Duck Creek Policy review in 'Healthcare and Life Sciences'

"Dynamic application architecture requires downstream planning"

Submitted

3.0

Overall User Rating

Overall Comment:"Implementation was fast and the application provides a very flexible development capability through Author. Overall product architecture needs updating to provide better governance between the dynamic/flexible application architecture and downstream applications. Additionally tools to support governance are needed. Additionally the scalability of the tools needs to be addressed. Performance for large scale implementations seems to be a limitation of the application architecture with limited customer reference points."

4

4.0

Integration & Deployment

4

4.0

Product Capabilities

Lessons Learned

If you could start over, what would your organization do differently?

We probably needed a greater focus on overall business process and business rules simplification, or rather a better plan or process for transition of rules from one system to the other.

What one piece of advice would you give other prospective customers?

Prospective customers planning to run on-prem implementations need to spend time on volumetrics to understand their anticipated full-load expectations and make sure they understand the Service Level Expectations to insure they can scale their implementation to meet SLA's.

What one thing do you wish the vendor did differently?

It would be nice if Duck provided on-prem options for implementation beyond the current MS-SQL Server limitations.

Would you recommend this product or service to others?

What was your implementation strategy?

Worked with both the vendor and 3rd-party service providers

Evaluation & Contracting

Timely and complete response to product questions

3.0

Pricing and contract flexibility (pricing and terms)

Ability to understand your organization's needs

2.0

Why did you purchase the software or service?

Improve business process agility
Improve support for new technologies (mobile, IoT)
Lack of flexibility with legacy solutions

What were the key factors that drove your decision?

Improve ability to support evolving business processes
Support new products or services

Integration & Deployment

4.0

Ease of integration using standard APIs and tools

4.0

Quality and availability of end-user training

4.0

Ease of deployment

3.0

How long did your deployment take from kick-off to go-live?

More than a year

Level of satisfaction with vendor's / SI's implementation methodology

2.0

Service & Support

Did your organization purchase a support package from the vendor?

I’m unsure

Timeliness of vendor's response

3.0

Quality of technical support

3.0

Quality of peer user community

2.0

Availability of quality 3rd-party resources (integrators, service providers, etc.)

2.0

Product Capabilities

4.0

Configuration

5.0

Multichannel Support

4.0

Supply Chain Management

Fraud Management

Catastrophe Management

Alternative Delivery

Internationality

Availability of configuration tools and degree of self-sufficiency enabled

4.0

Additional Context

What was the nature of your involvement?

Other

In which region(s) did your deployment take place?

North America

Was there a specific country where the deployment took place?

US

How satisfied is your organization with the product or service meeting your needs?

3.0

How satisfied is your organization with the value the product or service provides for the money spent?

3.0

Go-live Year

2015

Choose the option that best describes the complexity of your implementation

100,000 or more licensed users

Deployment architecture

On-premises

Which other vendors did you consider in your evaluation?

Guidewire
SAP

What was your technology adoption bias for this implementation?

Mainstream (adopt maturing technologies with manageable risk)