I would rate the scalability a four out of ten.

The scalability is very positive. It has very flexible architecture.

The scalability is also very good, very robust. We, with our on-premise solution, are constrained by the size of our servers, which is why we're moving to Amazon WorkSpaces. That way we can scale as quickly as we possibly can, using the AWS toolset and NICE together.

With hindsight, if we were to go back two years, I would have built it in Amazon to start with. But we needed to get a proof of concept over the line and keep costs down. We learned through our mistakes over the past couple of years that we have reached a point where we have outgrown the infrastructure we're on. Because NICE is so scalable, we need to get onto infrastructure to support that capability.

The solution is scalable. 

We're looking at scaling now because a lot of the rest of the business is really keen to look at what we've done with agent guidance and how they can incorporate NICE in other parts of the business. 

We started off small, where we had 250 to 300 people using it. But now they want me to look at whether we give it to another area of the business. So we are looking to scale it up across other areas that might use different systems.

It all depends on priorities for my boss' boss. At the moment we're looking at the commercial aspect of our business. They sell different products compared to our contact center. We've got a specialist unit that does caravans and motor homes. They're the two areas that are going to be next: our business teams and then our motor-home team.

I am not sure whether it is scalable or not. We had just ten people who were using NICE. My team is very small.

Because of its licensing model being at a per-user cost, it is more expensive to scale in a large enterprise. Its scalability is quite low as compared to an enterprise RPA license where you're paying for a bot that can work across hundreds and thousands of users. It gets expensive to scale it, and it is not as dynamic.