IBM Rational System Architect is known for its user-friendly interface and advanced modeling capabilities, tailored for enterprise architecture projects. Key features include metamodel customization and versatile plugin options, offering stability and flexibility in organizational contexts.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| IBM Rational System Architect | 2.9% |
| Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect | 8.9% |
| LeanIX | 7.6% |
| Other | 80.6% |
As a robust tool for modeling enterprise architecture, IBM Rational System Architect supports meta-frameworks like Zachman and Togaf 9. It is widely used for managing detailed architectural models essential for organizational transformations. With extensive data import features and stable report publishing modules, it provides customization that adapts to numerous contexts. However, it requires enhancements in deployment, guidance, and integration with platforms like Office, along with improved dashboard and workflow integration. Enhancing compatibility and user interface consistency, along with adding AI capabilities, remain areas for development.
What are the key features of IBM Rational System Architect?IBM Rational System Architect is primarily implemented by enterprises in modeling and managing detailed architectural frameworks. Companies, particularly in finance, deploy it on-premises to effectively oversee extensive volumes of documentation and information during structural changes. It serves as a critical tool for managing complex organizational structures.
IBM Rational System Architect was previously known as Rational System Architect.
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| IT/Business Architect at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees | 4.0 | I find IBM Rational System Architect stable and scalable, highlighting metamodel customization. I'd improve Office integration and database reverse engineering with more pilots, and advise clearer module selection. I rate it an eight. |
| IT/Business Architect at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees | 4.0 | I found the solution stable and excellent for meta-model customization during an ERC implementation. However, poor integration with other products and a lack of support limited its experimental use, leading management to discontinue it. |
| Enterprise Architecture Specialist at a energy/utilities company with 10,001+ employees | 2.5 | I use this for enterprise architecture modeling and value its modeling, but I'm unhappy with features, integration, and support. Lack of vendor investment means I'm looking to replace it, despite past ROI. |
| Database Administrator at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees | 3.5 | I've used this stable, scalable solution for modeling, appreciating its good UI and support. While initial setup was easy, I need better deployment guidance and more advanced modeling, including AI, to improve my 7/10 experience. |
| Enterprise Architect at a tech company with 501-1,000 employees | 4.5 | I find this product highly valuable for strategic planning, supporting various frameworks and heterogeneous models. Its ROI is high, setup was straightforward, and customer service is great. The only drawback is some UI navigation issues. |
I work for a bank and we are using IBM Rational System Architect in our department.
There are a lot of features I find valuable, but I think that the metamodel customization is one of the best features that the solution offers.
In terms of what could be improved, we did not take the whole package with all the modules, and I think that the integration with other platforms like Office could be better.
The reverse engineering of the database is already there, but in the next release I would like to see some pilot supplied with the solution in order to address any database.
It is very stable.
IBM Rational System Architect is scalable.
We are five people using it, but in term of production, when we produce a model, it can be utilized by many people.
In the past, we were on the Passport Advantage, so support was doing well. But now we are reconsidering some factors to go to another platform, so we did not continue with support for the application.
We are also currently working with Microsoft Visio.
The initial setup was very easy for us because we did not set up an environment with shared clients. We have a standalone installation on each location.
We acquired IBM Rational System Architect in 2011 and we have not upgraded or taken other supplement modules since. So I don't know how to evaluate this dimension. When we first acquired the product it was a good price.
My advice to anyone considering IBM Rational System Architect would be to take into consideration all the features that they will need for their experience. Normally, the solution should integrate the publishing modules. It was sold separately and it is not very easy for somebody who wants to use the solution for modeling to think that you have to select specific modules in order to use the product.
On a scale of one to ten, I would give IBM Rational System Architect an eight.
When we selected this product, we were in an implementation of our ERC, and in that context, we had a lot of information and models to manage. That was the main reason that I recommended back-up storage. I was aware that when the change or the transformation was taking place, we were managing so many documents related to the way our enterprise is organized and functions. We needed this type of solution to manage it, and that was the main reason we had it in our organization.
The main advantage of the solution and its most valuable aspect is the customization of the meta-model.
The module for publishing reports is very good.
The solution is pretty stable.
I didn't use the solution for very long, so it's hard to go too in-depth with what the solution may have been lacking.
In the commercial approach, a lot of implication is on the technical. I wasn't really well supported when I was using it, which made it difficult.
The integration with all other modules could be a bit better. If you want make it a universal solution, you have to add some items, and find the modules you need. That's not too helpful for clients. They need to have a package that can satisfy clients fully on every project.
The solution needs to better integrate with other products, like Microsoft.
We basically just used the solution as part of an experiment, and not throughout the entire enterprise. It wasn't that long.
It's very stable. When I used to have a crash on the desktop, I used to restore it and it worked fine.
The technical support was fine. However, we accessed it online. It was not a special technical team that dedicated for us. Overall, we were pretty satisfied with the experience.
Unfortunately, those that set up the solution didn't inform the new management and kind-of did it as an experiment. In the end, management decided not to proceed with usage.
When we used it, we had it installed on a simple desktop. We didn't manage it in a public environment.
Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at an eight.
I can recommend the solution, however only for the meta-model customization. Integration with all other software, like Microsoft, to facilitate an exchange, is not great. It can be an issue when it comes to ensuring the deliverables happen within the current software.
I am using this solution for building enterprise architecture models. It is an on-premises deployment model.
The most valuable feature of this solution is modeling.
I find that almost every feature related to the models requires improvement. For example, I would like to see more trendy models, the look and feel of the models can be improved.
This solution can be more user-friendly and easier to use, with better dashboards.
The impact analysis feature is in need of heavy improvement.
The is a standalone product that lacks integration with a business process automation engine.
I would like to see the workflow improved, where it integrates seamlessly with the artifacts.
This solution is stable, although more features need to be added.
This solution is scalable from a modeling perspective. You can count on it, like that. However, it lacks scalability in terms of integration with the process automation engine.
We plan to increase our usage, although we are first trying to replace this product with a newer one. We have more demand, but I would attribute that to the practice, rather than the tool. Increase in our stakeholders would require us to have new and additional licenses, but we are not happy with this product and are not planning to continue with it.
I'm not very happy with technical support because it was recently moved from IBM to UNICOM. They have a different model so we do not have a support agreement. We have several issues, including the fact that we no longer get free upgrades.
It hasn't been very easy since the days of Telelogic, where support was much easier. It became more complicated when it moved to IBM, and now it has been further complicated with UNICOM.
The initial setup of this solution is straightforward, and the deployment takes approximately thirty minutes.
Maintenence of this solution is minimal, needing one to two people.
We hired a consultant to assist with our deployment, but it can be done in-house.
We have seen ROI with this solution over the years that we have used it.
When we chose this solution, IBM was the only product who had regional support in this market. They were also leading the quadrant, so we didn't have much of a choice at that time.
We are currently looking at competing solutions to replace this one.
From a tool progress perspective, we have seen very little investment from the principal vendor in terms of feature enhancement.
My advice to anyone who is researching this type of solution is to resist looking at the product features. Instead, look for the product investment, the product roadmap, and how they have positioned the product in their portfolio. Then, based on these factors, make a choice. Today the product might be leading, but if it loses its interest and you don't see considerable improvement then the support will deteriorate.
I would rate this solution a five out of ten.
We primarily use the solution for modeling.
The user interface is good. It's both clear and comprehensible. It's easy to work with.
There needs to be more information at the outset about how to use the solution and how to deploy it. The deployment process needs improvement.
The solution needs to develop some models that can give us the possibility to model new features, and new problems. The product, in general, needs a bit of improvement and should think about adding a model for artificial intelligence. It would benefit us greatly.
I've found the solution to be very stable. I haven't had any issues with it.
The solution is scalable.
My experience with technical support has been good. They are very helpful.
We didn't previously use another solution.
The initial setup was relatively easy. I would rate it as seven out of ten. Deployment only took a few days. We used about three to five people for deployment and three to five people handle maintenance.
It was a normal deployment. We did not need an integrator.
We use the local cloud version.
I would recommend using the solution.
I would rate the solution at seven out of ten. I really like the product, but there is room for improvement.
The product supports a variety of meta-frameworks (Zachman, Togaf 9) and application portfolio scoring models. The product also has a very versatile plugin and data importation set of features that allows for the construction of heterogeneous models comprised of multiple internal and external model constructs.
The System Architect Product has greatly assisted the corporate strategic planning process in two areas: the simulation of scenarios for Enterprise Transformation Projects and providing a global view of Enterprise Capabilities and Functional Gaps.
Some aspects of the user interface lack a common navigational or functional framework.
Two years.
No issues encountered.
No issues encountered.
No issues encountered.
Customer service has been better than adequate.
Technical Support:I rate technical support highly.
No previous solution used.
Straightforward.
In house team handled implementation.
We rate the ROI as being as high as the manual alternatives (ad hoc test models) are much more expensive.
The day-to-day cost is a combination of capitalized operational and license costs.
We also looked at Sparx EA, and Archimate.
Understand the totality of the modelling activities in the enterprise and how to best incorporate these model-building activities into an over-arching model construction framework.
