FICO needs to provide a better user experience and user interface. Unfortunately, our clients are not able to add customization by themselves. So this limits their ability to use the solution. FICO Blaze is a complex technology, so it's more about engineering work. This means that we need to hire developers who will learn FICO Blaze as technology and use it. Without development knowledge, it is impossible to use the solution. Our clients do not always have a budget to hire huge salaried engineers, and they want to be able to tune small changes by themselves, but unfortunately, they can't because again, Blaze is really a complex technology. Currently, the solution's interface allows for really simple changes to be made by our clients. I would like to have an easier user-friendly interface to allow for more changes to be made by the client without the need for an engineer. This is not true for all companies. We are talking about some real strategies when we have a lot of decision tables, rules, and decision graphs. Because it's really hard for our business users/customers to make low-level customizations by themselves. The main reason why we switched to other solutions is that we don't see the possibility with FICO Blaze Advisor and vector of FICA company that they think to improve this because they created the decision model. This is an extension of FICO Blaze with some new modern UI items, but it's still not working 100 percent. Unfortunately, we see that it's a huge gap nowadays with this old technology that's why we continue to search for new software which we'll use.

In terms of what could be improved, I think the developer's tools on their optimized version should be a little bit more user friendly. Additionally, it really doesn't pick up the actual exception or error of what the developers are getting. It gives a different level of exceptions and then somebody has to use their experience to dig down and get into the actual error of what is happening there. 

I haven't really used the cloud version. We are planning to use it, but definitely, it should be more competitive compared to the other decision rules. For example, if we look at the IBM Audience, it has been way ahead of Blaze Advisor. Even though they started late, the way they designed the tool is commendable. With Blaze, a new person can get lost because there is no predefined specific path of development or execution and there are other tools. They have given a very nice execution path or development path - how things need to be developed.

They have basically given the test first and there should be some object model that needs to be in place. Then there should be a decision flow. Then there should be artifacts that are happening. They go step by step. When the first step is completed, they should show the second step, etc. That way, somebody can easily follow that part and develop any new application. I think this is missing in Fico Blaze.

Another thing that could be improved is the direct database connectivity with the relational database. Many times there are certain details we need from the relational database or any third-party tool, and that kind of connection or connectivity from the actual FICO Blaze is missing. If they could make some way to get the information from the third-party tool, that would be more helpful. If they did that, FICO would boom up like anything.

It's sometimes difficult to keep track of changes because there are no notifications, so you're unaware of any changes until you encounter that piece of code. It would be helpful to have a pop-up window with a notification. I've also found that error messages can be unclear making it difficult to understand the source of a problem. The speed of the application is a bit of an issue sometimes, but it's understandable because you are talking about an application that's an AI. It will improve as the technology evolves.

FICO Blaze Advisor is still missing a proper versioning system that allows cooperation on the decision object content level. For example, we have GIT repositories for programming, storing, or scripts. In there, one developer can prepare a file or a piece of code, and another developer can work on the same code or on the same text file, and you can manage it. There are also missing functionalities that can provide better comparison mechanisms for developers.

More online support such as a knowledge base should be available. When you compare it to Java and other applications, there is a great deal of support available for those. With FICO, however, there is no particular support that we can easily search with respect to our queries.

Deployment area should be improved. Also, in the next release, I would like to see the creation of deployment files from RMA.

I would like to see more help on the internet and more training over the internet. They only have a few blogs there, so that should be increased.