Scalability is a bit of a problem for BiZZdesign. There is always a possibility it will failover. I would rate the scalability of the solution an eight out of ten.

So far, the scalability is pretty good. We could keep growing and adding a lot more use cases that we don't have today.

We want to keep growing more use cases, more metrics, more analyses, and that means getting more data into it. One of the bigger challenges is how we ensure that the data is consistent and that it's the right data. And we need more people to maintain that data. Ideally, you should be connected to the source, even if it's done automatically with less people. That's where we need to keep growing, to make the ingestion of data more automatic.

It is a fairly scalable product. In our organization, the usage of BiZZdesign HoriZZon is divided into two main user categories. There are the "designers," who actively work with the tool, and their number is relatively small, ranging from around 15 to 20, with a maximum of 50 in certain cases. However, there are also "viewer" users, including architects, product owners, and managers, who need to access and review the architecture information. The number of viewer licenses is considerably higher, with nearly all architects and product owners having access. This distribution is influenced by licensing and cost considerations, with a focus on keeping the number of designer licenses lower.

We don't have a huge number of people in our organization. Scalability-wise, there has been no issue. We are growing the number of artifacts and there is a huge difference between the number of artifacts we had initially and what we have now. But we have never faced issues in this regard.

We have 15 to 20 designers and about 50 users. Those 50 people are mostly using HoriZZon, while the 20 people are using both HoriZZon and the Studio. And there are three or four people who are admins.

BiZZdesign is supposed to be used by many users - more than what our company has. We have only five users. So I can't tell you how it really performs under a huge load. With the number of people in our company, everything runs smooth and there are no performance issues.

There is a limitation, though. You need to use either Chrome or the old Internet Explorer. I didn't actually check the other browsers, but we have found that it runs best on Chrome. I found that the program was very slow on Firefox. If anybody has issues with Chrome, he should look at using the current version of BiZZdesign.

There is room for improvement with the scalability, and we have been working with BiZZdesign on that. So I rate the scalability a six out of ten. We have 750 active architects using this solution and developing models and about 5,000 stakeholders. We don't have any place to increase the usage right now, and I don't see a considerable increase in the active architects modelling in the BiZZdesign HoriZZon. However, there may be an increase in the number of stakeholders because only certain business stakeholders currently provide consumer access.

For the entire staff, we make some arrangements, like admin access has only three enterprise architects, including me, at American Century. Now, for different system architects and other fellows who also need BiZZdesign, we usually try to categorize them into two parts: 

1. Somebody needs to contribute, like a designer. 
2. Somebody who only wanta to see the dashboard and information, but usually is not going to contribute. 

For this, we have set up a single sign-on mode and somebody needs to raise a request, if somebody is interested, that will come to us. One of our people will validate and approve the request after the role is assigned so the access is relevant.

BiZZdesign HoriZZon is scalable, and I'd give it an eight out of ten for scalability. Our customers are enterprise level companies, but the solution is suitable for small and mid-sized companies as well.

Scalability is up to my needs because I model just a few thousands of objects and it's powerful and scalable enough. Hopefully, it will continue like this for bigger clients also.

Only one technician is maintaining the solution itself and one enterprise architect on the client side. It only requires a small team for maintenance. 

Nope, no issues and no need.

Scalability is okay. There are twenty users in my company.

We require two staff members for the maintenance. 

The version that I have seen is not scalable. That is when the problems arose.