The solution is very scalable. It doesn't require much of an architecture-level change. You can migrate easily. We have a bunch of customers using Automic. Some customers are fairly dependent while some of them have 70 releases.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

We have not encountered any issues with scalability.

Automic Continuous Delivery Director is scalable.

Scalability is a question for me. You can put more load on it, but the real question is not about the tool itself, it's about the all the new practices in continuous delivery in an Agile, at-scale organization where the basic principles are not yet embedded in the organization. So tomorrow I could select a tool from a competitive company, for instance, XL Relieve or XL Deploy, but I will have exactly the same problems: "How do I define what I put in my delivery/release pipeline?"

There is no secret recipe for that. You have to work with your customer and adapt their way of working to benefit from the tool. Some teams are more agile and are more autonomous than the others and fit perfectly well inside CDD. But if you take mainframe applications, most of the time they are big, monolithic applications, and it is the applications which are a problem to fit inside CDD. In that case, you need to be able to work with those users and find solutions so that continuous delivery brings value. Otherwise, you just have deployment automation which is of minimal value.

So the tool can scale, but it cannot scale faster than the way you change your organization.

Scalability is fine, up to hundreds of pipelines. Above that, the user interface might become a limiting factor.