services outside of Latin America - in Europe or the USA. However, we like the local connection, which was the main selling point for us.

We need better traceability available. We want to have traceability between the business and the technology.

The initial setup can be quite complex at first.

The resolution needs to offer more potential for collaboration. Right now, it is much more geared towards one person working on the solution.

We have one year of experience using that tool.

We are managing the implementation via corporate and governance. We are going to scale all of the entities in the group. We are a financial group that has a presence in different countries in Latin America with different entities and we decided to manage this implementation in an incremental model starting from some specific companies. The plan is, in 2022, to integrate all the other entities in the group.

So far, we have less than 20 people using the product, however, we are going to increase the number of personnel.

Technical support is great. they are local and readily available. We like that they are so close, and we don't have to deal with support from the USA or Europe, which is much further away.

In the beginning, there was some complexity. We don't understand the benefit and the use of the tool. We defined a robot for business capabilities to be covered across all of the companies in the group. We are solving for the original lack of knowledge with a training process in the consulting services we have on offer.

We implement the solution with a partner and they have less than three people that help us. To use the tool, we need the technical staff to use the solution. 

We leveraged the expertise of local partners while initially implementing the solution. 

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

We have a standard fee for the use of the solution via their SaaS model and we have some consulting costs that depend on the scope of its implementation in each entity.

We have an agreement, a commercial agreement with MEGA, to support all the entities that are going to implement the solution.

We are a financial and insurance services industry company. We are focused on banks and insurance.

For new users, it's important that they understand the business architectural definitions and have knowledge of processes to gain the most value out of the solution. If the team that is evaluating the solution doesn't have such knowledge, there might be issues.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Transparency in developing a global enterprise inventory of the firm's application and technology assets.

The aspect of the tool that appeals to us at this time is the HOPEX IT portfolio management capability. What that portfolio management capability allows us to do is manage a document and manage our global application and technology portfolio.

The product itself has good reporting. Because we're an enterprise we have several different enterprise reporting tools, we use a data mart which is associated in order to use different enterprise reporting tools like QlikView, Cognos, Excel and BusinessObjects.

We found the IT portfolio management capability to be very comprehensive and well thought through, the front end is elegant at this point, it's easy to use, it's moderately intuitive, and it meets our needs. I would argue that it's probably the preeminent IT portfolio management solution on the market.

If you think about, it's about having transparency, a current, complete and accurate view of your entire application ecosystem. There are a number of benefits associated with that. Whether those benefits be for strategic planning, asset management, business planning, technology lifecycle management, or operational support. Having a complete and accurate inventory of a firm's applications is actually necessitated by regulation which we're subject to. It's also simply good business practice.

The IT portfolio management (ITPM) tool allows us to collect and manage the application inventory on an ongoing basis - the data is complete and accurate on an ongoing basis. We always have a current stake snapshot of the enterprise application and technology ecosystem.

Regarding compliance - there are various regulatory drivers that necessitate that the company understands what their application assets are, what their technology assets are, manage the resolution of problems and defects against those assets. In our case, the specific driver is the FFIEC, it's applicable to banks.

We've asked the vendor for a number of enhancements to mature the tool. One of those specifically, is a service based interface. Both for feeding data into the tool, and retrieving data from the tool, so that other vendor solutions can interact with the tool as a service based model.

The other is to improve the overall operational resiliency. We would ask the vendor to add, and they have actually built it into the tool already, but really allow us to have probe points, so we can measure the various aspects of the automated operational monitoring tool, so we can detect any type of performance degradation, or outage, so it can take automated corrective action. What we want to do is move forward the platform for the self healing model, where the platform doesn't need human intervention for an underlying infrastructure issue.

The ability for us to detect specific infrastructure issues with the tool are not as mature as we would like it. What we want is a more granular ability to probe where there might be an infrastructure issue affecting the tool, either from a performance or variability perspective.

In recent releases, it has been stable. Beforehand it had some teething pains.

It supports the number of users that we require. Obviously, the project has matured over the past several years to where it is scalable and stable. It doesn't have defects that impede us from using the tool effectively.

Anyone looking to adopt an enterprise architecture or IT portfolio management solution like HOPEX should consider what aspects of the tool will help them achieve their objectives. Different aspects of the tool address different objectives. In the case that we just discussed, the HOPEX IT portfolio management capability, there's other capabilities as well, which we're currently using. Really determine what aspect of the tool that they would want to implement to really attain the objectives that they're looking to pursue, from either an architecture perspective or an IT portfolio management perspective.

I'll share some interesting observations with you. If any enterprise manages their IT portfolio in Excel, the data becomes dated literally after it's collected. Right after it's collected I give you the configuration of your room on an Excel spreadsheet. You may change your room, subsequent to my having persisted that configuration on an Excel spreadsheet. You may move a chair around, you may move a desk around. What ITPM allows us to do, is maintain that configuration in a current state. That is invaluable. Every time an enterprise has any kind of portfolio analysis, having a current view has tremendous value. It obviates having to collect that data again.

It impresses the regulators, because they want to know that you know what you have. The regulators want to know that you know what's in your room. Because of a tool like MEGA, we know that, and we can demonstrate that the data is current using the tool. That's very valuable - having that level of transparency. What it illustrates is that an enterprise is managing their IT assets.

The main benefit of Mega is the fact that you can link data from multiple enterprise architecture practices so that, for instance, business architecture artifacts can link to system architecture artifacts, and so you can get a more complete picture. Things aren't siloed. It's not like the process models are just off to the side by themselves. There are aspects of the processes that you can link to systems which can link to technologies, so that you can say these processes require these technologies and then those technologies can link to other parts of Mega so that you can get a more complete picture.

--- Applications might use different technologies. It might use Cobol, it might use Java, it might need Internet Explorer, it might need a certain JVM. You can make those links. If you want to start with capability, to give a capability to the business, you use a certain process, that process uses certain applications, those applications require certain technologies. If you change that technology, you have that link all the way back to the business capability. If you had the users that are using those processes or capabilities, you can know who is going to be impacted if we replace one technology with another.

Mega can be used to start conversations with the business. We can put a process map or capability map in front of a business user and start a conversation that way. Rather than starting from scratch and interviewing them about what they do and what systems they use, we have something to start with and can then continue from there. They can say, "Oh that's not what we do," or "You're missing this or that." Working with the business we can update the information to make it more meaningful to them.

It also helps if we're doing some sort of business analysis to scope the problem and say, "These are the things (processes, capabilities, applications, etc.) that are in scope, whereas these things are out of scope." Being a business architect, I work more on the process and capability side, than the system and application side.

It's very prescriptive right now as to a particular diagram, what objects you can put on that diagram, and sometimes if you're working with the business you might want to just sketch something out rather than have those limitations.. When you diagram, it's going to take the things that you put on the diagram and link them together. We would like to have the ability to do some sort of a sketching type diagram, where you don't necessarily have to make all those connections. Where you can just put objects on the diagram, maybe turn off something that requires connections to be made, and allows you to just talk to the business and let them guide a conversation and you can build a picture that means something to the business. This diagram could possibly change over time into a diagram with connections.

One of the issues that we've had - we know what we want to do but we don't necessarily know which diagram we can use to do it. Because Mega is so vast, and it has a lot of different diagram types, you might start to use a diagram but it won't let you add a particular object that you need. Just in the last couple of months, someone gave me a query I can use to say, "I want to make a diagram with these three objects on it, which diagrams let me do that?" But if I didn't have that query, it's kind of hunt and peck.

 I would say the other big issue is documentation. Mega needs better documentation. I have had the experience where I can see an object, and I'll look it up in the index to get more information about it, and it won't be there.

I would say Mega has been stable and scalable. Any issues that we've had have been more the platform it's on. We currently run Mega on Citrix, so we have more Citrix issues than Mega problems. It's not because of Mega, it's because of Citrix.

I was not involved when Mega was initially setup, however I am involved every year when we do the upgrade; we do an annual upgrade to another version.

I would say it's relatively straightforward. After doing it on an annual basis, you always run into a glitch at some point. Right now, we just upgraded and everyone is getting a message that their licenses are expiring because they didn't give us a new key. But Mega's aware, and they're getting us a new key. They're responsive. No major issues with it.

The modules that we use are MEGA Process and MEGA Architecture.

This is a complete package with all of the functionality that we need.

The user interface for the version that we are using is not modern.

This is a complex product. For me, all of the functionality in this product exists, but it is not well explained. Better documentation and training would be helpful.

It was very difficult to adapt MEGA to our way of working. You have to spend 40% of the time thinking about how you will implement and use the MEGA concept.

I have been working with MEGA HOPEX for 10 years.

We have had some issues with stability but they are related to Citrix, and not due to MEGA.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

My company also uses Planview, but not the part that is dealing with architecture.

We have an internal support team and when we have a problem, we contact them.

My advice to anybody who is considering MEGA HOPEX is that it's a complete solution. All of the functionality is implemented. However, it is a complex product. Somebody who wants to use it should understand all of the functionality, but select only 20% of the concepts and use them very well. It's not necessary to use the full functionality and we spent too much time on the gain we received.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use MEGA HOPEX for business process management, enterprise application portfolio management, governance risk and compliance, and data intelligence.

The continuous evolution of the platform is significant. The last version includes an AI assistant for helping customers with natural language questions. It has been marked as a leader in all the analysts' quadrants, like Gartner.

There could be continuous AI enhancements for the platform. 

We can add as many users as we want. The product remains stable. 

The product is highly scalable. We have customers with thousands of users. The tool can generate a static website for consultation with a large number of users. 

They could make the setup process easier to adapt and incorporate all the rules and commands on compliance subjects into the tool.

It might be a good idea to have two instances, one for testing upgrades and another for production. Customers usually start with one point and then expand to include the application portfolio, which is well-managed. The main benefit of the tool is its modular nature. You can start from any discipline and it integrates seamlessly with other areas.

The product is reasonably priced for the value it offers. There's a good balance between cost and features.

The product has many built-in reports and the ability to create custom dashboards and screens. It's excellent for supporting decision-making.

I advise others to ask for a demo or have a conversation with a representative. It will answer all their questions and address their requirements.

I rate MEGA HOPEX a nine out of ten. 

What I find the most valuable is the process workflow. It is really good. 

The fact that you can decompose is also valuable, as is the file D structure. Also, the fact that you can have your own logical repository structure and you can drag and drop is very valuable. This is largely because of its intuitiveness. 

Once you understand the logic behind the tool, MEGA HOPEX is quite intuitive. I also like the ability to create custom reports. I like the fact that you can share repository content via web to other end users who are not architects.

Of course, there is always room for improvement. There should be an integration with the Microsoft Office platform, for instance. I can compare it to a tool like Orbus. In Orbus, there is already an integration with Microsoft. So, if I already have network diagrams already built in a Microsoft solution, I can bring it into Orbus. I can actually pull a number of the building blocks. I can map parts of the diagrams into the inventory. That is a very, very good feature. 

MEGA HOPEX could also definitely have a lower price. 

I used MEGA HOPEX for about three to four years.

MEGA HOPEX's technical support is fantastic. If it's paid for, it's fantastic. They have very knowledgeable engineers and support practitioners, especially considering that the tool has been around for quite some time. 

MEGA HOPEX also has extensive documentation. So quite a number of issues can be resolved just by looking through the documentation. For more complex things, you probably will need their support. They also provide support for metamodel customizations and that is equally good as well. 

The initial setup is very easy, but it depends on type of deployment you want to do, whether it is standalone or otherwise. They have a file place database structure that they use and integrations for Oracle and Microsoft SQL servers. 

The deployment guides are very good. You can just pick up any of the deployment guides. Once you have the license, just follow through and run the installation. The installation on both platforms is quite straightforward.

The price of MEGA HOPEX is too high. MEGA HOPEX's problem is that it is expensive, but it's a fantastic tool.

My advice is that if you have the budget for it, MEGA HOPEX is a fantastic tool. It will especially help you if you are heavily focused on process architecture. MEGA HOPEX maps your org structure and you can use that to build in your processes and then just directly house your processes into the org structure. This is just a fantastic workflow in terms of the engineering and the thinking behind its structure. The pricing is an issue, however. MEGA HOPEX could be more affordable. They could also create some form of community-based addition to allow a wider audience access and play around with the tool. I think this would be a welcome development.

Traceability across architecture domains - business architecture and data technology. All of them can connect the dots, and get an end-to-end view of the architecture landscape. That is one of the powerful strengths of the tool. The second strength is the ability to query and mine for information. There is also a valuable portion of the tool, where you can query, navigate through, break down, and find more information. These are at least three things that stand out.

With the amount of information that we can store, and the meta-model that is out there, we invest a lot of time in building the meta-model. Right now, it is vendor-specific. We moved away from industry standard. It makes it that much more harder for us to take this data and put it in some other tool. We've got a lot of investment in the meta-data that's out there.

Architecture modeling - since it's repository-based, it's a lot easier for people to query, create their diagrams, and check for modeling rules. That's another good feature that is available. It's easy for us to enforce standards. That's also a powerful feature which we are leveraging.

The process side love the tool. It helps them to build their current operating model and also to get to the target operating model. That has been helpful and successful. We're still struggling with challenges on the application and technology / data architecture side. That is one area where we would say there is room for improvement. Data architects certainly don't see the tool being their first choice

In terms of features that are available, data architecture, pretty much like the big data and other unstructured content coming in, or for that matter Cloud. Cloud has been around for some time. Definitely if the tool provides more out-of-the-box features, they'll be helpful. My team is responsible for promoting this tool within the enterprise, so we're actually acting as a vendor for our own consumers. We don't control the features of the product, therefore we have to rely on the vendor to provide all these features. All we can do is provide guidance. One thing certainly would help, if the industry is already going towards Cloud computing and big data, why is the product lagging behind in terms of those features? We lose out on time to market.

Let's say I want to create a visualization or I want to bring my own portal page. I have to rely on the vendor to do that. That takes away my time to market. I have all these parts that I want to present, but if it is more than 3 or 4 clicks, that's it, I lose the audience right away. If there is a way for us to accelerate and create a user profile-based user interface, like each role would have its own template. They only get to see the relevant details, and I don't have to rely on the vendor to configure and make that available to my customers. That would definitely help me.

We started off with the web interface and ran into that performance, stability-related issues, so we were directed towards Windows. We made the switch, but certainly in terms of session management or in terms of user transaction management and stability itself, like having a consistent experience, there is a desire or appetite for improvement.

Performance is not consistent, it could be a lot of factors. The user experience is some days better than others. We've been partnering with the vendor to find out, to get to the lower-level details as to what's going on and how they can improve the platform features. Certainly the presentation aspects, the usability of the tool does require people to be savvy with the product before they can derive the value. That's why in my experience I've seen a lot of the senior guys (I'm not talking about executives) such as portfolio architects, don't want to log into the tool. They think it's too hard for them to navigate. Personally, I don't find it hard. I find the tool very helpful, but I'm having difficulty selling that to my peers and to my superiors in my company.

When I joined they had rolled out MEGA 2009 (the previous version). In 2011 I started off with adoption. My primary role was to ensure that the tool was adopted. We recently upgraded to HOPEX, so pretty much we had to start all over again.

We are kind of right now looking into the other vendors. It's going to be a tough choice for us, considering that half of our user community like the tool and they've gotten used to it. For us to bring on a different tool would be a little more challenging. It's not like the other tools right now are standing up. Each tool has its strengths, but when we look at it overall, we are still going to struggle with any tool that we pick.

Rating: 5-7 (out of 10). Primarily because of time to market. For instance, before we moved to HOPEX, reporting was meant to be a big thing. They said, "Hey, HOPEX is going to solve most of your reporting problems." We moved to HOPEX, we are still not there yet in terms of what our customers want. In terms of innovation and time to market, we would see a lot of improvement. The core competency from the product is great. Just marketing it and getting it in the hands of the people that will be using the tool, is still a struggle, at least in my enterprise.

Other advice to users: get a handle on the common features of the tool. Most people don't do that, so they essentially struggle if they don't go through that training process. I wish there were videos available from the vendor which we could use to bring people quickly onto the toolset. I would like to have them look at YouTube videos and say "In 15 minutes, you know how to get in, how to navigate and understand." That is something that is lacking, so for me, to give the tool to someone, there is a little bit of hesitation right away, because it puts more burden on me to train them, or my colleagues to train them.

HOPEX has different modules. The one we use the most is the IT infrastructure module for process management. One guy on my team is in charge of this component, whereas I am the solution architect. I think there are at least three or four modules.

If a client wants to integrate an app with the HOPEX console, they need to pay MEGA for that service, and it's expensive. We offer that integration to clients as a service because we know how to integrate and reassess the cost.

HOPEX has a panel that offers various views. I think that is very good. MEGA has an app for integrating with a lot of apps. We help our clients integrate HOPEX with a different product like Apple Gateway, for example. I've been with the company for 15 years, and we connect with everything. Our clientele includes almost all of the banks in Mexico.

We have a very close relationship with MEGA representatives in Mexico, and we ask them why they don't offer impact analysis. For example, we have a server in the center and provide the client a view of what's in the peripheral area, like one cluster, application, process area, and services. We want to offer our clients that level of visibility with HOPEX.

I've been using HOPEX for around four years. The first tool that we acquired was Casewise around six or seven years ago. We started using MEGA four years ago. My company is a global bank that operates in Spain, Mexico, and the United States. 

I rate MEGA HOPEX eight out of 10.