We use PPM for strategic portfolio management across our entire organization, and for managing all of our strategic projects.
We're on the latest release of 15.3, and so far it's performing great. It's meeting all our needs.
Download the Broadcom Clarity PPM Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: July 2022
Clarity is the Project and Portfolio Management (PPM) solution created by Broadcom. The platform aims to help medium and large organizations to manage products and services. Clarity features scoreboards, financial analysis tools, and more.
The platform facilitates the delivery of projects and programs and can accelerate an organization’s digital transformation. It allows users to create initiatives, add budgets and projects with a few clicks, and assign and track teams. It shortens the time to make changes to projects to minutes instead of days.
Broadcom Clarity PPM features in-app collaboration and timesheets accessible via mobile devices. Users can access the platform via desktop or mobile. The platform can be deployed on premises or as a cloud-based service with a hosted or SasS delivery.
How does it work?
Clarity’s Strategic Portfolio Management enables planning and prioritizing of work to fit customer demands and business needs, managing the value stream from concept to cash.
Broadcom Clarity PPM Key Features
Other features include:
Broadcom Clarity PPM Benefits
Broadcom Clarity PPM Use Cases
Organizations use Clarity PPM for a variety of use cases:
Reviews from Real Users
"Broadcom Clarity PPM is a high-value product that helps users become productive. It's a very stable, scalable, and fast platform, even from a self management perspective," says Mohammad J., Senior Clarity PPM Technical Consultant at Al Rajhi Bank.
A Director of Operations at a tech services company adds that "It's very good out of the box, without configurations required."
Sergio C., Service Delivery Manager at Syntech, says, "The most valuable feature is the portfolio functionality because we have the ability to work with different scenarios and many kinds of financial management. We can integrate with ERP, and with other solutions from third-party vendors. The financial model in Broadcom Clarity PPM, it's the most valuable aspect."
Broadcom Clarity PPM was previously known as Clarity PPM, CA Clarity, CA PPM, CA Clarity PPM .
Toyota Financial Services, GameStop, Polycom, Sky, Qantas, Cox Enterprises, Banco Mercantil, Borealis
We use PPM for strategic portfolio management across our entire organization, and for managing all of our strategic projects.
We're on the latest release of 15.3, and so far it's performing great. It's meeting all our needs.
The benefits are that it creates visibility across our whole organization. People that were often left in the dark wondering what was happening with projects. Now have an easy solution to see all the information they want to see across the whole portfolio.
It's definitely improving our ability to make better decisions, and improving the quality of data that we have, to make the decisions for the strategic good of the company.
Those are valuable because the tool should be an enabler and not a barrier to people getting their work done.
Ultimately, I would like to see them keep moving in the direction that they are, and get everything over into the new UX, to modernized portfolio management; To get all of the project management capabilities moved over into the new UX.
Also, they should continue to listen to their customers for influence and feedback.
I wish patches would be quicker since we're a SaaS customer, and just be a non-event, so we don't have to go through a whole - essentially - upgrade cycle, just to do a patch. As a SaaS customer, I'd like the patch to just happen.
We're a SaaS customer, so stability has been pretty much in line with our expectations.
Scalability has been good. We initially rolled it out just for IT, but it's been growing to other areas of our organization. So it's proven to be quite scalable for us.
Technical support has been helpful for us, in particular with the second-level support engineers. They've been very helpful. When we have problems, they're not typically the simple end-users problems that can be solved by front-line support, so the second-level support engineers have been very helpful for us. They are responsive.
We were running all manual processes, and using Excel spreadsheets, and investing far too much manual effort to try and run a process.
One of the main drivers in our choosing CA was that it was one of the recognized industry leaders. Also, we had an existing relationship with CA from other work that we had done with them in the past.
It was a long time ago. It went well. It was challenging because we thought we knew everything we wanted to get out of the tool, but we didn't know what we didn't know. So there are a lot of things, now, that we would have gone back and done differently, and made a lot simpler in the beginning.
Upgrades have gotten better each time. We just, a month ago, upgraded from 15.1 to 15.3. It's been the smoothest upgrade that we've ever done. Past upgrades, we certainly had some challenges, especially going from 14 to 15 or 13 to 14, but they've gotten better each time.
Last time, when we upgraded to 15.1, we had some challenges around Jaspersoft, and also some issues with supporting some of the complex process work flows that we had designed internally, that were affected by some changes in the process engine. But recently, with this most recent upgrade to 15.3 there were really no problems to speak of.
We looked at CA and we also looked at Planview and HPE.
The new UX is great because it has helped remove some of those barriers, so that people who are not classically trained project managers can easily get up to speed in using the tool without having to learn a whole other tool set. It's very intuitive, and very collaborative, and very easy to adapt to their existing work styles.
Regarding choosing a vendor, for us the vendors need to understand how we do business, and understand our unique needs and requirements, and be responsive.
Start simple. We tried to do too much in the beginning. Just start simple and grow into the tool.
Project Management and timesheets.
For projects, having all of the relevant data in one location is helpful.
Needs Gantt to MS Project link.
No issues with stability.
No issues with scalability.
On a scale of one to 10, I would rate support a seven.
Multiple solutions. Switch was to pull data into one software package.
Complex. There was a lot of customization that was required to adapt PPM for our needs.
We evaluated other options, but I was not involved in that stage.
Consider your company's requirements and review the features of PPM against those requirements.
The communication aspects have greatly improved. Before it was a lot of just relying upon hallway conversations or picking up the phone, maybe sending out emails, and they may or may not get answered. Knowing that we have these workflows in place and that they are going through, and that our executive leaders have to take an action as well as our department managers and program leaders, that has been beneficial.
What has been valuable are the workflows that are there today in order to keep our executive staff informed as well as our program managers and department managers.
We have not migrated to 15.3. We are still on 14.4 and the look and the feel is a bit antiquated, but seeing some of the improvements that are in 15.3, it is catching up with the times.
The features, they are slowly rolling out. I like the collaboration aspects of what I am seeing with 15.3 to where your team can go in and have conversations that are captured versus going to some other field, clicking on a tab, and typing in your information there, then hoping others migrate to that area. It is improving.
We are in the SaaS environment. Within the SaaS environment (since CA is supporting it), it has been extremely stable and reliable.
It is serving our needs today, but there is certainly a lot more that we can be utilizing. As an organization, we are in an infancy stage of implementation. So, I see over the next few years ramping up and improving how we can utilize the tool.
They are extremely responsive. They can be very technical, whereas for my needs, I'd prefer if they scale down to layman's terms and explain things in other terms. We do work through the issues, and I know that they are well qualified and highly technical.
I would probably rate it about an eight out of 10, because there is always room for improvement.
Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: It is more about the product and what it can provide for us as well as the professionalism of the organization and the staff. We rely quite heavily on their expertise and on their thoughts as well as their best practices.
The primary use case is managing projects.
Visibility to where we are on projects. It tells someone where we are; if we're in trouble or not. I do look forward to getting more Risks/Issues functionality. I think that will help it even further. But pretty well, it's visability.
The features I use the most are the planning, the Kanban layout.
Having everything in one solution. Right now I don't really have to bounce back and forth between the new UX and CA PPM, so that's a good thing. But, improve Resource Planning.
To be honest, I'd like to see having it work internally. Catch up to the features that are available in the solution. I think it's more on our side than on the CA side.
No problems. Some in our company have mentioned have mentioned they've encountered small problems, but I don't see them.
I really haven't put that to the test yet.
Although I wasn't involved in the initial setup, I understand that it was not straightforward, very complex. We were told by our headquarters that this is the solution we're going to use. "Here you go. Here, figure it out."
Internally, it would have been easier if our headquarters had used it in the way it was intended, and then, shared that knowledge with us. I don't believe that happened. So, we did go outside and hire a consultant to bring knowledge in-house. It helped us better understand how to use the tool.
I think the new UX is going to be better for project planning. There are some features I'm looking forward to in future releases. Some of the stuff we saw in the roadmap: program planning, roadmapping, dependencies. The Resource Planning, I look forward to using that a little more.
When choosing a product/vendor the important criteria for me are
I rate it an eight out of 10 because it's "almost there" and it's probably the best solution I've seen in my career. It's not a 10 because I see what's coming and we aren't there yet. We use what we have now, but the next release will help move the needle further.
I don't know if I would give advice. I would just tell them how it's worked for us.
Manage projects, resources, and financials.
It's performing better with the new UI. The old UI is clunky and slow, but it's staring to get better.
It's pretty much the source of "the truth." Everything is together, everyone can see all the resources, financial projects, how long a project's going to take. Anybody can go in there and see any information they need about the organization as a whole.
Usability of the new UI. It's easier for people to go in there and know what to do. To train people, it's faster, more intuitive.
Also, managing resources. It's definitely the most important thing for managing your project.
Work Breakdown Structure in the Tasks: be able to drag and drop to a level three instead of just stuck at level two.
I haven't had any issues with stability.
Upgrading to 5.1 there was an issue, a syncing issue on the back end, that ending up getting fixed after about two weeks.
No issues with scalability. It seems we can have as many users as we need to. We've probably added around 50 full licenses but I haven't seen any issues with that in resources we have; a few hundred resources in there.
Tech support is good. A 10 out of 10. Everything was responded to within 24 hours, except for one issue where there was some miscommunication, but that ended up getting resolved in a few days just by sending an email to our rep.
Everything was through Microsoft Project, just the desktop version. People would get printouts or PDF's of them.
I was not involved but I think it was pretty straightforward.
Workfront was one of the vendors. We went with the CA solutions because headquarters was going with CA PPM, so we decided to move in that direction.
It has improved; 15.3 was a huge update. You have the Risks/Issues/Changes added to the new UX.
The most important criteria when selecting a vendor include
Make people want to use it. If anything's overly complex, people won't use it. People have a difficult time moving to a new solution so it just has to be easy, so a non-technical user should be able to feel comfortable, click around, and not be intimidated by the solution.
I would give it a seven out of 10, just because the classic UI is very cumbersome. It can do everything but it's hard to use. It's easy to use once you understand it, but it's intimidating at first for somebody to see the solution. With the new UI, CA is heading in the right direction, and fast. They're adding features, I would say major features, two times a year, which is fast.
I would recommend it, but are there better solutions out there for another company? Maybe. There may be easier solutions out there.
CA should go in the same direction, move forward with the UX and keep developing that. There are a lot of startups that already have the usability; it's easy for them. But they're missing features.
We're using it for project and for portfolio planning, and we're continuing to use it for financial investment planning in the future.
We've got four different instances on it, but we've only rolled it out in my area, corporate IT, and for 150 users.
It performs well.
We've been lacking a project management system that we could easily pull data out of, as leads were putting it in. So the users were not updating the systems, whatever system they were using, as much.
It allows me to keep track of the projects, residual location, it gives me the ease of getting status reports out, and checking risks and issues.
I don't have anything specific to note right now. We're not using all the features, functionality yet.
Technical support is typically on par, gives you quick answers, and gets back with you relatively quickly.
There's always an issue or two that hangs out there, that does not get resolved, but for the most part we get good service.
We were using Artemis. We switched because it was not meeting our needs. They weren't using it in the way that they wanted to be using it. It didn't have the functionality.
We are using software service, so it's been pretty straightforward.
Oracle Primavera was on the shortlist as was Attask. But CA PPM is a more comprehensive enterprise type of solution.
When selecting a vendor the most important criterion is longevity.
I give CA PPM a nine out of 10 because there's always room for improvement, but they gave a good quality solution.
I would recommend it.
For us, it's about getting more information into CA PPM, which then allows us to drive more insights and provide that information to our leadership team and our executives to make a better informed decision as far as how they're investing, and how we're tracking towards our strategic objectives.
The value for Telstra is really around how we can manage strategic investments, so we've moved earlier this year to CA PPM Cloud. It's greatly changed our user experience for our 1,500 project managers.
I think the new road mapping feature that's coming out shortly - and available now, but obviously continues to progress - I think the product moving more to that grid base, so that Excel look and feel is how it's going. The app style of the new UI is absolutely fantastic. It's the right way to go. Our users will love it, so I think they should continue along that journey.
I think there's still a little bit of opportunity that we can do some stuff better in relation to the financial part of it; just that easier integration, that look and feel. Our project managers, and obviously finance people, love to interface and use of Excel. The more we can get CA PPM to behave in a similar way, which we're already starting to gain in that path, will be absolutely fantastic.
It's very stable. We've been very impressed with moving from on-premises to SaaS, and made the transition seamlessly. We could run the two systems in parallel, which is absolutely fantastic.
But just the speed. We were a little bit concerned initially about the speed of SaaS, considering the amount of security layers we've got to go through from our perspective, but the experience has been amazing, and the team absolutely loves it.
I think scalability is a big thing, especially around being on SaaS and on a cloud arrangement. That scale really sits with the CA side of things, so as we grow, CA are going to have to grow with us as far as that relationship. Of course, they can do that, considering some of their larger clients that they have in the US and other areas around the world. We're very comfortable that it leads into the future.
Tech support's been fantastic. We also have a partner that we use internally as well, so it's only their larger cases that we will escalate to CA, but turn-around-time has been fantastic. They work really well with our partner in relation to that as well, so we're very happy with the support.
We're also moving to the latest version for less than $20,000 for a major corporate system. It's just amazing.
There are a few things we looked at when we scanned the market for moving to a new PPM system. We've had CA since 2008, but we actually took a step back and looked at the entire market. For us, it's obviously the reputation that they have in the market, but more importantly today, really, around the cloud and the SaaS arrangements that you enter into. You also need to look at where you think that organization's going to take that product moving forward. For us, what gave us a level of confidence was the investment and the transparency that CA showed in relation to their product roadmap, and where they want to take it.
To back that up, the fact that they were leading in industry evaluations, so being in the top-right, just reinforces also, as far as an independent body, that they're the right partner. They're already leading the industry. They're expected to lead the industry moving forward, so for us, that made the most sense, to partner with CA.
I would rate the product at an eight out of 10, and I would say that there's always room for improvement, and I think the team's already starting to improve that.
It's very hard with such a large complex product to actually get those new features in there. I've got empathy for how hard the teams have got to work to bring the new UI and new look and feel that we want. It's not just an app that you can quickly turn around, but I think they're striving really hard to do that as quickly as they can. An eight at the moment, and I think over the next 12 to 18 months, they'll be rating it much closer to a 10.
The key benefit that most of our clients see is the ability to ensure they have the right resources, working on the right work. It also provides the opportunity to pivot to meet new demands.
The ability to provide transparency through your investment portfolios at the top-level financial all the way down to the work that drives delivery.
Additional enhancements to portfolios with the new user experience. Because, while portfolios deliver a lot of the value-driven information, the new user experience really takes the view of the information to the next level, and it takes it from being a tired-looking feel to a new design approach.
Never an issue, stability.
As long as you have the licensing, we can scale.
Never an issue. They're always quick with an answer.
I would rate it an eight out of 10. Nothing ever rates a 10. There's always areas, opportunity to improve.
It brings visibility and one central source of truth, as opposed to a bunch of different processes and tools. It helps us effectively enable our processes.
User-friendliness, I think that's the key. Right now it's really clunky. We're also looking to upgrade, but an upgrade is not going to fix everything. The new UX is good, but there are still a lot of limitations. Once they work through those kinks and get those limitations removed, we'll be able to upgrade.
One of the things we use is timesheets. In the timesheet UX, you can't do things like splitting time, managing overtime versus regular time, very easily. That would be helpful.
Financials are okay, but there's a lot of room for improvement in financials.Financial plans, if those could be made so that you're not always grouping your financial data by predefined attributes, that would be helpful for us.
It's pretty stable. It doesn't crash, I would give stability a nine or 10 out of 10.
Earlier, there were major issues, but since 2015, when we moved to SaaS, there haven't been.
Scalability is pretty decent. We are on SaaS, so CA takes care of scalability.
Current tech support is much better than the previous technical support. Most of the time they answer our questions quickly, but it's hit or miss. Sometimes it does take some follow-ups and escalations, but 70%, 80% of the time they are quick.
Recently, what happened was we had a request to backup our database, so that the development team could start to move to production. But nobody ever got back to us, and they were supposed to. The team kept waiting, so I had to do escalate it.
I wasn't involved in the initial setup, but I have been involved in upgrades. They were pretty straightforward. CA took care of everything, we just did the testing.
I wouldn't be able to say there is one particular criterion that's important when selecting a vendor, it's a combination of all of them that we will look at, like
I would rate it eight out of 10, actually.
I would say definitely look at this solution but understand your business needs first. There is a tendency on the customer side to look for "one size fits all." That's never the case. So make sure Clarity is really a best fit for your business needs. Otherwise, you are just buying a fancy, glorified timesheet tool.
We are primarily using it for analyzing our projects. It is performing very well at the moment. We do want to expand our functionality to include resource management, portfolio management, and more of the financial aspects of it, as well.
Right now, it is the project management module.
It is allowing us to keep track of what our projects are doing, and the idea module, what projects are coming into the pipeline.
I like the new UX. I am hoping that we will move to it soon. I think it is a vast improvement. It is much easier and more user-friendly.
While I know it is coming in the roadmap, the risks issues and changes on the new UX would be amazing. However, the risks issues and changes are not in the new UX yet.
I know that it is a stable solution. It has been around for a long time.
We are On Demand, so SaaS. We really have not experienced downtime with it. Everything is so secure through our sites and stuff. We do once in a while run into latency issues, but it is not that bad. Nothing memorable.
It is definitely scalable.
We have used technical support a few times. It was just little technical glitches. A page was not displaying correctly, or something like that.
They do answer us very quickly.
CA Community: I take advantage of it. I use it all the time. They are a great community.
Prior to using CA PPM, everything was spreadsheets. There were a few different homegrown solutions out there. We wanted to roll them all into PPM.
I was not involved in the initial setup. While not involved with upgrades at this organization, I did do upgrades with previous organizations.
The very first upgrade we did was quite complex, because we were moving from 7.51. I have been working with the solution for a long time, since 2006. We were moving from 7.51 up to 8. That was a big jump. It was a lot more complex than we initially thought it was going to be.
Do your research, do your homework, and definitely, contact CA.
Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:
We use it for project management, resource management and, to a lesser extent, portfolio management.
We are definitely doing well in resource management, although struggling to adjust to the agile environment. As far as project management, we are doing risks and issues, status reports, change requests, all your standard issue pin box stuff, and that is going just fine. In the portfolio management space, we are going to be growing our usage, and we are excited to see the stuff in version 15.
It is shifting as we go through our agile transformation. In terms of being able to do quarterly status reports, board reporting, resource reporting, and that kind of thing, that has been ongoing at Schwab for a number of years. As we are shifting into the agile space, and having some differences of opinion between our card carrying PMPs and our card carrying agileists about what level of detail needs to be where, our agile community wants to manage things in terms of stories and sprints, but upper leadership still wants to see the status reports that we have always done. So, how do we make both camps happy? That is not a tool specific issue. It is really an industry issue right now.
The ability to have all of the data in one place from risks and issues to resource capacity and actual utilization. We are currently undergoing an integration with our financial systems that will allow us to bring in financials into our cost plans and minimize the need for project managers to be going into both Clarity and the financial system. They will have everything all-in-one place, so that will be really beneficial to our users.
We are still on 14.3. We have not used the new UX. I did laugh at Kurt's presentation yesterday, because he said, "You know what? Three years ago, we were up here, and I was standing in front of a bunch of PowerPoint slides. Now we actually have the functionality behind it," because that was my observation. Two years ago, they were basically just screen mocks, and it all looked great, but what do you do?
My concern with the new UX is that my core users, the folks who are in Clarity day in and day out, are not going to get the full benefit of the new UX until we have OBSS and all of the other functionality available. I understand the need to tailor the new UX to make time tracking easier, make resource management easier, and do those kinds of things. I get that, but folks are going to track their time anyway, because they want to get paid.
The most vocal folks in my stakeholder community are those day-in day-out PMO analysts and resource managers. I struggle also from a maintenance and support perspective. Now, I am going to be maintaining both new UX screens, which the blueprints make look like it is going to be really easy, but we would still have to be maintaining new UX screens as well as classic views for those functionalities that are not yet available in the new UX.
I have this idea. We currently have the ability to allocate from assignments. Something that we are doing in our organization is we have created a report which we give back to the resource managers, "Hey, based on the last three months of actuals, here is what your work projection looks like."
I would love to see that go the next step forward and just allocate from actuals. If you can look at it and say, "Okay, based on actuals for the last six months, here is what we think this is going to look like." That at least gives the resource manager a place to start, and a way to have a conversation. Particularly, as we get into agile teams, those teams are working on the same thing for extended period of time. It is not like they're on and off. It is more of the agile approach, where it is ongoing, continuous improvement, and deployment. That is something that I think would be interesting, and I do not know if it is something that CA has looked at before.
We have been quite stable. We are on-premise, so obviously any stability problems that we are having is on my infrastructure guy. He might be the better person to answer that question, but we have not had challenges.
We are relatively new to Jaspersoft, and are running into some speed and performance issues (not necessarily stability issues), and also some unpredicted behavior. I think that we are on the initial release of Jaspersoft, so maybe some of these things have been addressed in later releases.
I will reference my last job where when I first started, nine years ago, working with PPM (Clarity), we started out with a PMO of about 20 people, and keeping track of IT resources in the couple hundreds. Over those eight years, we scaled to a PMO of 250 people and thousands of users.
So, I have seen it scale up. I have also, unfortunately, seen it scale back down, which is why that is where I used to work. So, it is definitely a scalable system.
I have worked with CA Services in the past and felt they were knowledgeable. We have a few open tickets.
In terms of tech support, I would refer you to my development lead. They do most of the work with tech support.
It was already installed when I came to work for my current employer.
In my previous job, I was doing a side-by-side pilot with PPM and a competitor. There were pros and cons to both. Nobody is perfect in the space. Some of the downfalls and frustrations are when, coming into a new organization, it has been over-customized or they have over-engineered things. So, keeping us safe from ourselves, while still giving us flexibility, would be a great way to do that.
No tool is going to fix your process problems. You better have a pretty good process in place, and know exactly what it is you are trying to do. Implementing a tool in parallel with implementing a process, you are potentially going to do that sort of over-engineering that I was talking about. The tool is not going to solve the problem. The tool can help you automate, but it is not going to solve those problems.
Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: Being available when we need them, and leaving us alone otherwise. Being available to us when we need the assistance. It is great to have a relationship where you are not always trying to sell us something, but when you see something that is a good fit. It is sort of like crying wolf. If you are always trying to sell us new features and so forth, we are not going to want it unless we really need it.
I will throw another thought out there, which is I am getting a lot of pushback from my management about, "Hey, we need to upgrade, because this is coming end of life." We hear that a lot from our vendor partners. "This is becoming end of life. It is going out of support." The feedback that we get from my management, and what I am going to be asking my account team to tell me is, "Do not tell me it is going to be out of support and we have to upgrade. Tell me what it is going to do for me over and above what I currently have, then I can sell it to my leadership."
We are using it for project management, but really in a federal perspective which is acquisition management: Contracts are deployed for what the budgets were, how much has been appropriated against that budget, and managing the financial plans against projects.
It performs great!
Basically, it keeps us on track financially. Again, we are federal, DOD. We budget two years ago, and the world changes. We have to keep track of where that money was acquired, where it got shifted to, what is been spent against it, and when we are running out of money. It is tracking that whole, what contracts have been issued against which projects, and when they are coming due. Again, it is managing the lifecycle, multi-year programs, and the people who do the work and the funding associated with that work.
The UX works really well.
I would love the ability to add my own functionality to the UI. Right now, I have to play with HTML portlets and have to pick the system out. I can't add a button on the UI to go do some work, so I am always working really hard around it to get extra feature sets.
They get a nine out of 10 rating, because they won't let me put a button on the UI.
It is very stable. We are on demand. With on demand, those guys keep it running. We occasionally have an outage here and there, but very seldom. Nothing memorable.
Scalability is fine. We run anywhere. We do not have the time sheet problem where everybody logs in on Monday. We have lots of users, about 300, not a lot but they are not timesheet users. They are all financial contract managers and PMs. We do not have the traditional " I have to do my time."
We have what I will say is a different level of user, meaning they are in there to see if their projects are on, the date is up-to-date, and they are extracting stuff to feed the downstream processes. It is a different user type.
We have use technical support when we had questions or we have issues.
They have always solved what we had.
We have a test environment and a dev environment, so nothing moves to production until we are happy with it. We ran into issues early on about task naming IDs, etc., but it is all stuff once you know it, you can avoid it.
The tool that they had was not adequate, so we ended up inviting three different vendors in, did a down select, did a pilot, and it has been there since 2011.
We just had to learn it. It is straightforward once you figure it out. It was not anything too tedious.
Just make sure it handles all the business cases. Spend more time with the customer or the end users to get as many of the business cases and try to flush out "what ifs" with them, because it will make the configuration easier and you won't be backtracking. You do not want next year them saying, "They wanted that or we would have done this differently."
Get upfront and mess with it, because it can do a lot of stuff. Join the communities, the CA communities, because you can learn tons. You can ask people questions. It is the best community that I have ever been in with lots of different software packages. Honestly, you can write a question, "Will this work?" and you get six people say "I did it," "It didn't," "Do it this way," or "Try this." Absolutely, the most active community I have ever been on. Good stuff.
Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: It has to be a vendor that is on the GSA, because it is government. It has to be the GSA and it helps to have schedules. It typically has to be someone that has a good credit score as we have to have software maintenance, because you can't run a piece of software in the government without it being under software insurance as they call it. We can't just pick any vendor, but of the big vendors, we can pick pretty easily.
The use case is for us to be able to use PPM for its "true" program and portfolio management. We have not used it like that in the past. We want to get back to using it the way it was originally designed.
I would say to date, because we are on version 14.4, it has been doing what we need for it to do. We are looking forward to moving up to 15.3 with more of the capabilities.
It is easier to use than most other products that are out there. It will provide us the transparency we need in our organization to see how work is being managed and moving along.
We are also trying to do an integration with Agile Central because we are moving into that transformation. For us, it will be interesting to find out how we use both systems: Who is in what system, who is in the other system, and how all that data will flow.
The most valuable feature is the portfolio management tool and the new project management, and the way it will all look from the user experience.
We are so configured and so not out-of-the-box that we have not been able to utilize a lot of the functionality because we are so customized. It does not work like we would like for it to work, but we know that we are mostly responsible for that. We want to move away from this and move back to industry standards.
If you want to transform to agile, these are the roles that should be in agile:
It is almost like giving us those little details that we all kind of scratch our head and go alright, how would we do that? They have tested this. They have gone through lessons learned with other companies. Share that, so we are not making the same mistake.
They should say, "Hey, we have companies that did this. It did not work. You might want to consider doing this." Almost like a little cheat sheet on how to bring the systems together and things to think about. Because, like our company, we didn't know what we didn't know yet, so we are taking very infant steps and we are getting stuck on some really simple questions that I am sure that CA has resolved.
However, we want to know. Share them with us!
I do not see any issues. I think if you were to ask my application manager, she said they have had some downtime issues. I am not on that side, so I have not seen any problems.
There are some performance issues in our financial areas, but we are not using the out-of-the-box financials. We are using our own. So, we have to kind of rip that out and put ours in. In that specific area, we have been asking and we are trying to get some stuff optimized, because it just takes a long time to get data.
I know our application manager is working with the technical support team. They have been trying to look at doing some things, but I have not heard what solutions they have been coming up with.
In the community, I do not see a lot of answers. A lot of people asking lots of questions, but I am not seeing a lot of answers come through.
We were on an older version of Clarity, version 9.
I was there in the initial set up of our upgrade, so we upgraded to 13.4 and I was part of that.
It was not straightforward. It was complex because we pretty much upgraded from our old version. We could have done a lot more out-of-the-box functionality, but we chose not to.
It was hard. Even the lessons learned from CA were like, "Wow," this was a lot bigger than we thought it would be.
We have different tools that we use at where I am at, so we use different PPM tools, but the goal is eventually to move us all to CA PPM. It is just because we are using that as more of a global tool. Some of our other areas of our company use different tools, and we are just trying to get them off of that and really focus on using the PPM tool.
Make sure you have a really good roadmap of what you want the tool to do for project and portfolio management, which is really what it is supposed to be doing. From a financial, what kind of data you would think. From a resource management, what you expect. There are other systems, like PeopleSoft. A lot of people use PeopleSoft. That is your true resource management system. It should not be used as a PPM. For finance, a lot of people use Oracle, and other things. That should be your sources system, it should not be PPM, so do not make PPM more than it is supposed to be.
Use the other source systems to feed data into PPM to get what you are looking for from a financial transparency of the work that you are delivering. That would probably be the number one thing, because we did not do that.
Then I think the number two thing is you have really have to get with a partner that knows the industry and does not just say they know the industry. They can actually give you the data to back it up.
Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: I need a vendor that will partner with us. Not just show us a new shiny tool, then walk away and we have to figure it out. I need somebody that will teach us to crawl first, then walk, and finally to run. Being there all the way with us. Not giving us a nice presentation and then we are on our own. That is where we will kind of get stuck.
The primary usage is for coastal location and project management. The performance is really good.
I think with the solution that we have enough functionality out-of-the-box. We also try to use all of that functionality because it is aligned to our methodology and the way we use it for financial purposes.
However, now we are turning to my next project with a giant framework, and maybe we need some agile functionality related to that.
For us, in Latin America, we use bookkeeping record because we have enough out-of-the-box functionality.
Maybe we need to bring some financial executive reports to our directors and executives. Maybe we can improve the use of Jaspersoft.
We did have some trouble a couple months ago, but I do not know why because normally it is very stable.
We did do an upgrade in the past couple of months to 15.1.
Yes, it scales well. In Latin America, we use just it alone. However, in Canada, we have another instance and they use it integrated with other solutions.
The Latin American support could be better due to the language barrier. It is also a little bureaucratic. I know we have to put in a ticket, but we need immediate support sometimes; not in two weeks time, immediate support.
Not install, but I was involved in configuration of the limitations. It is a little complicated. A lot of fills.
We were support by the CA team in Toronto, Canada.
We started evaluated some tools related to PPM. CA PPM accomplished our necessities, especially for Latin America.
We looked at HPE PPM. I can't remember why we did not chose them though.
Try the solution according to your necessities.
Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:
We are in the business management office. We use it for our portfolio and project management and planning activities.
We are using an older version. Therefore, it is fairly limited, but I think what we are seeing in the newest version addresses a lot of the concerns that we are having.
We are still in the older version. We still have a ways to go. With the new UI, I think we will get through some of our adoption problems.
That in and of itself will help drive adoption, because the problems that we are having right now are that we do not have a great level of adoption or voluntary adoption. It seems very much as a top down enforcement type of thing. If people are not using it in the day-to-day, then your data quality is not very high. If your data quality is not very high, then you can't really leverage the tool for much more than the bare minimum.
In the new solution: It is good for us.
I like what they are doing with the UI. I am interested to see, with the purchase of Rally, what they are doing with agile and integrating some of that.
I am greatly encouraged by some of the integration with the third-party BI tools. We have not been a Jaspersoft adopter. For us, the value in this data is unifying it with our other corporate data.
Jaspersoft really does not enable us to do that. I would like to see a more flexible user-friendly way for users to do some of their own visualizations, not having to understand Jaspersoft. We are looking at a tiered reporting architecture, where if I have a project manager in the tool to do their project management, it is not just an out-of-the-box status report. Can they do some sort of Jaspersoft customizations and do that all on the tool rather than having them go to a back office reporting solution?
Our back-end business management, finance teams, and program owners probably will live more in the back-end reporting solution because it has our other data elements, our corporate workforce plans, and those kinds of things in it. Therefore, they can do the bigger picture reporting that we need for executives.
Putting a little bit more ad hoc reporting in the tool for the boots on the ground type people would be good, and they are doing more of that, essentially with the task boards and some of those things. I think to take those additional capabilities and turn those into things we can status, report, or leverage outside the tool would be good.
With this next release, they are simplifying the connection to the back-end data warehouse stuff. This is good for me, but they are putting a lot of things now in the tool with task boards and the social things that it would be nice to see if you are doing a status report. You could pull up your out-of-the-box status report and pull in some of those comments from the task board or something else to illustrate where you were at the project. Pointing to what is going on with your dev lead saying this is the problem here rather than having everybody retype things.
To build more capability and unification into the reporting. They will get there. They are just building the capabilities now.
We have not had too many problems. We are getting ready to transition to a SaaS solution. I think we have got some concerns there, because we are all used to owning our own things, touching them ourselves, fixing them, and monitoring them. However, I have been doing some networking around it and I have not heard too many concerns about it.
In the end, we are not necessarily mission critical. So, we do not have to be 24/7.
We have had some issues in the older version on-prem with some of the back-end database stuff. That has all been addressed and we will be doing some changes going to SaaS.
I think we will be fine. Plus, we hold onto everything all the time. So, it is partly our own issue/downfall. We are sort of our own worst enemy at times. I am fully acknowledging that.
I have not used technical support. I am on the business owner side, but I know my development manager has used them quite a bit.
I was not involved in the initial setup.
I have not looked at the competitors lately, but it seems to me that CA has made some significant advances. They were already sort of in the top tier in the industry anyway. So, it is good to see the investment that they have put in the last couple years. It seems to be just accelerating the feature sets.
Understand your business processes first, in great detail. Then, understand your data structures and you will be home free.
Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:
Since we are a global, multinational company, we require all of the following:
We look at how can we leverage the product and how can we get pricing and scalability across the whole enterprise.
Within my company, resource capacity management. That's the PMO's goal for it at this time. Hopefully in the future we will manage portfolios in addition to using it as a prime entry system.
Some people are not used to managing through the tool, but as far as the tool goes, it works very well.
With that goal of gathering time from resources, and being able to predict out whether or not they'll have some capacity, it's a great improvement over what was there before, which was essentially an embedded spreadsheet within a SharePoint sight.
In addition, the reporting tools are superior to what was there before, which was someone crunching through an Excel spreadsheet. I've been able to do status reports through the projects, which has given visibility to my manager, and that's an improvement.
It has improved communication vertically, with some amount of data to be able to show that more resources are necessary, or why projects aren't moving as fast as management would like. That sort of communication makes my job a lot easier.
Within my environment, being able to give status reports to my manager is very useful, saves me a lot of trouble.
I enjoy the Risks/Issues section. I wish that they were combined into the same module. I use that to raise things before they happen.
I do appreciate the report that shows how utilized a person is set to be within the coming months. I use that feature a good bit.
The only real improvement from my side - I'm spoiled by things like Trello, with the very easy user interface, things like Basecamp - it's very much a static software project. If I was to focus on something it would be that user interface; making that something that is a joy to use, instead of something that feels like data entry.
If there was more drag and drop type functionality that would be fun, but it works well for what it's supposed to do.
The second thing - and this is specific to our company - integrate it with CA Service Desk Manager so that, when you have time for a ticket or when someone gets assigned a ticket, in PPM it automatically shows that they have to account for that: they would both enter time in the past and, also, that this is going to take them time in the future.
As far as a tool that communicates with resources, with individuals - what they're supposed to do next or what action items came out of what meeting - it's not really used that way. Probably I could envision a way that it would be used that way. Until it's as easy as sending an email, it probably won't be utilized by the resources in that manner.
We host internally, so it's not like it goes down. I haven't seen a ton of bugs. I bug-tested the heck out of it when they initially deployed it and got some things fixed, but they also had some custom code.
We use Service Desk Manager as well. We have a custom tool to integrate the two. One of the reasons why PPM was chosen was because, "Well, it must integrate with SDM, because they're the same company." But that was not the case. So, they got a custom tool in. Whenever something happens with PPM, where there's an update or anything like that, it breaks that tool. That's probably not tenable. That's not really my area, I didn't manage the deployment, but I could imagine that that's eventually going to be a problem.
I imagine that the scalability is there. The problem is, at this time, my company is only looking to give IT workers and project managers access to the tool, and they're trying to get buy-in to expand beyond that hundred-person group.
It has to be able to support a greater amount, and I imagine that the value would be there, but they haven't gotten to that point yet.
I have not used technical support. I haven't had any technical problems.
It's better than an Excel spreadsheet, and that's what was used before.
They brought me in to comment on it's Agile functionality and they said, "We have this Rally product." And I said, "Does that integrate?" They said, "It could." I said, "Don't worry about it."
I use Trello today, I used JIRA, I used Team Foundation Server. I talked to some people here at the CA World conference and I said, "Are any of those tools worse or better than Rally?" They seemed to like those tools more. I haven't used Rally to tell you the truth.
Regarding the new UX, at this point I feel like there could be more done to make it a more fluid experience. Five years ago, seven years ago, that sort of windows and records click was standard, and there wasn't much else out there that was better. Nowadays, things are, across software packages, just a little bit more fluid.
Is that a bad thing that it's like that? No, it's just that's where they could go next.
Our most important criteria when selecting a vendor are, first, that they meet the requirements that we set ahead of time. Second, that they are willing to answer those questionnaires. If they're not, then it's my opinion that they are not ready for prime time and we wouldn't even talk to them. And suitability, that's above everything else; that's above costs, that's above relationships, or how well known they are.
I would advise a colleague to look at the nature of the work they are trying to do, and what is the end goal they are trying to achieve. If your end goal is to ultimately get to the point where you can report up, then it might be a very good product to look into. If your end goal is either greater communication with your team, downward, or being able to have a clear idea across the organization of what needs to be done in a project, maybe look at another tool.
Our primary use case has been for supply and demand management and resource management. So far, it has been okay. We do two levels of resource management.
Our first level is at the project overallocation, then we also have to do resource checking at the key date and event management.
On the event management side, we had to do some custom steps. Our research managers and our booking managers have to go through multiple steps to go through that process. It is still efficient, but it is not as efficient as it could be if we had to do some custom stuff.
There are some tool limitations. We had to create some of our own summary competencies to create more of an agile tool concept, or an agile team concept, that they did not really have.
We are hoping for:
We used to have where one department would have their own plan, another department would have their own plan, and these were all different plans for the same client. Now, we are smashing them together so there is a little bit of a learning curve of working together, which is more of us; organizational change management.
In general, we hope to reduce our time to finding resources to backfill resources and also reduce admin time to get a project setup and running.
Moving more to an agile state. It is very difficult. There is not a good way to have a team member manage tasks. So, a project manager can update assignments and can say, "I'm going to move this work to this person," but when you are going to a more collaborative based approach, PPM does not support that.
It is hard for them to say, "I have a person on my team who is going to be available, I am going to move that task to them." That requires a project management license, it doesn't require a team member license, so the licensing model does not sometimes support the way the business world is going. I think they need to reexamine having some of the capabilities of a project manager be available to team members.
It still lacks some key features and we had to do some custom stuff. It has some deficiencies, but we also have not optimized everything.
Stability has been okay. We have had some performance problems. I do not think it is necessarily related to CA. I think it is the way we deployed it. We need to optimize it.
I do not think that stability has been a problem. I think we just need to do some indexing.
We have not, CTS has, which is our IT partner. We also have worked primarily with Rigo Consulting to do our implementation services. Since we are just now getting live those are the ones.
Microsoft Project focused more on resource management, schedule management, not necessarily on demand management, integrations, agile, etc. We switched due to scalability.
We had a lot of problems with Microsoft Project. We had to abandon using Microsoft Project because it was not working. We kind of had egg on our face. That is one thing that CA can do better. Give us a better scheduling tool.
It was about a four year journey for Cerner. We know that our resources were not being deployed. We were spending a lot of time trying to find the right resources. IP uses it. CTS is going to be using it. It was an enterprise decision to invest in a new solution.
The initial setup was complex.
We worked primarily with Rego Consulting to do our implementation services, since we are just now getting live. We just rolled out about four weeks ago.
Talk to other clients.
The depths of tools and technologies that you have available for all clients has surprised me.
Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:
Portfolio management, to capture market ideas, gather criteria around those ideas, and make business choices on which ones to move forward.
We're in the early stages of implementation, but it seems better than the tool we had before, which was a spreadsheet.
It makes it easier to compare different opportunities, and to track the metrics though the process. It helps us make better choices of which opportunities to go after and not go after. Then, we can balance that with what we have for staffing, to know what we can actually staff.
It makes it easier to function.
More team-based management, and less people-based management; as far as the resource management goes, to do it per team and not per person.
I personally believe that for software development, management at the person level is not the right level to manage. Managing at the team level is a better level.
To my knowledge, the stability is fine.
Scalability seems fine.
I have not used technical support. Others have. I think we get the support we need.
Our previous solution, a spreedsheet, was complex, and it was difficult for multiple people to use. To make it easier to use, we needed a different tool.
We felt CA was a better fit for our needs.
Getting agreement on how to use the process is complex, because there are a lot of people involved. The tool is highly flexible, so it does take some effort to choose how to use it as well.
CA, Oracle, and one or two others that I don't recall.
Regarding the new UX, I don't have an opinion. I've only used it a little bit so I don't think I'm the best person to ask about the UX itself. I think it's easy to use.
When selecting a vendor functionality is the first criteria, does it do what it needs to do. Certainly trust in the vendor is in that list as well. But the first need is that the tool has to do what we need it to do.
Be clear about how you want to use the tool, what processes you intend to use as you're making your selections.
The primary use case is about demand management and understanding where our resources are allocated and who is over or underallocated. Often we find that our shared services organization is caught blindsided when demand comes their way all of a sudden, and they have no previous inclination of that.
Something like CA PPM would really mitigate some of that as we forecast our demand for the next six months, or whatever. Shared services would know ahead of time as to be able to balance, not only the work, but even make some hiring decisions ahead of time, as to be not caught by surprise.
IT just rolled out the tool. Therefore, we are in the process of rolling out the tool. That said, I have worked with CA PPM in other companies. It definitely has met the use case of performing well. Although in other companies, the bigger use case was really around portfolio, scenario planning, and long-range business planning in large companies, like Boeing.
It is about bringing about that transparency. Once you bring about that transparency, what happens is, you can use data to encourage people to pivot in a certain direction. If I just go with a gut-feel, I do not get anywhere. If I have data and I have our investments captured, and I have my resources captured, I can let the data speak for itself.
The data should be able to make decisions. Use the data as the catalyst, if you will, and I am just the messenger.
Transparency and just having the ability to procure information that is pertinent. Not just the execution of programs in a more systemic way, but also from a strategic perspective; to understand the big rocks in the organization and how much money are we putting where our mouths are.
We are going with the SaaS solution now.
I am hoping that it is going to be stable, because again, we have not hit production just yet at F5. However, in a previous life, we had on-premise CA PPM deployments, and they have all been pretty stable.
We are targeting a February launch.
It has worked for organizations the size of Boeing, which is 160,000 people. F5 is 4,000, so I do not see a scalability issue.
I have not used technical support yet.
We did not have anything before. We did not have a PPM software at all, let alone a process behind it. F5 is a pretty young company.
We have been in business for about 20 years and grown leaps and bounds. The focus has primarily been customer-driven features, products, and services. Now, I think we are pivoting more towards, "Hey, we better get our act together to be able to compete in the marketplace."
I think the attention is shifting more towards internal process maturity.
Nothing is straightforward, especially when it is company-wide. There is a lot of organizational change management that goes with it. There is a lot of, "Who moved my cheese-type of discussions?" that you have to have, but I think none of that is unexpected.
I would say there were not any unknowns that really came our way. I think the organizational change management takes the cake in that.
There were two others. They fell short in a few things that were absolute must-haves. Although, they were working on getting those features available, they were not there, and we just could not move forward with them.
Look at the needs of your organization first. If you can meet that need with a scalpel, do not go with the sledgehammer. CA's outlook has a pretty broad spectrum in terms of being able to meet the needs of varying organization sizes. However, focus on the need that you have at that point in time and do not cast such a broad and wide net, because chances are your organizational change management is going to limit you anyway.
Take a look at what your needs are. Choose a product that is modern and cloud-based. Do it in phases. Do not try to bite more than you can chew.
Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: It is the ability of the vendor to really understand where we are coming from in terms of our pain points and our requirements. Not using the book and opening to chapter 17, paragraph three. I do not want that. I want vendors to really feel the pain, relate, and be part of the team.
There should be a seamless integration between full-time or contract people. Be honest, open, and transparent to the biggest extent possible without giving up any proprietary information. That is not what I am after.
Just be upfront and honest about dealings and capabilities. Winning the trust of clients probably takes care of 80% of the headwinds that contractors and vendors face.
It's project and portfolio management. We just rolled out phase one, but the primary use case for us right now is to make sure that all our project managers are able to put their resource plans and cost plans into a centralized system, so that our finance team can roll those numbers up and do forecasting.
In terms of evaluating it performance, we just started about two months ago, so it's hard to say right now. Numbers are rolling up but folks are still getting used to the process and are slowly working towards that.
We just put all the data in one place and hopefully, after we have accurate data, we can make more decisions based on real data rather than gut feeling.
Right now it is the resource planning, because I know not all of the project managers really did resource planning before. This has set up an expectation for them to do that necessary step, going forward.
We use a product called TFS and we would definitely like to see integration with that. It's not there right now. Agile Central is the one that is integrated with, however, I don't think we are leaving TFS.
I think stability is good so far, except the test environment is not as good. We're using the SaaS solution, so we do see errors quite a bit in the QA environment, but the production environment seems to be more stable.
We don't know yet, we don't have a lot of people in there yet.
I feel that the Professional Services team is reacting better than the support team, in terms of how quickly we get the feedback; also in terms of how careful they are with our environment. The support team actually broke our QA environment without telling us. We were wondering what's going on for something like a day.
So far it's straightforward, but we haven't really done a lot of customization. We just try to use what is out of the box.
Regarding the new UX, we haven't used it yet.
When it comes to selecting a vendor, although I wasn't involved in the selection, what I heard my boss say was that there are a lot of Fortune 500 companies using it, and if all of them trust it, that's probably a good indication that it's a good product.
Just focus on what there truly is, because there is a lot of functionality in the tool, and probably nobody is going to use all of it. So just focus on what you think are the most important things for you right now and just look at those particular features.
Portfolio and project management.
We just started, but it's a simple and powerful tool. I really love it compared to the previous one.
Previously it was complicated. We had to do the costing, everything manually, after doing the integration of a couple applications. Now, because of CA, it's going to be one application as a whole.
It will be one application for the whole PPM department: portfolio, project, and reporting in one tool.
It will improve things because it's already integrated into one. Before, there were something like three applications, and you had to integrate, and sometimes there were a lot of errors coming out. Sometimes the old system would crash.
You know where the hours of each resource manager or each worker are.
Blueprints. I'd also like to see the user interface simplified, and to have a lot of templates available on each blueprint.
I think it is stable. It's been on the market for so long, and it's CA.
Scalability is good.
I'm not sure about why the switch was made, because the one who made the decision is our director, and the architects. But I think it was because it simplified things for the users; that matters.
We evaluated Primavera Unifier and some other portfolio management systems. We went with CA because it's so easy. Everything is easy to do.
Regarding the new UX, I actually haven't heard about it.
When selecting a vendor the most important criteria are that
I would tell colleagues who are looking for a similar solution this will work. Give it a try. I know there are a lot of products out there, and companies that are really well known. But just give them a chance to demo it and you will like it.
It is mainly for handling the project and financial management across the organization. Mostly it is the IT department of the company which uses this tool. We may have a user base, in all, of about 20,000 users. It is also used by all the vendors of American Express. We on-board them onto the tool, and then they are able to track their the time against all the projects which they are working on with American Express.
There are a lot of other use cases.
It helps all the portfolio managers and the program managers to take stock of the financial situation at the program and portfolio level, because it rolls up all the financials at the product level.
We also have integration with CA Agile Central. So we get all the project-related data and the user stories-related data into Clarity and we report on to that: How much funding is there, and how much are the actuals between these two tools?
The resource management, the program management, financial management. It combines a lot of things, all of them are of benefit to our end users.
I don't work as an administrator of the tool, so I can talk from the standpoint of the end users who actually use it. I think financial management would be one of the most important features of all of them, to keep track of the finances. Everyone runs against a budget. They have a particular funding, which they have to manage. So I think the Cost Plans, Financial Planning, those are among the most important features for most users.
I think a lot of things that you'd want to see were touched upon in the roadmap yesterday, which we attended here at the CA World conference, yesterday. With the new UI, the Sub-Object part which they plan to bring into the new UI, I think a lot of customers would be happy to implement the new UI for their companies.
Maybe they could improve the mobile app. I think right now it only offers time sheet. If they can integrate a lot of other components into it - and not only CA PPM, a lot of other companies are now focusing on the mobile apps - I think that would be helpful for the users.
I think after the last upgrade, I think it was 14.2 or 14.3, the performance of the tool has improved a lot. I can see a drastic change in a lot of the stock jobs of the tool. And it has become quite stable.
When we started off - it's been almost eight, nine years now with CA PPM - at that time our user base was a lot more. But now with CA Agile Central coming into the picture, I think a lot of companies are making a shift of moving a lot of their user base from CA PPM to CA Agile Central. So it is cutting across various tools. It does not concentrate on a single tool.
They are very helpful. In fact, we have a bi-weekly call with one of the representatives from CA. And when they are in town, we have a meeting with them and they are very helpful.
I was not involved in the initial setup, I think I joined a couple of months after the initial set up. But I've been there all throughout since then, including upgrades. The upgrades used to be complex. But now, I think it depends on upgrade planning. How often do you upgrade? If you upgrade once in three years, then it can be complex. But if you keep on upgrading as and when CA releases their upgraded version, I think it would be smooth.
Regarding the new UX, we have not actually onboarded that yet. But, we plan to in the near future. From the administration team, we have seen it, we have implemented it in our sandbox environment, but it's not rolled out at the organization level yet. There is still a lot of planning to go into that.
Regarding the most important criterion when selecting a vendor to go with, I think it would be a long-term partnership that the company has with them. If we had already engaged with them in some other products and we see a value, then I think that would be the most important criterion.
I would say that you should first see the problem you are trying to solve in your company. I think if project, resource, and financial management are the things you are trying to solve, then it would be very useful.
I am a project manager/program manager, too. So I look at it from the high level also, which is a lot more difficult I think for the program. For it to go back to the initiative, figure out exactly what you are spending, how much you are spending on it, and which projects are included in it.
From a project standpoint, I think it actually works really well, because it is much more simplistic, and it is at that lower level. So, you can track your risks, issue some changes, and it is a lot easier than when you go up and roll up to that program level.
This is a hard one, because some people just see it as overhead. Everybody is used to just doing it within their Excel spreadsheets within their teams. Some of it is just kind of a roll up of data, such as, what is our milestone for when we are going to get the BSD done? What is our milestone for code drops?
So, there is definitely a mixed view, even from myself. I can see the benefits of it, and I can get the data out to be able to report on it. However, I also feel like it is a lot of overhead.
Probably the data itself. We do a lot of extracts from Clarity. There is not a lot of reporting within the tool itself. So, we actually export it, run reports, and roll out that data.
It was very interesting, because we did get to see the newest version. There are a lot features that I really can't wait to actually get my hands on.
When we upgrade into the cloud, we are still going to be a version behind. So it is hard to say what I would want in it, because I have seen a lot of the things that I would want in it. They are going to be in it once we actually do the upgrade.
From a stability perspective, it is very stable. We do not have a lot of changes to it. However, we also do not upgrade as often as the tool is upgraded.
We leave that in the hands of our upper management on when we actually upgrade. So, we have done multiple upgrades, and we have configured it a lot. Going forward in December when we do the CA PPM, we are going out-of-the-box. Therefore, we do not have do a lot of the customizations. We can still configure, but we do not have to customize it.
We have not used technical support. Our PMO usually deals with any problems, questions, and they work through the technical solutions.
We see it as overhead. Let us collect all the data in one place. Which, it is always nice to have everything in one place, but it does cause that overhead. So a lot of the teams are not comfortable with it. They are going to track it separately. We are just a data gatherer to say, "Okay, what is the last date we are going to code drop? When are we going to be SD?" So, a lot of overhead.
Primary usage is to track project information, including the labor book to projects. The performance has been really good.
You can't manage what you can't measure. It helps us measure things like time compliance, as people are putting all their time into project costs.
It is very intuitive. Even if you do not have training documents or anything, you can start feeling your way around pretty easily. I like that piece of it.
I would like to be able to do time submission and time approvals on mobile rather than have to go in the system. It would just make things much easier for everybody, being on the go, and a lot of us have an app for our email on our personal phone. Therefore, to be able to do everything there would be much more convenient, and I am sure we would get better buy in from managers, too.
Stability is very good. We have very little downtime.
We have been with a pretty consistent number of users, so we have not had to move. So, I do not know. For the little increase we have had, it has gone very smoothly.
We meet with technical support periodically. I would give them a nine out of 10. They are good.
The old one we had just did not meet our needs. We had to do too many configurations, and we wanted something that we could keep a little more vanilla. As it was and not have to worry about tweaking it for our needs. We have tweaked it, but with what we had previously, we had to do major changes.
All the complications came from our side with our users as opposed to CA.
The support and the transition from our old system to this, they made it go very smoothly. We had people onsite helping us. They were very good at letting us do a concept and run through it first, and test everything we needed to test. Those were some of the things I liked about it.
Changepoint. It pretty much came down to Changepoint and CA.
From the other ones that we looked at, this was the obvious choice for us after doing a PoC.
Contact CA. They are very good at sending up a PoC.
I do like the new UX very much. We have only turned onto a few users so far. We just upgraded to 15.3 a few months ago. The ones that have been using it do like it very much. We just have not rolled it out to everyone yet. We want to have some feedback first. So far, it has been very positive.
Most important criteria for selecting a vendor:
We use it for both portfolio and project management, as well as time tracking and resource management.
It has highlighted areas in our company that were deficient in resources. It has allowed us to hire, then realize more benefits regarding the number of projects we can get done.
One of the things that was highlighted that is coming was the top-down planning functionality and that looks pretty compelling.
If there is support or guidance around how to take a more waterfall-based shop and transition it into an agile-based team framework within the tool, that would be good as well because it is definitely different in how you manage and execute projects.
The integration needs to be improved with Jaspersoft and Microsoft Project.
It seems fine. We have not had any issues.
We are a fairly small shop, so we really do not run into any scalability issues.
Their online documentation is okay. It is not great. It is hard to get to some of the answers to the things that we may be running into, such as use cases that we are trying to fix. So, frequently we have to put in tickets.
Sometimes they are great and exceed expectations, and sometimes, they take a little longer than I would anticipate.
The one that we had at the time, Microsoft Project Server, which was pretty basic in the data that you could get out of it. It did not have near the functionality around portfolio management that this CA solution does. So, that was really one of the reasons why we were evaluating new tools.
As with any fairly complex tool, there were a lot of things that you can't solve for. You can't write a 100% of the requirements and expect to roll it out. So, we ended up with some gaps. One of the areas that we would improve upon is not necessarily with the tool, but having more tips/tricks on adoption. How to get people outside of the PMO to use the tool and get the information.
We looked at staying with our current solution, which was Project Server, and seeing how we could leverage it. We also looked at Innotas, then CA. So, those were really the three. Innotas had a great portfolio functionality, but its project management was very basic. Its resource management was kind of non-existent. So, CA had the full package. It really had everything that we wanted.
I would give them advice that the learning curve and the adoption curve for an organization, which is attempting to bite off this much functionality and complexity, is a lot longer than they will think. Put some serious energy into how to get the groups involved into driving adoption. Then, knowing that the new OData connector is now out, finding ways to quickly leverage data, so you can start telling business stories and showing the value of the tool.
Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: Stability in the marketplace. We definitely wanted to go with something that was going to be around for a while, and they were constantly improving.
I don't specifically have a use case, I'm more on the sales end, of going to the federal government. For the federal government of Canada, this has been selected as the tool of choice for PPM solutions.
We find specifically in the federal government space, absolutely, the visibility is the number one thing. They can see where the bottlenecks are, they can see what their project statuses are, why are things being held up, etc.
I think specifically, with a couple of government departments, visibility - when they bill their clients back, when they do a cost recovery - from the financial specifics they can have something tangible and real to say. "Okay, this is how we spend most of this time, this was a net new requirement, this was maintenance, etc. So they can bill back appropriately and when the client questions them on it, they have that information available to them.
Reporting visibility for projects and on the resource management side as well.
We're just helping them start to roll out 15, so no comment here.
Stability is good. In the federal government of Canada there's a central hosted instance of the solution. It's been very good as far as maintenance and outages, there's nothing really negative to report.
Scalability has been good. The federal government of Canada is not enormous. We'll see use cases here this week, at the CA World conference, of JP Morgan, Chase, or huge organizations. We've worked with organizations with IT shops as low as 200 people, all the way up to probably 10,000 people so it's worked out very well.
I wasn't involved on the technical side of setup, but as far as assisting my clients with getting service base, making sure we had all of their organizational structure ready to go into the system, I was involved.
We're the consulting arm, so if it was complex or straightforward, we're either doing good or we're doing bad on our end. So I'd like to say it's good feedback. Straightforward.
I give it a ten. Like I said, the scalability is great. It has a small amount of competition in the space but for me it's an easy sale because it's been the selected software for that space in the federal government of Canada.
It's performing how it is. And I think the more they come out with new versions, they're closing those gaps on anything that does exist.
Our primary use case is for doing portfolio and project management. Our engineering group serves a lot of different markets. We have a live events market, we have commercial market, we have transportation market that we serve. There are all these different requests coming in and hitting engineering, and it really becomes a question of, "What's the most important thing for engineering to be working on?"
We really needed a good way to prioritize that work and make it visible so that, not just our management, but also our engineering group can look at that and say, "Yes. This is the most important thing. This is what we're supposed to be working on."
We were doing all this in a spreadsheet. We were in Excel and it was a nightmare. It was really just, "Get off of the spreadsheet and get something centrally located and available to everyone."
We are planning on integrating that with our work item management system. We currently use TFS but we're looking at VSTS. So we're looking at doing integration there and tying that portfolio and project management into our work Item management system as well.
I think the most value that I have seen is the the team management, the resource management. We have flexible scrum teams, we have developers that will serve on one scrum team for a few sprints or for a project, and they'll switch around. Being able to track where people go, and making sure that our teams are fully staffed, and well staffed, so that we can be successful on the projects we're trying to do.
We've only been users for about a month, so I can't really say what is there and what isn't there.
Some people have expressed interest in how are we doing the time tracking stuff because we have a separate time tracking system. And then within TFS we also track hours and our effort levels there. It seems like that is maybe a direction we could go, unifying all that under one system.
I've not had any complaints or heard of anything, so it seems to be perfectly stable from what I can tell.
Scalability is great. We've got literally hundreds of engineers. We've got a lot of teams working on a lot of different projects. It seems very scalable to me.
The step from spreadsheet to this... We knew we were in a bad spot with the spreadsheet. We said,"Okay, let's take a good first step and get off of that and then we'll go from there." It's really exciting. I'm hoping to see the tool mature and see how it really benefits organization in the future.
The initial set up was handled by a couple of their engineers but someone came from WinMill and did a training with us and a bunch of our engineers. That was really helpful to get introduced to the system: This is what we can do. This is what we can't do.
I wasn't involved in the setup but I keep hearing the term "configured", like we did some of our own configurations, not customizations, but certainly the platform seems very configurable to suit our needs, and that was very helpful for us.
In terms of the new UX, we've only been on the one version. That is the UX. We've never seen anything else. I just came out of the 15.3 session though, here at the CA World conference, so I'm curious to see what happens. I don't think we're on that version yet. I'll be curious to see what my organizational feedback is once that goes live.
It's still pretty early, like I said, we've only been users for a month, but I would give it an eight out of 10 overall.
We use our product for the following:
Our organization, being a utility organization, does a lot of projects in two different methodologies. Being able to track all of the projects with all of the details of those projects, and being able to move projects along from a process perspective, that is really beneficial. Off-sheet would be much more difficult.
In the version that we are in, it has been able to collect all the data, and in some ways, provide dashboards of aggregated data.
We are not currently using the existing version. I think we have a need for more portfolio management and intuitive resource management, which are met with that next version. We are just not there yet.
I do not know if I can answer that as I am still new to using the product.
Scalability is great. It is very manageable and can scale in different areas. One of the limitations would be mapping our current agile processes in the same tool set without obviously integrating to a different type of tool set within the same portfolio.
I have not personally used the technical support.
I was not involved in the initial setup.
I have used some of the other products on the market before, and some of those are a little bit more user-friendly, but again that may be solved with the newer version.
From what I have seen, the new UX is pretty impressive, which meets that user-friendly, more adaptable, or agile, user-friendly solution.
I believe firmly in process management, so from an organizational perspective understand your processes, then be able to look at this tool and know the full capabilities of the tool before you just install it. Sometimes companies will install a tool to handle the basics and not ever grow to its full process and tool alignment, which could be beneficial.
Project and portfolio management for our CA PPM. We have traditionally run all of our projects through waterfall, but now we are transitioning to agile. So, we are starting to use CA Agile Central for that, and we are looking at integrations between those two tools.
Just being able to have everybody to see the work that needs to be done, provide the detail level for the teams, and show the roll-up level for those at the management level.
We are able to track budgets, and with timesheets, actuals against budgets.
Resource management: It is our primary use now.
Agile Central is a kind of a scrum tool for the teams to be able to do their work. We are just now starting to leverage the functionality to give a more portfolio view.
CA PPM is a mature product. We have used it for years, but we have had some challenges. Maybe it was the way we implemented it.
I do not think I can add anything to Agile Central, because we are new to it. I think we are really just trying to learn and leverage the functionality that is there, so I do not know yet.
I am not aware of any stability issues.
I am not aware of any scalability issues.
We have an internal support team that I would go to first. They would then go to vendor, so I do not have to.
I typically only contact them for education, possibly.
I was not involved in the initial setup.
I think Agile Central is an industry leader in the agile methodology. I would look at it.
We manage projects, financials, labor actuals, timesheet entry, and cost plans for the entire company.
It makes the whole lifecycle of project management a lot easier than using legacy systems, which we are retiring every few months because of PPM. We have taken archaic reporting, Excel reporting systems, and are replacing them with PPM functionality in old timesheet entry systems with PPM timesheet entry and labor actuals, which are being calculated directly in PPM.
I really like this roadmapping, which is huge. It is like the future of cost plans, making it all Excel-like, grouping and all that fancy stuff.
It is getting better. Once in awhile, PPM will go down. It does not go down very much at all, and now that we have over close to 7,000 users logging in, it has only gone down once in several months. So, it is pretty good.
CA Communities need a lot of improvement. I like the support desk. They try and answer our questions quickly and efficiently, and usually they do a pretty good job. I would give them a B.
I think CA Communities could be greatly improved. I would give them a C minus.
We are On Demand, so CA does the setup.
Go for it. I like PPM. I love the fact that it is very flexible. I am the lead engineer with enhancements, development, developing new portlets, anything that has to be added on, and integrating data, such as ETL processing.
We are working on the development for CA PPM, building a couple of portlets, a couple of objects for better usability for CA PPM users in our company. We try to provide automation of CA PPM and easy access, easy usability. Also, easy reporting for our users.
It's really performed well. I personally started from CA PPM 7.5.3 to PPM 15.2. There has been great innovation regarding the development, regarding the technologies.
I see the benefits for the organization in the Resource Management. No more Excel sheets for resource management, no more Excel sheets for financial management, no more data retention for reporting purposes. It is pretty quick in calculations for the managers and financial teams, and getting them the data.
The financial management part because it calculates, it retains the data, and everything is pretty much cool about the reporting part for financial. For PMOs it has some cool reporting and a dashboard. That is a good part of CA PPM.
I want to see the mobile product. And, if possible, integration for SMS functionality.
In terms of stability, along the journey from the Clarity 12.0 to 15.2, it has become a good, stable product now. They are bringing a lot more performance improvements to the product, and the database side also. So now it is pretty much a stable product.
In terms of performance, I would say scalability is around an eight out of 10.
The support guys are pretty much technical. They respond back to me as soon as there is a ticket with them. The conversation is good and we've had a lot of quick solutions.
No, we didn't have a previous solution. But in terms of managing projects, when we saw a lot of complexity in the managing of projects, we realized we needed to go for a PPM and try it once.
It is pretty much cool. And I would say the setup and the upgrade capabilities from CA, the way they have it implemented and prepared the end script is pretty much cool.
Only CA PPM.
Moving ahead, I am looking forward to CA PPM mobile technologies, the mobile app for PPM users, that would also be a good addition to the user experience.
The new UX is pretty cool. I would rate it about an eight out of 10. I joined in the demo for a couple of users for the new timesheet UI. They feel a little bit cool about it, and I have put one idea forward for the timesheet UI and that is with CA. But the new UI is pretty cool, and the "Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down" approach for the approval or rejection of the timesheets is a pretty cool approach.
I would say the criteria for investing in a vendor would be how complex the implementation would be for financial, how complex implementation would be for the projects, how complex the implementation would be for Agile.
I rate it a seven out of 10 overall because they are still using SOAP functionalities. I want them to move out of SOAP and go for REST APIs.
Go for the PPM product, try it once, you will see it makes a big difference and you can get a lot of benefit from CA PPM.
The primary use case for our product is definitely the project management and portfolio management part of the tool, in that we have never really had anything like this before at our company. Previously, it was a lot of shoot from the hip, not a ton of follow-up on major projects, or at least proper follow-up. It has just been a way to prioritize for us, if adding project x, what does that do to projects a, b, and c at the front-end.
We are still learning a lot with it. It is definitely a big culture change for our company in that we have never really had to do this before. I would say it is the accountability piece. There are just a lot of the pieces that we have tried to do and we have tried to do unsuccessfully, so we are using this product and so far it has been a success, but we still have not really pushed it out very hard yet. So, more to come.
We are still learning what it is going to do and how it is going to help. We have goals for how it is going to help. It has a lot of the lookback and a lot of the analysis of where our funding going, is it going there properly, and are we stretching our people too thin?
There is still a lot to be determined but it brings everything back full circle to make sure we are properly managing everything from the finance side to the people side.
The new UX is very user-friendly and simple. The new user interface has been great, I think it has been easier. It will be an easier way to get the product out and used more frequently and more real-time, whereas mainly a lot of only the IT people were able to use the old interface well, just from their background. With the new user interface, it will help a lot.
I am still wrapping my head around the whole process. This is still a newer aspect for me compared to what I have done in the past. I really can't comment on this, because I am still learning all the features that are available within this and using them well and efficiently. I think once I get my head around it and how it will work for our organization, I would probably be able to give a better comment.
Still to be determined. I would say so far so good. I do not really have any complaints about it, but I probably can't give a very detailed answer.
Scalability is massive. It is awesome. It is definitely something we have never done at our organization. It is just steering the ship that way. If the product is a 10, we're probably only using it at a one or a two right now with everything that is available. So, it is still to be determined.
Our old solution was pretty much Excel, and we really did not have it. For a health system, we are now facing a lot more cost pressures, and needing to spend our dollars way more efficiently than we ever had to. Other organizations or sectors have already cut a lot of their costs. Healthcare has lagged behind in this, mainly because we did not have to in the past, and now we are at that point. In looking at that, and really analyzing what we do and how we spend, we need to be more on our forefront now. That is why we ending up investing.
It seemed pretty straightforward.
It was based on our enterprise manager's recommendation from another system that we had talked to. I do not really know all of the background that went behind that, but I know this came to us. This was really one of the only products we had looked at.
It was just the next step where we as an organization needed to go. We were very impressed. It was really getting our organization to buy into the process more than the product. The product, having all of the features which are available, is the reason that we wanted to go that route.
I would absolutely recommend this product. Just the capability of it is really blowing my mind so far. It is more than anything we have ever done. We have worked with Microsoft Project and used Excel spreadsheets in my department. So, this is just blowing our minds, everything that we can pull together, and how much more efficient it is.
I am the backup for our project management office in that I assist our project manager, getting out and helping all our project managers, and everybody from IT. I am in our innovate office, which is basically, project management.
Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: Accessibility would be my number criteria. Helping us out and getting us going.
Primarily we're using it for
And we're just starting to actually roll it out to our legal team. Yes, that is correct. Our legal team is actually going to use the Project Object in PPM for tracking their litigation cases.
It has performed well.
It's a kind of one-stop shop repository of all of our project statuses and what everybody is doing. So we don't have multiple systems that have to track time and status, and risks and issues.
I think it's very configurable. However we want to change something with out-of-the-box configuration, it's pretty simple to do.
The expandability of the new UX for the majority of what we can do on the classic UI side.
Stability is very good.
We haven't really tested scalability yet. But we will be with this little "legal team" project, and we'll see how it scales to a completely different demographic of users using the interface.
Technical support is very good. I'm happy with the response time and they are definitely knowledgeable.
We didn't have any centralized PPM solution. Everybody was just using Microsoft Project for their own thing. We needed an overarching solution to give visibility on what everybody was doing, and what we can do as an enterprise.
We probably should have bitten off a little bit less of the sandwich to begin with. Our implementer was more of a solutions expert and a consultant than they were a trainer. I think we were looking for more of a trainer than somebody to just tell us how we need to set it up. It was less collaborative than I would've liked.
I was not a part of that evaluation. I'm going to say "yes", we evaluated other solutions, but I don't know who they were.
I have two words regarding the new UX: Love it.
When evaluating other vendors, the most important thing is a lot of the professional services, because my organization is not inherently a technical organization. We are a restaurant company. We don't staff a lot of technical folks. So probably the number one priority is that technical professional services offered.
I give the solution an eight out of 10 because I think the classic UX is a little bit clunky. Obviously the new UI is taking over. But also obviously, everything we can do in the classic UI cannot be done yet in the new UI. So we're waiting.
In terms of advice, have your specific requirements of what you need upfront. That way, you're not going to be swayed by all of the cool little gadgets that you could use. Know what you do want to use upfront, and then all the cool gadgets can come later.
We started looking for a tool to manage our resources, that was our primary driver. Resource capacity utilization, resource management. But of course, the other features that are available, portfolio management, project management, we definitely wanted to use those as well. So, primarily, resource management, but project management and portfolio management as well.
It's an excellent tool for resource management. I really like the new interface, the user experience, which is coming out soon. Right now, it's something of a legacy format, and it's a little bit - I wouldn't say difficult to navigate - but people are used to very intuitive interfaces. Currently it looks like, "Ah, it's a legacy interface." But with the new one, I think it's making a really big impact. We have not started using it yet, though. We are currently using 15.2, which has some of those features. So we are waiting for 15.3 to start making use of them.
For resource management, it's a very strong tool, has all the features that you would desire in a resource management tool, so we're very happy with that.
I like every feature that's in there.
A little bit better financial management. Right now it is more accountant-related, the financial management - of course, it's finance, it has to be financial. But it should be a little bit easier for project managers.
To give an example, if you have a non-labor cost that you're tracking, let's say a software expenditure or license subscription, tracking that you need to manage as a resource in the project plan, that adds a lot of effort for product managers to maintain. If they can come with ways of simplifying the cost and financial management, that would be one thing that we would really like.
Never had any issues with a CA product.
In terms of scalability, it is a little bit slow. Right now we have about 200 users, and we are bringing on our European counterparts as well - our company acquired another company - and we are trying to bring them on. It is slow. We've created a support ticket, and hopefully they'll respond. I think for regular day-to-day operations, it's okay. But when you get into Jaspersoft reporting, it is slow. And nowadays, people don't have patience, I don't have patience.
Technical support, they're good. They get back to us pretty quickly. Never had any issues with them either. They get back to us quickly, they try to resolve the issue. They are definitely knowledgeable.
We were Microsoft Project Server users. I think about seven years ago we started using Project Server with the same goals of a centralized repository and collaboration for project managers and team members; also, resource and financial management. We never got to the resource and financial management part of it, because I think on the time sheets side we were aggressive, and that did not go well with the resources, so we started using it only as a project repository.
We were in it all the time, and every year when there was a new demand for projects, and we were trying to set the portfolio for the next year, the question always was, "Okay, who's available to take up which projects?" And every time it was a spreadsheet, and I was working with 50 resource managers bringing their allocations and merging them; it was a nightmare.
And at any point in time, especially when a new demand would come in during the middle of the year, if you wanted to inject that project into the portfolio, we didn't know what the impact of that would be on other resources. Again, it would be another big round of, "Okay, call all the resource managers."
So that was our key need for the PPM tool.
I think our decision was the right one. We went with the minimum configuration. We wanted to use it out of the box as much as possible. A CA consultant came and I think we had him for about three months. They came and gathered the requirements and configured it a little bit to suit our requirements and I did some additional fields here and there, but mostly out of the box. He was very knowledgeable, he helped us in setting up easily.
Right now we're in the adoption mode, and our timesheet compliance is around 92%. We're just about three months into it, and I really like it. We have still yet to use all the other features that come with CA PPM.
We are focusing for now on project management, and generating reports, out of that: status reports, timesheets, reporting on actuals. We want to get to the next phase where resource utilization capacity is accurately defined in CA PPM as well. Financial planning, it was initially out of the scope, but I think as soon as they started seeing actual costs in the system, everybody wanted to see, "Okay, what's the budget every month? What was the planned cost?" and things like that. So we're trying to put that data in, and set up processes for keeping it up to date and things like that. So far, so good.
Regarding the new UX, it's very good. I wish it would come out faster, but I know that it has to be developed, tested, and rolled out. I like the way they're doing it in something like an Agile format, giving you some features and then gathering feedback and improving them, instead of trying to wait for a big bang, which I think might take couple years for them to finish. So, I like that. Could it be faster, is the only question.
When selecting a vendor, when our company is looking at vendors, we develop the RFP, gather our requirements and it has multiple sections:
In terms of advice to others, there are a lot of players in the market. This is a major transition for our whole industry. You have DevOps coming in, you have Agile, you have a lot of other things automated - data creation and the like. You want to pick a vendor who can help you in all those things.
PPM is one part of the tool. There is also the argument about whether product managers will be there in 2020? So you want to look at something that is more current and has all these new technologies incorporated. If they're not incorporated, at least that they have those planned, so later on you can start to bring them on board.
And during the implementation, I would definitely say start simple. Start as simple as possible. Give as little additional work to each of your resources as possible. Then slowly, once you start to prove the value of the tool, you can slowly start to make more and more improvements on the new features.
We are the support team that administers the PPM tool, currently addressing over 3,000 customers in 28 different business units.
PPM is awesome. We do have an on-premise system and we use our developers that we partner with, both CA and one of the consulting agencies for them, to make sure that we're implementing things correctly and taking on things as they come.
Right now, it's the PPM piece of it, the scheduling, the Gantt, the task view. It gives that full visibility to the team. But we're wanting to take that further and start building upon the financial piece of it, doing extracts from contractors to employees, to determining resource planning and future planning, and doing "what-if" scenarios.
I think the biggest benefit right now is the reporting. It gives that quick visibility and it's consistent data; versus everybody just trying to go out there and look at their own individual pieces, looking at it as a whole.
We're looking at adding the Agile piece to it. I want to make sure that that integration is very smooth. And I'm here this week, at CA World, to see how that's going to play out for us. So, it's understanding, when we have multiple customers using both Waterfall and Agile, how that can come together, because we are still supporting HR, finance, and business planning for their outputs. Regardless of your methodology, we're going to be giving them streamline information.
Stability is awesome. Not to criticize any other tool, but we actually have some customers right now that are migrating from another tool because that tool has been down so often. Part of our success, we believe, is that our team administers the tool, we don't give out administrative rights to our customers. It's fully owned by our team, but we have a 99% "up" rate so we're very excited about that.
It's nice that we have the options. We try to tell our customers not to "drink from the fire hose." It's important that they start off and have some discipline before they take on more. They come to CA World, they see all the exciting things and features, and they come back and say, "I want it all." So it's kind of my being the "pacemaker" for them. I have to say, "Let's start here and build off that," while building their disciplines. They're getting their PMs engaged because everybody adopts change a little bit differently. So we want to make sure we're doing it smoothly.
Tech support is very good. We've had our challenges in the past with MSP interface connector, especially because we're on-premise and we've got configuration settings that are required. Sometimes it's an issue with the PMs themselves just not following instructions. But other times, you realize that there is a known issue or defect. Support is really quick to identify that, let us know, and either there will be a workaround, or we need to upgrade to the newest version.
Not in my current company. In my past life, we had been using a different PPM. And I was instrumental in doing the proof of concept. We interviewed several customers and put them through the gamut before choosing Clarity.
I wasn't involved in the initial setup, but as a support team, my team will do a lot of the testing in the different phases of upgrades. We test it from an administrative standpoint, but also as a user, as a PM, different rights permissions. We'll swap those out to make sure that everything is fluid.
The updates are straightforward. We have a development team that helps to make sure that we're migrating properly.
We're excited about the new UX. We're actually going to do the 15.3 upgrade in 2018.
When looking for a new vendor, our criteria include combining all the "asks" from our customers, but also with what we can manage. What's ready out of the box versus what we're going to have to customize. I'm a very big fan of CA's configurability. It's not necessarily something that is custom-built, but people can rearrange their filters, they can set up their criteria based on their needs.
I give it a nine out of 10 right now. I'm not giving it a 10 because I have to see how the Agile piece works. Past life, we were using Rally and CA PPM and their integrations were just really wonky, and we ended up backing out of it. That was kind of cumbersome. So we're looking forward, now that CA has obtained what was formerly known as Rally, the Agile Central. I'm very curious to see how's that going to overlay. If it makes me happy, it will definitely be a 10.
In terms of advice to a colleague, I would say know the data that you have and what you want your output to be later. I think it's important to think about the future, because if you start off - for clarity purposes - using that idea, there's not a step before that. So you really want to have to make sure that your idea is your goal-point from the beginning.
Also knowing what you want to extract from it later. Permissions and securities are going to have to dictate, "Are you going to access that?" or "Are you going to want your customers to be able to pull their own information?" Do you want to utilize partitions? Because everything has that downstream impact. If you know what you want or you think you know what you want, take that step back and look at your long-term goals and how they fit into it. From everything, from work streams to tasks.
Project and portfolio management.
It's performing okay, I would say. There are no issues with the performance, but I think we are not using it at capacity.
I would say the Project and Portfolio Management, its potential. If you talk about any other tool for PPM, I think CA PPM has the most potential.
It gives us all the projects in one view where we can drill down into our portfolio and see the potential benefits at the end of the day.
I am not sure what features they could add but, personally, what I have seen is that last year when I came to CA World, PPM was on version 15.2 and this year, after 365 days I am here at CA World again and CA is still on 15.3. Within a year only a point release. It looks like CA itself is driving it slowly and they should do something. It says something, that after the whole company worked hard they are still only coming up with a point release. It is something doubtful.
I think CA is already doing the work, probably, by going to the new UI. I think they are on the path. But they need to take a risk and go. Their initiative started, I think, two years back about going to a new UI. It's showing progress but not at a pace that I would like to see.
Since we moved to version 14, we haven't seen stability issues.
We haven't had issue with the scalability yet.
At times it is good but it is not always the best.
Response time is a bit slow in some cases. In some cases it is frustrating that we have to escalate, we would prefer not having to. But at the time, if there is an urgent issue and you get frustrated, you have to escalate it. It doesn't give you a good feeling about getting support that way. After you escalate, you get support. You get everything you want but, at the end of the day, you still feel that it would have been great if CA would have helped us during our first attempt.
I was involved with PPM setup from scratch. It's not straightforward but it's not complex either, if you know the product.
We are using version 14.3 but we would love to go to 15.3. We have seen the new UX and it's looking good so we think it is a positive change.
I would say go with PPM with SaaS. I would suggest that any customers or new customers use Clarity PPM at its default values, not customize it terribly. It has a lot potential using the product out of the box rather than making your own product.
CA has been working every year to provide a product upgrade, and if you can't use the latest features immediately, or in the near future, you are missing out on a lot. Use the regular settings, or at least most of the product out of the box, and leverage or grow from there, rather than making your own changes.
We use it for project-tracking, budgeting, and resource-tracking.
The budgeting. With budgeting would be the resource-tracking, because we budget our resources. Overall budgeting is probably the best use of Clarity for us, because we can see how much we are allowed to spend, how much we have spent, and then how much is left over.
It has all of the features that currently we need.
Project managers have insight into everything regarding their projects. They can do anything they want, such as update and edit their projects within Clarity. They use it every single day, in every way that they can, to keep it updated and to track their project features. It has made project-tracking much simpler and easier.
What I do is just keep things running as much as I can on our end, so I think that would be something that our project managers would better answer, because they are the ones that use it. I just keep it running.
We have had issues, but that goes with anything. Nothing is perfect, so we work through those and we do what we can when those issues come up to get them fixed quickly. Nothing big; nothing that has obviously stopped us from using it.
We use CA technical support whenever we need to. We try to fix as much as we can on our end, but obviously there are things we can't do that CA has to do for us. However, they are always very helpful. They are always very willing to work with us to figure out what is going on, and to help us out in fixing any issues.
I was not around during the initial setup.
I was not a part of the decision-making process.
I like the new UX. I think it is cool. We pretty much only use it for the time-tracking, which probably more companies do than not. The UX is super-simple, very user-friendly, colorful, and fun. So, I think it is really awesome, and we have received a lot of positive feedback from our time-trackers.
It is something our company continues to use and likes to use. Otherwise, we would not be using it. It gets the job done, and it helps us get our jobs done.
We use CA PPM to handle our project and portfolio management, as well as time sheets for our resources.
The new UX, though we are not on it. Some of the new features look really nice. We are just looking for them to be a little more fully fleshed out before we move to them.
It helps a lot with the automation and manual processes to go faster.
One major thing that is super relevant to me, and my role in handling it, would be having more published API access, so we could integrate with all of our other tools that we are using.
I cannot speak to stability, as we have only done a few light tests.
We have had varying degrees of success. Sometimes things are handled super quickly. Other times it takes a little while.
Know what your full use case will be before launching into something as big as CA PPM. It does a lot of things and it is great at doing a lot of things, but if you only need a small subset, maybe it is not right for you
It does everything we need it to do. It could definitely be improved as far as speed and interoperability with other tools that we have in place.
Managing the work of a federal agency.
It's performed very well. We've expanded it quite a bit. There have, though, been a couple of issues.
They're valuable because that's what the customer uses the most.
I've also seen a little of the preview of the new UX and I'm impressed.
The organization that we contract for, they have centralized visibility into a lot of the different things that they were doing manually before, or on spreadsheets. There are a lot of reports that we've written based on that, that are sent out to executives and to management. It's a lot more efficient. It's all centralized, and the reporting is a lot easier, since it is all centralized. The data entry is a lot easier as well as the reporting.
I would like to see much more advanced financial management capabilities. Particularly, both financial and contract management capabilities. Even though there are some of those built in now, our federal customers manage their finances and their contracts differently from most folks on the commercial side of the world, so we've had to configure a lot of things, specific to them. It would be nice if some of that was built in to the product.
Additionally, there are some things that come with the product that are problematic. And the biggest one and, the company certainly knows this, is the integration with Microsoft Project. That's been a real pain in the butt for us. We've actually had contract issues because of it with our customer; it's not as robust or as full-featured as it could be.
There's no downtime or lagging.
In terms of scalability, so far so good. We haven't had any issues. We're using the cloud, CA cloud.
It's good. Sometimes they don't get back to me as quickly as I would like, but they're definitely always within a day.
The factors that are important to us when selecting a vendor are
I rate it an eight out of 10 because there are some pieces that are just not there that we would like to see. It's not like core type features that you'd expect in a product like this, the ones I talked about earlier, the financial stuff.
I would say, take a very strong look at CA PPM, depending on if you have a couple of specific things that they were looking for.
We do project management and resource management in PPM and we use mainly that piece from it, right now.
It's been performing well. There are some drawbacks, some features we can't really utilize considering our GAAP business process. So we face issues sometimes with that, that we can't fully utilize CA PPM resource management.
Provides an overall picture, it gives you the ability to store your capex, capital and expense budgets, on projects. You can really drill down with their new utilities, you can use Clarity. You have Allocation Editor and Assignment Editor that give you more flexibility in entering the data.
You get rid of Excels, that's the main point. We are so used to, in the old days, capturing data in Excel; people are really use to doing that. In general we were working in Excel workbooks. We were doing things like ETC assignment, how much they will be, how many hours you're assigning, what the cost will be at the end of the day. With CA PPM we have really gotten rid of those Excels and are utilizing the resource managem
ent and Project Management pieces.
I'm interested in something that would give you flexibility in loading the data to PPM. We have some other utilities, which CA is providing, but sometimes it takes time for users to enter the data into Clarity, the resource management piece.
They need something so that if we, say, send some sheets to users, or for the scenario where not everybody has access to Clarity, but are part of planning; those people should be able to upload data directly to Clarity.
We are using another tool to do reporting, or load data inside Clarity. If CA provided that, that would be great.
The reporting piece is really slow right now, with Jaspersoft. CA is doing a lot on that. They have opened a port that we can connect from an outside tool to the Clarity data warehouse, database. But it would be great if they could do something on Jaspersoft because sometimes it takes 20 minutes to for a report to show up; not all, but some do.
Stability is going well. I'm really hoping for the new UI. I heard it's going to be something like Excel, so we can really do a copy-paste, drag and drop things. I think we will be utilizing it more and longer.
In terms of scalability, I can't say much. We're trying to use different features in it, because we had so many customizations. Actually, we revamped Clarity in the last couple of months, where we're trying to use more out-of-the-box functionalities, so I'm hoping that will be pleasant.
It's okay, right now. It used to be very good. The responses are not really quick. You don't get a response immediately, you have to do a lot of follow-up. We already brought this up, and we might have a support person specifically for us with whom we can work.
In the past it was very good, but now I see it is weak, we have to follow up a lot.
When it comes to selecting a vendor we're actually trying to not have more vendors, because CA is now providing the different utilities. We have another system - there are a lot systems that are integrated with our Clarity environment right now. I have heard about a lot of things which we did in past, buying products from another vendor, CA already has those utilities so we are looking at that.
I haven't used any other products so I can't really compare with anything else, but I gave it a seven out of 10 because it's not customized per client. Sometimes we want to do something but we are stuck because Clarity doesn't allow you to do it. There are a lot of restrictions in some areas and, considering we are on SAS, we run into a lot of restrictions. It's a generic product, so sometimes it doesn't follow our business rules. And there are some scenarios in which is Clarity is not behaving the way it should. We asked about it, but I didn't get any use-case for it. So there are some areas which need some improvement.
We don't use the Portfolio Management piece, but I'm really happy with Project Management and resource management. So if you're looking for something with granularity, Clarity can do it.
The primary use case is to format the PPM, provide the forecasting and utilization of research utilization, and determine future trends.
The benefit is using the Capacity Demand Model. We can use it to forecast and see the future trends for resource allocations and demands.
We are on-premise. I would like to see more features around the data warehouse analytics reporting. At the same time, I would like to see some more functionality on the UI side. They have the new user interface, but that new interface is only a portion of it. I would like to see that extended to other parts of the tool.
It is stable.
On a scale from one to 10, I would say PPM scales at a nine.
I have used the technical support. I have mixed opinion on them. I did receive very good support, sometimes. I did receive bad support, too. Most of the times, I would say it is a good support. Maybe there are a few people new to the tech support, and they may be still learning it.
I was involved in the initial setup. It was not difficult for me. The documentation is good. I followed it and was able to set it up myself. It was pretty straightforward; no drawbacks.
It is a very good project portfolio tool.
For me it's the Project and Portfolio Management tools within PPM, the portfolios. The functionality within there, and now we're starting to use resource management to tie into that as well.
It has improved things very much so. They're just starting to full-fledged adopt it right now. Gives them better visibility across the organization.
I don't know if it's missing or not, but I'm anxious to learn more about Agile and using the tool with Agile. We're starting to use that methodology more and more within our organization. So how do we use the tool more effectively for that?
Also I'm looking for some more enhanced portfolio management capabilities.
Stability is good. Haven't had any problems.
We have scaled it. Scalability is very, very good.
I haven't used it.
At another company I used HPE PPM. I like Clarity CA PPM a lot better. It's more user friendly, easier to figure out if you don't have the significant training that you need. Pretty intuitive.
At my current company they previously used a home-grown solution but I'm not sure how they decided on CA.
I wasn't involved in the initial setup. I came to the company after it had already been set up.
I think the important criteria when choosing a vendor are
I think those are the key.
Don't customize it right out of the gate. Understand its capabilities out-of-the-box.
Detailed schedule makes estimation of resources, and resource forecasting, easy and meaningful.
This product is good for resource management and project management. I have managed detailed schedules with great success.
Reporting is not good as they keep on changing reporting environment.
Not anything significant.
Yes, scalability may be issue in a SaaS environment but can be resolved by proper configuration.
Okay, but not that great. Over the years the support level keeps on dropping.
No, though worked with Daptiv and HPE PPM. Daptiv is not ready for a big corporation.
Initial setup is not complex. It sometimes gets ugly and complex after customization.
This project management software is a little bit costly compared to others, but it is mature. Customers should understand this product is geared towards project management, not financial management.
We evaluated CA PPM vs Micro Focus PPM.
This product needs technical expertise. Purchasing the software is not sufficient and support is very important.
Project Management features that are excellent in managing the Project Management Life-cycle, along with other related details like Financials, Resources and flexibility to customize, as per requirement.
For an insurance company, all the project management activities, approvals and processes were offline.
CA PPM gave them the ability to automate approval processes, managing project life-cycle in a central tool, filling time-sheets against the projects and providing the reports to executives.
It helped them reduce their effort in the terms of cost and time involved.
The forms (e.g., project properties page) need to be more attractive, colorful, and field more flexibility for validations.
For more than seven years.
Stability issues have occurred in on-premise implementations but have significantly reduced during on-demand implementations.
On-demand implementations are more scalable as compared to on-premise implementations. As with number of users added, licenses can be increased and infrastructure requirements are taken care of by CA itself.
Good (seven out of 10).
Organizations that have migrated from other solutions to CA PPM may have found this more suitable to their business requirements.
Initial setup varies on the organizations requirement.
If less customization is required, it can be setup within few weeks and is simple. However to meet the requirement, larger customizations are not provided by the tool or require integrations and data flows with other vendors, and this could take months to do. Hence, many organizations prefer to go in phases.
Once an initial setup is made and the tool is ready to use, other major functionalities are added with time.
It's important to understand your organization's requirement clearly, then understanding how the vendor is categorizing its licensing (e.g., different license types and their respective pricing).
Better understanding of requirements and how it will be implemented (with number of licenses for a given budget) would help.
As per the focused areas like Project management, Financial Management, etc., the organizations should weigh all suitable products in market w.r.t. time and cost involved (e.g., HP PPM, Planview, etc.).
The objective should be a benefit in medium to long term, as some solutions may save money in short term but can turn out to be expensive later. I would suggest to go through the comparison reports, blogs, and demonstrations of the products before making the final call.
Focus on correct licensing and integration with other applications like JIRA, Remedy, ServiceNow, SAP etc during the implementation. Also, this application has good automation features to automate your offline/over the mail approvals and processes. This can also be kept in mind during the designing part.
It helps with our marketing efforts, projects, timing, budgeting, and resourcing. It also gives us a one-page overview.
We're able to run our business more efficiently because the solution is cloud-based.
We use JIRA, so I'd definitely want PPM integrated with that. Also, it needs to connect better with other software so that we can simply drag items into PPM. Additionally, it would be nice if it worked with Microsoft Office.
We've had no issues with deployment.
We've had no issues with stability, and if you have sufficient storage, you shouldn't have any problems.
It is scalable, and it adapts well from the end-user point-of-view.
I don't have personal experience with CA technical support, but my point of view is that they are professional, and the sales and technical guys are also professional. We are very happy with the people at CA.
Because we're smart, we knew we had to switch, and when we saw what CA had to offer, we chose this, although we had pressure to put this in place internally.
We didn't look at any other solution.
We got too much marketing and not enough of the actual product itself during the sales process. Pay attention to the product and not the marketing.
Demand, Resource, Project Portfolio Management, for my business consulting services, PMO services to other clients.
Capacity and demand of the resources, optimize the response times of my requirements, detect the control points of the process of attention to our clients, a collaborative environment, notes, remember agreements, efficiency in the times.
Look and feel of the user experience.
Two and a half years.
No, its normal.
Eight out of 10.
We started with the default use of the solution with some parameters, then we were increasing automations, control points, and other more technical issues.
For all the functionalities of the solution, the price is in the market range, since it is a product which offers governance issues and supports the digital transformation, which is where we will go in the next year.
Yes. Planview, Daptiv, MS Project, Changepoint.
My advice is to start using the solution almost as it comes, something basic, simple, that it already provides. Then we develop small consultancies, configurations by functionalities, demand, projects, portfolios, resources, inventory of applications, services, products, etc., until arriving at a model of strategic government.
Besides offering software development services, PMO, attention to demand of requirements, we are a CA Technologies Partner, for consulting services, consulting and strategy of governance, methodology, processes, as it is what we do with our clients.
The most valuable feature of this solution is the quality of the database; the online database is transactional and we are able to get real-time data.
It has helped our organization in regards to the portfolio feature. We are now able to pull all the information together and have a consistent product across all the portfolios. We have various domains and different groups aiding our infrastructure, marketing and sales. Thus, being able to have all the information in one place helps us with the analytics, reporting and decision-making aspects.
Our business area doesn't really use the system. It's just the IT department that uses the system that we're using. We collaborate with them by giving them some access so there is visibility for the projects that their business might want and then the IT team supports it.
As far as the performance is concerned, I haven't seen any issues.
Currently, we are using version 14.2. It's hard to say at this point but we have been able to get most of what we need out of the system; there is a list.
Cost and speed are important factors when selecting a vendor.
You should do your homework. Make sure that you understand what you're getting. This would be relevant for any solution. You should then talk to other companies or entities that are using this solution.
We are not using the SaaS version of the product, i.e., our specific company is not using the latest version but we do have a global company that's using it.
The best thing is one single source to capture all our IT project information. We are a very big company all over the world. We have all the data in one spot. The product is easy to access, easy to compile and pull up reports, with everybody working to the same tool. Training makes it easier. There are other things that we can add-on or we can expand upon. Because we're going to be implementing Agile, Agile Central, there are benefits of using the software as a service (SaaS) as a service platform We don't have to accommodate physical infrastructure for it. It's maintained on the cloud. People can access it anywhere. It makes it a lot easier too. We have people all over the world. I'm sure cost is probably a big benefit as well for us overall.
We are still early on. For the leadership, they see it as, perhaps, a more accurate way of gathering information for their decision making and as a single source. They don't have to go to every site and ask questions, try to gather and compile data from different sources or different Excel spreadsheets. We can collaborate with various teams running projects or portfolios around the company and we can gather data in different ways. We are using fields such as master programs. If we have major programs for the entire corporation, then we can compile and see what everybody is doing that is actually effecting, or not effecting, those programs. We make sure that we leverage resources and that we're not doing redundant work. If we have people working on the same things, why do we have different teams working on similar items? Maybe we could just put them together or maybe we can reapply those resources.
It helps us align to the overall business IT strategy. We had a bit of a restructuring and reorganization. We also try and demonstrate to the business the added value that IT has. I think this is a good way of being able to manage our own resources, and show that we are adding value to the organization.
We're pretty new so I don't know all the capability that the tool has. From what I'm hearing here, I see there's a lot more capabilities. We are running with version 14.3, straight out of the box. I don't think I've explored everything it can do. I think one of the things that I would like to see is more workflow. I would like to see more ability to send out communications from the tool, feedback to remind people, and let them know the things that they need to do. That would be very helpful. There are a lot of fields in the tool. When people first see it, they are overwhelmed by the magnitude of it. It probably could be more customized and configurable to the site so that we don't throw the stuff out there and people get overwhelmed by it. At the same time, I know it gives flexibility. I think it probably can be managed. I just don't have the technical side of it to see if we can do that.
We just started using it in May.
I think the stability has been pretty good. I really haven't had any issues with it. I see, from coming here to this event, that it's very widely used. I didn't grasp the magnitude of it. It has been used for many years by many companies. It's something that's been around and it's not something new. It's been proven and tested.
I think scalability has been easy. I think it works well. We have almost 3,500 users and licenses around the world. I think it was an easy transition to do that. I look forward to see how we can do this with Agile Central because that's the direction we are going now.
We have folks inside our group, our liaison, that deals with technical support. I haven't had to directly deal with the folks in CA. I think our folks, internally, are doing a good job. I think we probably need more internal resources or maybe have a direct link to those technical resources. I think that was, maybe, an internal way that our company is trying to handle it. Instead of having everybody going directly to CA, we want to have a middleman to whom we can funnel our issues.
We were using a SharePoint site in our Aerospace Group and our SBG, our Strategic Business Group, which is Aerospace. We had another couple of homegrown applications, the ones that were used for the financial piece of it. Now that we're going to this tool, it's great because it offers a lot more flexibility.
I was involved a little bit towards the tail-end of the installation. I was definitely involved in delivering training to our users because we had different business groups.
There were some other tools we tried. I was not at that startup. I think it we looked into Accolade because I think that's being used by the Aero Engineering Group. We do have JIRA. We've tried moving to JIRA and I don't think JIRA had all the flexibility and the robustness that CA PPM does. To me, why even go there?
I think we moved to it fairly quickly once we got going. I think it's easy to move to. It seems to offer a lot of advantages, tools, and functionality. Just try it out. The company has been around and the solution has been used for a while. It's been proven and tested. It's not something new. Just give it a try.
The platform is quite robust. We were looking for a solution that would help us build a PMO for our operations, which are based in four different countries. They all have different needs, and different business objectives and relationships; so we needed a very robust yet flexible solution.
CA Clarity, now called PPM, has met all our expectations. We're very delighted with the use of it. Internally, we have seen a good return on investment. The adoption rate has been quite easy for all our project managers and the head of the department; so we are very, very happy users.
There are several benefits to it. First of all is the accountability. You can go deep into any project that you have in your portfolio in terms of resource assignments or scheduling, costs and deviation from the plan. All of that combined with a very intuitive user interface makes the work a lot easier for all the PMO activities.
It was a big improvement because we did not previously have a formal tool to manage projects. So, we went from nothing to using the “best of breeds”; so we are very satisfied with how everything turned out.
I don't have a deep knowledge of the product, so I am probably not the best person to give you feedback on that. That would be more the function of our PMO head.
I know that there is a kind of normal evolution in the PPM roadmap. So there should be more analytics, some small improvements in terms of usability, and things like that. But I think the platform is very stable and very reliable. It's scalable; and it complies with any expectation that a company, at least a company of our size, might need.
3 years now.
Deployment has been quite smooth, where the partner´s expertise helped a lot.
I think it's a very stable platform. We haven’t suffered so far from any kind of technical difficulties. There are some bumps in the road. Maybe these are more related to functionality, or things that appear on the way that you need to learn; but I haven’t seen any technical issues.
It's a scalable enterprise-level solution. There are no problems with it.
At first, we got good help both from CA and the CA partner who joined us in the deployment. Once we rolled it out, thought, we didn’t have any kind of technical issues.
We did not use any other vendors before CA to provide a solution. When we were selecting a vendor, we considered their reliability and presence in our region. This is a key factor for us, and CA has fortunately been stable in Latin America. It's committed to our countries, and that means a lot. Price is also important. That’s normal.
It is definitely worth taking a good look at it. Don't be scared off by some people saying it's an expensive solution. You cannot compare a tool like this with some other tools that are out there in the market, or even open-source options. It's an unfair comparison. If you're looking for an enterprise-level solution, then CA PPM definitely is the best out there.
The most valuable features are:
Centralization of all projects into one tool using a standardized way of prioritization improved the visibility of current and planned spending against company’s goals and strategies in the portfolio.
Standardized status reporting and dependency management improved the awareness of business stakeholders and enabled comparisons across the whole organization.
Resource planning based on actual project performance improved the forecasting accuracy and sped up the project delivery by highlighting the potential resource shortages early enough to take corrective actions.
The user interface seems a bit outdated in some modules, while the most frequent modules have already been updated to a modern look and feel.
I have been using CA PPM for 10 years.
We have not had stability issues. The solution is available as SaaS as well as on-premise.
We have not had scalability issues. Scalability is one of the strengths of the solution.
I rate support 9 out of 10.
We did not have a previous solution.
Initial setup is easy as the solution can be implemented in an agile way. Different modules can be implemented independently and with different complexity.
Licensing is based on the type of operations the user does in the system. That is why it is important to understand which roles will be using the system and what role they play in the business process to be able to optimize the licensing cost.
We did not evaluate other options.
Do not get overwhelmed by the solution’s options and capabilities. Start small with the areas which are the most important for your business and then grow continuously using the agile implementation approach.
PPM provides the ability for staff (employees and contractors) in the entire IT organization to track time against specific investments and other work. And we can extract the data to analyze what our resources are working on. It also allows us to perform high-level resource planning.
By using PPM, we centralize where IT resources are tracking their time and eliminate the use of other tools such as spreadsheets.This enables us to gather data on what our resources are working on.
Reporting could be improved. Both the user interface and administration of Jaspersoft is very confusing and not user-friendly.
In my current organization, we have been using it for about two years.
We are on SaaS and system availability is close to 99%.
We have not had scalability issues with the application itself. However, we ran into issues with interface using XML Open Gateway (XOG) when we are injecting mass data into the application (such as resource assignment).
We use CA support and the support engineers are very knowledgeable about PPM. They have experts with deep knowledge in area where we have issues.
We did not have a previous solution.
We are on SaaS and the initial setup was pretty straightforward.
I do not deal with pricing or licensing.
I was not part of the evaluation process in this organization.
I strongly recommend to using CA Service for their expertise. Also, minimize the configuration as much as possible (stay out-of-the-box). Although PPM is highly configurable, getting to know how various functions work together in the tool is much more important than changing a label on a screen to meet a specific requirement!
The most valuable part is related to portfolio management in the home menu. We can add attributes in new and existing pages from the administration section.
In comparison to other PPM tools, these features are clearer in this solution. We can also make ranking rules, in order to select the right projects to put inside the portfolio.
Our organization, a consulting firm, is working with CA. Based on this, the CA PPM tool is one of the main services this company offers to the other organizations and configures it for them.
There should be the improvement in their strategy to align the organization with the Portfolio Management section. It should be visible in the application.
However, I see that most of the usage of the application is in terms of the technical parts. For example, when the customer wants to add new sections or make custom objects.
I have had experience working in the PPM field as an intern for around a year. However, I have used this solution for five months.
There were no stability related issues.
I did not encounter any problems in respect to the scalability. The capacity is good and it depends on the data that a company wants to enter.
I used Primavera P6 and Microsoft Project in other companies. My current company has the main concept/business of PPM and they use the CA PPM tool to offer their customers.
In terms of the licensing, I know that there are different types of demos and licensing available, such as studio or a normal user.
In this case, the user can try most of the modules. But for the administrator demo, I saw that the user only has accessibility rom the Admin menu
For a limited time, I tried out the Project Objects - Progressive Project Management Approach (PPMA) solution. It was also useful and user-friendly with a graphical environment that helps the user not be bored.
CA PPM has given our organization a way to collect, share, and store data in one place as opposed to many. Prior to the install of CA PPM, we had to pull data from many different sources to compile even a standard executive status report. Since the implementation of CA PPM, we can now ad-hoc a report or dashboard that has all information (allocated project hours, resource lists, risks and issues, and other data, for example) in a matter of minutes.
The Gantt chart is very well built and easy to use. The tool comes out-of-the-box with an MS Project clone called Workbench, and for the most part it is useful, but there is an interface that can also be utilized to connect directly with MS Project. The best feature in my opinion is the Jaspersoft reporting suite as this is well crafted and, not only contains many useful reports out of the box, but creating ad-hoc reports is as simple as drag-and-drop. It is a very powerful tool and ad-hoc reports can be turned into a standard report that shows up in all user libraries. The export of the reports or dashboards can be done in several formats, including MS Excel, MS Word, PDF, and XML. I have to say that exporting into Excel is the best I have ever seen as the resultant spreadsheet is very clean and well laid out. There is little to no adjusting that has to be done on the spreadsheet.
Scheduling and resource allocations are very clunky at best. Being able to have a standard calendar that a resource could access that would give them a schedule by day would be very helpful, but to date there is no solution (including third party vendors) to make this happen. For a resource to review his or her schedule, the process involves several steps and is not user-friendly. Getting CA to work on issues, even directly after the install, was and remains very difficult and slow. As one of the administrators of the system, it frustrates me greatly when we discover a bug in the system or need customizations done (which we pay for) and they take an unacceptable amount of time to complete the task. They are very sales-driven, but once the product is in-place, the support seems to dry up a bit.
Tech support and customer service on the part of CA is very lacking. Even at the CA World user conference that they hold every year, it seems that the third-party vendors offer much more support and education than CA does, anf that does not speak well for a technology company. They have been very slow to address bugs or other issues with our system. The best help I seem to get when I need information or assistance, comes from the CA Community boards on their website. I tend to get much quicker answers from other users than I do when I call the CA support line.
Our company previously used a home-grown project solution. It worked very well and was very user-friendly, but unfortunately did not have the capability to disseminate data from different regions or parts of our organization. Reporting in the system was very minimal and we utilized several solutions (including MS SharePoint) to share deliverables and other collaborative data to complete projects. We did evaluate other solutions (such as Oracle) but based on our organization’s needs, and promises made by the CA sales team on the system capabilities, we found that CA PPM was the best option for us.
The initial set-up and configuration was very time-consuming and complex. Over a year after the initial install we are still fighting through some issues. Building the user database can be very daunting, but the worst is getting the projects migrated over from our old system. There was a lot of heartburn from that process, even though CA system architects promised us a smooth migration. Setting up Work Breakdown Structures (WBS) and Organizational Business Structures (OBS) are also very complex and sometimes confusing tasks. Cross-over from divisions within the organization can be very difficult.
Our implementation was completed by CA Systems Architects in collaboration with our in-house team responsible for the system health and performance. The best advice I can give to anyone thinking of utilizing this tool is to create a rock-solid requirements document and make sure that you stick to your guns on what you want out of the system. If the System Architect that they provide you is not giving good customer service or is not willing to step back and explain the configurations that are being done on the system, stop the person and contact your sales representative immediately. Do not proceed with the configuration until you get the answers you are looking for, or your go-live can be pushed back quite a bit.
Licensing can be quite expensive, depending on the size of the organization. Even though there are many types of licenses (full, restricted and limited to name a few), the full licenses are the only way to utilize the system as intended and the cost per user is very high.
For many of the project creation and lifecycle functionalities, it is quite useful, but the overall user feel and agility is lacking. In the gaming industry, project lifecycles are very short compared to a standard PMP model (typically a 16-18 week cycle for larger projects and as few as two days on some of the smaller projects). Because there can be many changes to the project team, schedule, project scope and other factors, we needed a system that could be agile. While CA PPM has many tools and reports, being able to make changes quickly or being able to pull specific data out of the system requires a large effort for a small amount of information. A specific issue I have with the tool is the fact that there is no true project schedule in the system (calendar view). The Gantt chart is very helpful and well built, but there is no resource schedule that can be pulled out of the system for an employee who wants to know when they are traveling, how long they will be on a customer site, or whether or not there is a double-booking or other conflict. This can be very frustrating to our teams, schedulers, and managers.
The best advice I can give anyone looking at this tool for their organizational Portfolio/Program and Project Management needs is ask for very specific details from your sales representative. If they say that the system can do something, make them prove it in a demo. Many of the functions that they sold us on don’t exist or are much more challenging than they lead on. When it comes time to install, make sure the System Architect they send is comfortable with walking clients through the system processes and configurations. Our architect was not friendly and was clearly uncomfortable in front of an “audience”. He was also very confrontational in many instances. If you start to see this in your architect, halt all proceedings and get a replacement ASAP. If not, you can be looking at a lengthy delay in deployment.
The capacity to plan and manage projects. It has the profile of every person who works at the company.
Perfect for centralized planning and viewing the capacity of work of each group which is developing applications
The product doesn't have a way to simulate different kinds of plans. When you have a new plan with a high priority, there isn't a way to simulate the impact of the new plan
We have been using the solution for four years.
We did not have any stability issues.
I wasn’t involved at the beginning of the project. During my stay at the bank, we didn’t perform any upgrade with CA PPM.
I would give technical support a rating of 8/10.
We did not use another solution previously.
I didn't attend the initial setup, but I heard that it was difficult.
We did not evaluate any other options.
I can say that it’s a product with high potential.
Project management in CA PPM is elastic and comprehensive. You can adjust the solution to any organization quickly and easily.
Studio is a powerful component that lets you add and modify features in an easy way without writing code. These features include new objects, attributes, views, process, and portlets.
The interface needs improvement. The new UI/UX (from version 15.1) is modern and more intuitive, but it only covers a small piece of the solution. The rest is the classic UI.
A new UX in CA PPM is the answer to the problem with complexity and the huge options in classic UI, which is the cause of problems using the solution for a beginner. The new UX is quite easy to use, but only covers time sheet management and part of project management. Switching between new and old interface is tiring. I understand that to develop a new UX needs time, but integration between the new and the old UI/UX should be better.
I have been using CA PPM for eight years.
We have not had stability issues.
Technical support is good, but fixes for bugs have a very long life cycle of many months.
We did have a previous solution. However, the class of the tool was much lower, so the tools are not comparable.
The initial setup was quite complex, especially in the financial area. But the solution can be usable after one hour of setup by an expert.
The price is high, but the solution is very comprehensive. The price is acceptable only if the solution is core for the organization.
CA PPM is one of the best solutions in the PPM area, but it is quite expensive.
All of these show not only the current state, but also integrated views of the impact of proposed changes across the organization in terms of resources and costs.
CA PPM provides an integrated view of the total set of projects in the organization. It also has the ability to see data by multiple slices: by department, project type, objective, resource type, etc. The possibilities are nearly endless.
Since it is all in a common database, there are no longer questions about the data sources, or how current the information is.
I have been using this solution for twelve years. I began with much earlier versions.
There are no significant issues with stability. Unplanned outages are extremely rare and brief.
There are no issues at all with scalability. The system is capable of supporting tens of thousands of users globally.
Technical support is variable. The core product support is very good, typically with quick response times and very helpful engineers.
The support for the reporting tools is much less effective.
Support for infrastructure related issues, i.e., how the application is affected by the operating system, browser, and related external elements is variable. Some are quickly resolved and some drag on.
I am personally familiar with a number of other solutions, but my current organization has been using this software since I have been associated with them.
Most other organizations that I am familiar with who switched solutions, did so to take advantage of the comprehensive feature set, the ease of use, and the easy configuration.
The product itself is easy to set up and configure. Whether that is complex or not, depends on how complex the organization is.
If there are a lot of business rules that need to be incorporated, then those need to be accommodated and it will take more time.
In some cases, the real implementation timeline is around managing the change to a new system internally, and not in preparing the system itself.
Be sure about what kinds of functions you will want your users to perform on the system. That will impact the type and cost of the license based on the licensing model that CA uses.
This is an enterprise PPM solution, so it will have functional aspects that extend into many corners of the enterprise.
The focus should be on the functionality that is needed, and not on small differences in cost. There will rarely be a significant cost difference between systems that are competing at this level.
This product was in place when I joined the organization.
Take the implementation as an opportunity to simplify your business processes and not simply to try to replicate existing processes into a new tool.
The out-of-the-box functionality has a lot of power and capability and should be used wherever possible.
If you do have a few critical, must-have processes, have them demonstrated before you commit to the tool. Be sure that they are real needs and not just legacy “that’s how we have always done it” items.
It's about integrating the allocation of resources, assignment, into the investment management, so we can actually look at not only how well we're doing, but if we have enough resources, if we're using them appropriately.
We don't need on-premise hardware. The expense of the hardware is not a big issue, but it's the administration of the hardware, the administration of the backup solution. SaaS provides us more freedom.
Transparency is one improvement to the organization. The solution we provide not only to our technical staff and for IT project management. We're starting to integrate it into the other areas, like HR for HRIS, and the business is now doing projects through it, so transparency's one of the big key factors. Because we now use it for that piece, it provides the main topic and the main context for our strategy committee sessions with the department leaders.
From a transparency perspective, we're now showing all we're doing. From an overall perspective, we're able to help enable the business by showing where we're spending the money, how we're spending the money, how the investments are moving, what's the benefit and the value. Every department, even within IT, be it the application development, the infrastructure guys, they were all doing their own thing. We really didn't see, not necessarily how they're spending, but how they're utilizing the resources. Now, because we're not siloed, because we're all utilizing one single application, one source of truth, we've provided some really good collaboration now and lessons learned from all these other projects that we didn't really have before.
I would like to see more simplified interfaces for reporting development. The Jaspersoft function is very cool, but it requires a bit of skill. More object-orientated, less database management, I think would help for report writing. That would be the most helpful.
The solution is fairly stable, a bit slow, especially from a SaaS perspective. We have heavy security where I come from, so that slows it down even more, but from a stability perspective, it's quite exceptional.
It's very scalable, not only for the product itself, but integrating service management and other functions of CA. The more we get comfortable with it, you move from project management to portfolio management. You're not just doing asset allocation, you're also doing, and so on and so forth.
I would say technical support is excellent, and I use them daily.
We knew it was time to invest in a new solution because of all the silos. We had to integrate everybody into one centralized point. It's just good governance.
The most important criteria when selecting a vendor are years of experience, accuracy of calculation, scalability, SQL back end, interoperability with our existing applications, and familiarity.
From an asset management perspective, from time sheet management, project management, from a summary nature, we wanted to move towards portfolio, and that’s where we saw CA PPM really shine. You start with your asset allocation, your resource administration; you move into your project management. Now you can see portfolio management, because you have that good initial data. You know: Garbage in, garbage out. Now that we have good stuff in, we're getting great stuff out.
From a user perspective, user experience, when we first put CA PPM in place, we found it very difficult, not very intuitive, a very uncomfortable user experience. Moving towards the next version, which is now 51 – which we're just utilizing now, we just started about two months ago – the end user experience is much better, facilitating adoption.
We had a few solutions on our shortlist. One was the Microsoft Project Server solution.
We chose CA because it was simplified with the SaaS and the company we hired for integration, it just made better sense.
From my perspective, usability, you get exactly what you put into it. With that comes issues, but the functionality and being able to display holistically to our executives and our department leaders, I think, was the key feature of why we chose CA.
Start slowly. Look at it from a module perspective. Do your resource utilization piece first. Go to project management. Go to portfolio management after that.
I love the time tracking module. That's what I'm most familiar with, at this time: being able to go in and actually break it down; see what everybody is doing; how they're allocating their time; see who's underallocated, overallocated.
It's really helping us with our resource management; being able to pull people where they need to go; get additional help where help is needed. It helps us collaborate with our project management teams, our PMO, all across the company, shared services.
Overall portfolio management is something that we would like to improve on.
The company has been using it for several years now. Personally, I've only been using it for under a year.
In my experience, it's very stable, especially compared to other applications that we've used in the past. I have no complaints whatsoever.
At this time, it's meeting our scalability needs. We are looking to build out other areas, so we are assessing the different components to build out in.
From what I understand, from my technical person, the support is excellent.
I actually don't have a lot of experience with the initial setup; however, we are right now just beginning to upgrade. It seems to be that it's going to be fairly easy. We're going to be able to get it upgraded in less than six months; 3-6 months.
Personally, I have not evaluated other options. I come from a different area, and we have other ways of doing things that are not as streamlined.
I have a finance background so when I am selecting a vendor, I definitely want someone reliable, someone who is affordable, can answer all of our questions, who can bend and flow with the organization's growth. Or, if we sell pieces of the organization, we need to be able to flex, so I'm looking for a partner that will be able to do that.
I don't like to give anything a perfect score because I don't know enough about every aspect of it; however, from my experience, it's been a great tool.
Flexibility is probably the most significant feature that we take advantage of. Being a large company with a lot of customized solutions, migrating from our legacy applications into PPM obviously has been a major challenge. The flexibility of PPM, our ability to customize it and configure it to our needs has been a big selling point of the tool.
Probably the biggest reason for going with SaaS is the thin footprint. Obviously, not having to engage our internal resources to basically support the infrastructure for PPM was a big selling point. The ability to essentially upgrade without a lot of involvement from our staff was another big selling point for us. Obviously, the vision is essentially to have transparent upgrades for the tool with minimal effort on our side. Certainly, going with the SaaS solution has allowed us to basically upgrade the application in a matter of weeks rather than spending months planning for the upgrade.
The major benefit is, with our legacy applications, right now, we have approximately 600 IT projects, spanning 12 different portfolios. In our old world, we had essentially a number of different solutions supporting the 600 projects and 12 portfolios. The vision that PPM has allowed us to take advantage of is, now, we have consolidated all our portfolios and projects under one tool, instead of a multitude of solutions.
This solution has helped align our overall IT and business strategy because we all now talk the same language, if you will. In the past, with everybody having their own spreadsheet-based solution, when you essentially try to talk about project status, you really had to understand what their solutions were for managing their portfolios and their projects. By having everything consolidated under PPM, now everybody has a unified way of looking into their projects. When you talk about what's red, yellow and green for your project status, it isn't essentially this grab bag of, “Well, that depends on how you measure it.” We're all now being measured by the same tool, being PPM. When we talk about our status being red, yellow or green, we all know exactly what that means because, essentially, it's all PPM speak and not essentially some homegrown solution supporting the various portfolios.
We're really looking forward to the integration of Agile Central into PPM. Obviously, we now have a solution that services the needs of our project managers and our portfolio directors. Being able to integrate Agile Central into our solution base here, obviously allows us to extend the reach of PPM from the project management and portfolio managers all the way down to the actual development teams. Obviously, bringing everybody under a consolidated umbrella will help unify the beginning-to-end lifecycle of our projects.
The big improvement for us would be timesheet management. We have a legacy timesheet management solution that we're moving off of into PPM. It goes down to the activity level for the recording of time. In the current PPM solution, while they handle the reporting of time to the individual task and your project plans really nicely, breaking it down to the individual activity level such as requirements, design, different support activities, the tool doesn't necessarily play in that space really nicely. Certainly, we'd like to see them do a little bit more with regards to taking that time recording down to a lower level of detail. Of course, for us it's all about analytics and, of course, project management thrives on analytics.
It is very stable. We have not had a single issue with the SaaS solution for PPM since we've been on board. We came on board live in production about a year ago. We have not experienced a single outage with SaaS solutions since we've gone live. Obviously, knock on wood, we understand that, in the IT world, downtime is a fact of the way things work but, as of a year in production, we have yet to encounter an outage that has impacted our user base.
Indeed, we have used technical support, more so from a development perspective, though, not from, obviously, an issue with a production outage or issues with our production environment. Being that we're looking to configure the tool in different ways to satisfy the needs of our various portfolios, we've actually had some conversations with CA support to help us understand how we can essentially move from the vanilla PPM to something that obviously suits the needs of our business. They've been very responsive with regards to answering our questions on how exactly we can move from today's world to what we need to do in the future.
We had a plethora of solutions and, of course, they all did things a little bit differently. When we tried to take a look at the overall portfolio of all our IT projects, there was really nothing to unify everybody under one common solution. Essentially, if you talk to one portfolio, they manage things in a certain way. A different portfolio would do it completely different. Of course, when you tried to look at the overall IT budget, it got to be a very complex solution. Of course, if you try to take a holistic look – you have resources and projects, and you have your planned budgets – nothing was under the same umbrella. It was a hodge-podge, and a lot of manual time and effort went into basically having just a simple conversation on, "Hey. What do we want to do next year?"
Bringing everything into PPM, now, the conversation’s about what we want to do next year and the whole what-if scenarios that come out with regards to, "Hey, what if we do this? What if we do that?" Instead of taking weeks and months to have those discussions, we can now have them in real-time, right here and right now.
We actually employed an implementation partner. With PPM, there are a lot of consulting firms that specialize in PPM implementations. We actually picked an implementation partner who helped us through the various questions and considerations to evaluate before we went live.
Certainly, doing it ourselves would have been a little intimidating, but with the help and assistance of CA services and the implementation partner, actually, the migration from our legacy solutions to now a PPM-based solution has been relatively painless.
We did have five other vendors on our shortlist. We did take an exhaustive look at all five of them. In the end, it really came down to CA PPM’s flexibility and the ability for it to basically configure itself to meet the needs of our organization and its ability to be a SaaS solution rather than an on-premise solution. Certainly, we're looking to have a unified solution that we can essentially standardize the company but still configure it so that it's specific to our needs, and yet, obviously, have it hosted at an external site, where we don’t have to necessarily spend the time and energy to make it happen.
I definitely recommend going to CA World and talking to all the other companies that have implemented PPM solutions to see how they did it. One thing we definitely learned at a previous CA World, when we were doing our evaluation of PPM, everyone we spoke to had accolades about how they love the tool and what they are doing with it. Of course, when you hear all the stories of how they basically move from their legacy solutions to a PPM-based solution, you quickly realize that it can do everything you need to do, more and more.
It's definitely met and exceeded all our expectations with regards to the tool. We knew we'd have to make some concessions with the tool. Obviously, if you're moving from your completely customized solution to one that's more of a package-based solution, we figured we’d have to give up on some things with regards to our process, but we found with PPM, it's so flexible and so configurable that everything that we had customized for the homegrown solutions, we were able to actually port it directly into PPM. Now, essentially, we've got a standardized solution across our whole entire organization that still has all the benefits of our homegrown solutions that we had in the past.
The organization can obtain, from only one solution, a consolidated view of its project and portfolio management with the real cost of its projects and services, and the aggregation of all the IT investments.
It could be a real improvement to change the UI behavior, to work more in the foreground. This should allow implementing of input data controls, popup messages, etc. At the moment, the UI behavior works totally in the background and it’s a handicap to designing and implementing some UI and data form controls.
Summaring, UI enhancements in front-end ITSM modules, could position better CA PPM as unique IT solution
I have been using it for four years.
You could receive some error during the install/upgrade process, but the workarounds and iterations in this process in case of error are well documented
You shouldn't encounter stability issues if you have well-dimensioned environments and scheduled maintenance reboots. Without these reboots, you’re likely to have memory issues in Windows environments.
You shouldn't encounter scalability issues in well-dimensioned environments and configured with the vendor best-practices
Technical support is effective, based on a deep KB. The technical support responses are based, mostly, on KB articles.
Initial setup needs expertise level for some functionalities or modules. For some of these modules, you need previous knowledge of how the solution works, and there’s no clear step-by-step guide.
It seems obvious, but it’s strongly recommended to stay close to the standards and to use the OOTB functionalities (and to customize them if it’s the case), instead of implementing custom parallel functionalities. You will avoid future compatibility issues or complex product upgrade processes.
Up to version 12.x the GUI was still Web 1.0, and although it has been redesigned with release 13.x-14.x it is bit behind other solutions. (Based on the evaluation of 15.1 release I can confirm that UX has really improved). Replacement of Business Objects with Jaspersoft BI and its full integration within CA PPM is still not finalized but gets better with every release.
My company has been using for 10 years. (I am involved for last six.)
Upgrade projects from 12.0 to 13.1 (2013) and then to 13.3 (2014) were rather smooth. I was not around when Clarity was deployed the first time (2006-2007).
I have not really encountered any stability issues. I observed two occasions in past six years that service needed to be restarted due to becoming unresponsive. More often, we experienced unpleasant lags with screen refresh in the beginning (due to incorrect set up of portlets mostly that was later resolved).
I have not encountered any scalability issues.
Technical support experience varied over the time.
We previously used two instances of Clarity in the business division and a different PPM tool in the IT organization for IT PPM. The decision was to deploy one system group-wide for all kinds of projects.
Business requirements specification and evaluation took four months, followed by almost six months of the design review. The tool itself was not to be blamed, as the organisation was not willing to adjust any of the complex workflows it was using with the previous solutions.
We chose the least expensive vendor and their level of expertise was not balanced (in some areas excellent, in others less so).
We never estimated ROI (which is huge pity as there are calculation tools available both from CA and independent consulting companies).
It is not the cheapest option, but definitely worth the price (if properly designed and implemented).
No other options have been evaluated as the management decision was to apply EA principle of recycling already owned tool deployed in 2 independent installations.
Get familiar with the out-of-the-box functionality. Even if you do not plan to roll out fully fledged resource management with time tracking, make sure you understand how the things work. If you decide to start with something "lighter" (that is what CA PPM integrators always suggest), you will be left dependent on the custom solution of that vendor.
The ability to identify business value associated with the financial management of projects.
Just the ability to capture the project scope and the cost associated with it. It adds to the business value.
Not sure which release we are in right now, but we're going to use the next release with Jaspersoft integration. I'd like to see their collaboration.
When looking for a vendor, I look for stability in partnership. For this price and for our use of the tool, this is an effective enterprise solution.
The most valuable features of this solution are the portfolio management and the resources. Resources are key for us.
The benefit is to prioritize which projects we need to really focus on throughout the calendar year, and then correctly allocate the qualified resources to those projects.
We're on a SaaS environment, so we don't have direct access to the database. It would be great if we could somehow, some way access the database through that.
Stability is good. We support over 300 users and I haven't seen any problems at all.
I think it could handle a vast amount of data, a vast number of users that are using the tool simultaneously.
I have not used technical support for the solution.
We weren't using any sort of PPM tool at the time; it was all through spreadsheets.
Initial setup was straightforward; just using the tool, navigating it, what to do, what not to do. That sort of thing.
You should really look at the tool itself because it's a really powerful tool. It can do a lot of things, cover a lot of ground quickly and it can easily be picked up, as far as skill sets go.
I have rated it as such because of a lot of the project-related stuff it solves. Right now, we're just figuring out how to use the resources.
Even though I didn’t really make the decision, the most important criteria for me when selecting vendors, in general, are knowledge; experience; willingness to walk the customer through their issues; really understanding what problems they have; and how they can help them achieve their goals.
The most valuable features are the ability to manage projects, statuses, various queued tasks of the project; and time tracking related to resource management.
It definitely gives us a way to group and manage our projects across the entire organization, as well as track time of resources so we can use that within our capitalization efforts.
We're actually trying to evolve our portfolio management practice within the tool, but from a project perspective, it's done well. I guess we're still trying to see how we can maximize and use it across the portfolio.
We are not with the current release, and I do not think that there is anything really glaringly wrong about it. Some of the issues we've had as far as project integration issues, for example, are probably addressed in the current version.
It's pretty stable. We haven't had any significant outages, no crazy bugs. The version we're running is probably about three releases from the current version, so we like to make sure it's a stable version before we upgrade. We will probably upgrade to 14.4, the current version soon, but right now it's pretty stable.
It's really scalable.
Personally, I haven't used technical support. We have a technical lead who does most of our technical work and deals with CA’s technical support. I think he's been pretty happy.
Personally, I think there are some things that could be a little better, particularly regarding response times. Over time, I think, they have showed improvement. There hasn’t been anything glaring that would make me say their support is terrible.
It's been set up for over 10 years now. It's evolved from there, but I think the initial setup was over 10 years ago.
Make sure the organization is ready for the solution. Sometimes it's a lot about process. The tool can't fix process issues. If the process isn’t built for the tool, it is not going to work correctly. Make sure you prepare the processes first, so they will be ready for it.
We look for something sustainable. Sustainability is a very important value for the users and for our IT team, who are the people supporting it.
Its strength is all the different features it offers. It's kind of a one-stop shop solution for project managers, resource managers, and finance department personnel. There are a lot of different uses for the tools; and it enabled us to consolidate our list of tools from five or six tools down to just PPM. We're managing one tool with one person managing it as an administrator, instead of having two or three administrators for each tool, with manual processes, and so on.
It is much more streamlined, with a lot more automation, and it’s just easy to use.
A benefit of the SaaS version is not needing to deal with any of the standard on-premise issues that you have. We can rely on the vendor to do a lot more of the upgrade work and things like that. I don't feel like we're pressured, like we would experience with some of the other SaaS providers out there, to be on the latest version or pick up any other applications that go with it.
It just costs much less, and it's as reliable as if it were on-premises. We don't have to pay for the hardware cost. We don't really have to support any of that. It's just a matter of giving them a call and asking for whatever it is we need.
When you look at it, it saves us a ton of money. Fewer FTEs to manage the different products or tools. As I've mentioned, it's a one-stop shop. As a project manager, I can go in and do all the administrative work that I need to do; instead of doing it manually over spreadsheets, uploading it to SharePoint, and so on. It's just a lot more straightforward and convenient.
We're actually releasing two different funding portfolios. Right now, I think we have between 10 and 13 in the company. As we're going through each of the funding portfolios, we're evaluating what they're doing today. We're not only just making them use PPM, but we're streamlining some of their processes and weeding out some of those things that we used to do solely because they are used to doing it that way. The funding portfolios are becoming much more efficient. We're re-evaluating what the value is of everything that we do today. As we streamline it, we put it in the PPM.
It needs to provide a more mobile-friendly user experience. There could maybe be a little bit more around Jaspersoft reporting. I know Jaspersoft is kind of decoupled from PPM, but reporting is one of the big draws for us. It would be nice to be able to do all our project management, and then report on it, using the same tool. If they could keep building out Jaspersoft, that would be great.
We have no issues with stability.
We're going from a few hundred users to several thousand in a few months. We haven't done any stability testing, or anything like that, with around three thousand users; but we know that there are other companies which do use that many people; so we're not too worried about it. We aren’t experiencing any issues today.
Technical support has been average. We do a lot of investigation on our side before we use CA support. Our assumption is that if we can't figure it out, they should probably be able to. A lot of times, it takes a couple of days before we even get a decent response, or something that gets us closer.
It almost seems like we need to rely on some of the contractors that we use, such as Regal Consulting to answer some of our more in-depth questions.
Their whole support model seems to be a little bit fractured, I guess. Depending on the issue we have, we have a completely different experience. I would say there are some frustrating aspects of that and we're not always confident that we're going to get an answer to any of our questions.
We hope the expertise will improve. As we get more and more in tune with PPM, we're answering more of our own questions. I'll be honest.
We didn't have any real solution in place. We saw the need for a tool to take on all these different responsibilities, and PPM just happened to fall into place.
I wasn't around for the vendor selection. I know we looked at a Microsoft product and then there was one other one. I think what it came down to was this: Microsoft was cheaper because of the deal we have with them, but CA PPM fit more of what we're looking to do in terms of our long-term vision. It was going to fit a little bit more. It was more aligned with what our company was looking to do.
My advice would be to make sure that you understand the tool before you start fitting everyone or moving everyone to it. If you don't understand the architecture, it can cause a lot of rework in the future. Truly understanding the tools is important while having experts that understand the tools is critical.
We are currently using the Idea feature for project intake. We actually locked (CA PPM) Clarity down, so people can't open projects. In order to initiate a project, they come through the Idea feature. That helps us because for resource management, we get more applications and all the required fields are populated at that time. That feature is very valuable for us.
We are using the SaaS version of this tool. It works the same as the non-SaaS version, but I know that our responsibility on the back end is different. We don't have that responsibility anymore, and that's a benefit to us.
The project management expertise varies across the organization. This tool works for the people who are advanced as well for the new people.
With every pre-launch process, we want to be transparent in what's going on for the organization. We want people to know up front what's expected and when they're going to be needed on a project. This tool helps us get that transparency.
I'm looking forward to the addition of the Jaspersoft reporting feature. We don't have that right now. This feature is going to make things easier to measure. I do a lot of metrics and recording, and this feature will help.
The stability of this solution is fine. I've never even seen it go down. It's very, very good. We're always notified when there is scheduled downtime.
This tool is scalable. It’s big enough for us and the right size for our organization.
We have a consultant who we use for our technical problems.
We had Primavera before we moved over to (CA PPM) Clarity. I wasn't involved in that decision, so I don't know the reason behind that transition.
To offer advice to colleagues researching this solution, I would need to know what they were looking for first, and then I could see what wasn't working for them. Nonetheless, (CA PPM) Clarity is a very robust tool and you can really do a lot with it. It has a lot of features and a lot of capabilities that we don’t even use yet. For our needs, it works.
We use it to track projects and work in our portfolio. For us, it is about the reporting on project statuses during the project lifecycle.
The benefit of using the SaaS version is that it is more manageable than needing to have the infrastructure and the overhead of being on-premise, which would be too much for us. We really like being able to use the SaaS solution so that CA is managing everything except the actual data capture and generating reports.
With it, we're able to organize how we collect information and ideas and projects and get them funded. Without it, we would be using Excel spreadsheets and people don't want it to be like that.
It lets us aggregate all that information about ideas and projects, and put them into common reports which we can share. That's been very valuable.
I would like to see the ability to connect with other kinds of reporting engines like Tableau, or other kinds of BI tools. That would be crucial for us. We use those tools anyway, so we end up exporting data from PPM, and then importing it into those tools. It would be better if we could do it directly.
It's very stable.
It's very scalable.
Technical support has been up and down. That's not always a great experience. It's difficult to work with. I've been using this product for many years now, so it's both good and bad.
We had nothing before. We were basically doing it manually in spreadsheets. This was our first foray into formal project portfolio management. We made that move in 2009.
It was fairly difficult to get going. We had to try it a couple times. We had signed up initially for a program that was supposed to get it up and running in 30 days, but it didn't explain enough or train us enough about this very complicated product; so it actually took us a couple of years before it was right.
The HPE solution and the CA solution are really the only two options at this level. In general, we decide primarily on a vendor based on price and features. Our organization undertook a couple of different times to look at who makes these kinds of products, what they offer, and for how much (the per seat cost). We believe that we arrived at the right solution in terms of the amount of features for the cost.
Make sure that you need all the functionality included in the PPM tool because it's very complete. That means it can also be very confusing. If you don't need this much functionality, look at something that's not quite as robust in the enterprise class. There are other tools that don't have all the features. They aren't as complete, but they are easier to use.
The most valuable features are the resource management, project management, and tracking time for our employees.
I would like to see better dashboards within the tool and better integration with SAP BusinessObjects.
It is very stable.
Technical support is very good.
Previously, we just had too many spreadsheets and one-off processes.
We considered HPE, CA, and I can't remember the other one.
The most important factors when we decide on a vendor are: the quality of support, the functionality, and whether it is customizable to suit our business needs. It must be extendable.
You should know that you can customize it to suit the way that you do business. Don’t think that you need to do everything all at once.
PPM provides end-to-end processes for portfolio, project, and resource management. It allows you to ramp up, in a controlled manner, based on your organization’s needs. The ability to configure PPM gives you the flexibility to align it and its strengths with your particular needs and the nuances of your organization. You're not isolated in a siloed process that can't expand. You've got a process area you can work in and then utilize the configuration capability to meet your needs.
It provides visibility into what we're working on and the amount of time we're spending. It helps us validate our forecast for labor resources and milestones for delivery. That's our primary use now. We're moving more into areas of resource management and forecasting for one and two years out. That's our next area that we're ramping up in. It provides the product management and the high-level portfolio management visibility we need today.
I recently went to a conference to see what upcoming features are going to be. I want to see what the trade offs are. With any change, you're always dropping some type of feature or capability. The key is knowing, in advance, what that new feature is so you can make the proper plans, address those changes, and communicate them to ensure good collaboration. If we do that, we'll be successful.
This is our third year using the tool.
So far, we've had very favorable uptime usage. We haven't had any major issues with downtime. That's been a pleasant surprise. We're using it in a SaaS platform and we're pleased with what we're seeing. The configuration capability that it offers has been beneficial to us. We're starting to leverage the new reporting capabilities that let our users to be power users rather than having to staff a reporting organization to supply all our needs.
It’s a little too early to evaluate scalability. Thus far, it's been scalable for our organization. We have a solid relationship with CA and if we have any challenges or needs we have an open line of communication. We work with them and those needs are addressed as needed.
Technical support is very good. We contact them if we have an issue that's not easily identified and it’s resolved pretty quickly. We open a ticket and monitor it’s progress. We maintain a continuous communication loop with CA until the issue is resolved.
We wanted to leverage our existing relationship with CA. We were trying to consolidate in our vendors, which most companies try to do. Having a shorter list makes life simpler as far as planning and budgeting. The CA suite for PPM and Clarity was ranked up very high by several of the independent research companies so we evaluated it with other tools and it came out on top. We've been moving forward since then.
I became involved mid-stream. The initial setup was already underway and I followed that through initial implementation into the growth and maturity stages of the processes, to align them within our organization.
It was a straightforward process. There was a degree of complexity because it was a different type process. Out of the box, it has a set procedure you need to follow. There are steps A, B, and C, and you're locked into that. With configuration, comes a degree of complexity. You have to be disciplined enough to build your processes first and then work on utilizing the tool, which is the right process to follow. It was a different method from what we had worked with in the past.
We considered several of the top vendors in that space that would be ranked in Gartner or Forrester. I won't mention what those are because they still have some relationship with us. All top tier, which spoke well for CA that they, from our perspective, came out on top.
Regardless of the solution you're looking for, always think about what your process is. Define those processes and have a clear understanding of your goal. Document that, clearly state it, and get buy-in from the key stakeholders, because they're going to be the individuals that are key to helping drive adoption downstream once those processes are built. It's not about the technology, it's about the process. In this case, I think the technology supports the processes that we want to invoke now and in the future.
We're using it as an on-demand service. We're don’t have an on-premises install, so we're learning some things in that space, as well.
When selecting a vendor, the relationship is key. A solid customer relationship must be more than just talk. You have to be able to demonstrate it and practice it. I think we saw that early on in the partnership with CA and in initially setting up the solution and understanding what was required. I think that's key to success.
We've used this solution as an enterprise tool. It allowed us to bring organizations together for communication, planning, and cost. Outside of our IT department, we are integrated heavily with our marketing areas, both on the wireless and the wireline side. That includes marketing, sales, operations, products, new business development, and networking. All those areas come together and are able to communicate within the tool.
This solution has brought our groups a lot closer together and allowed them to communicate much easier rather than using emails and spreadsheets. Data is now in a central location. It's simplified the funnel process from our business partners, particularly into the IT and the network areas.
It has facilitated a much better ranking process, so that we can focus on what's most important for the business partners. It has helped us align our projects and portfolios to the overall business or IT strategy. It enabled proper management of the funnel and proper ranking and priority setting.
I'm really excited about seeing a simplified user interface. We've starting looking at the new UI with version 15. I'm somewhat disappointed in the limitation of functionality there. We'd like to see that expanded much more. As I understand it, you can't use custom attributes in the new UI. That limits what we do, because we have a number of customizations that we've made. I would like to see better performance, as always.
Our environment is fairly stable, but it is not as fast as what we'd like. Stability-wise, it's up and running. There are performance issues. It's obviously not as fast as we'd like it to be. The biggest complaint is too many clicks to get to where you need to be in order to perform a function.
It scaled very well. We have around 6,500 users. We have had no scalability issues.
My group doesn't use technical support as much as our development team, but we seem to have a great relationship with CA.
We actually moved from using three different project management tools into a single system. By the time I came along, the choice was made. There was a pretty heavy process of reviewing vendors with similar products, grading and rating them, and making a decision.
I was involved in the setup. I came from a background of not knowing the product, so it was complex at the time. We've grown to understand it since.
I would suggest not customizing it. It makes it much simpler that way and makes upgrades easier. It makes long-term maintenance much easier and allows you to use existing functionality.
I like that it’s very flexible. If you need it to do something, you can make it do that. That's a good thing.
For example, out of the box we use the SaaS version. It's not highly customizable as if we'd installed it locally, but out of the box there's no process to load the data warehouse on any regular basis. So you have to make a job to schedule and run this process according to your schedule. They give you the tools to do all these different things.
Previously, we used a different tool that didn’t have very good reporting. Clarity PPM came with reports out of the box, and we can make more, as we need. That was a really good thing.
It doesn’t help us collaborate more so than before. We're trying to open it up to other areas of the company. Right now it's just used within IT.
For a lot of people, it's just a place to put your buckets for your time. I'm not on the team supporting the tool; I'm on the technical side. Whereas we have a team of people that support the PPM and deals with business strategy.
The main benefit of the SaaS version is the cost. Also, I'm not responsible for any server maintenance, which is nice. If their servers go down, it's somebody else that gets a call at 3 a.m., not me. I like that.
I would like to see some of the automations that I've implemented included as part of the tool. For example, prior to a couple weeks ago, our administrator would have to go in every week and manually open next week's time sheet and close an old time sheet. We got some code that automated that process for us. I don't see why that couldn't be something that was just a part of the tool.
It's been very stable for us. We've been using our PPM implementation as a means by which to encourage the company to get more on-demand solutions because it's been successful for us.
We haven't had any stability issues.
I have used technical support. You need to get to the right person and that can be challenging. We've had tickets open for months, and we would try to reach out and say, "Hey, what's going on with this?" "Well, we're working on it, we'll get back to you." In certain situations, that would go on for months.
Finally, I'd get a phone call or an email from another person saying, "Oh, I was just assigned this ticket, here's the two-minute thing you need to do to fix it." Once you get to the right person, it’s great. But now I know who to go to.
We used Primavera for almost ten years. People were generally unhappy with it. They felt that it was inflexible and wanted something new. We have other products from CA, and they came and offered us PPM if we got a bundle. It was a big change for us to go from an old tool to the new tool.
I was not involved in the selection process. That was much higher than me, so I don't know what they did.
I was involved in the initial setup. Just setting up the system was very easy, because they did it all and it's on demand. Trying to make it work in our world had it's moments. For many projects, we had to get the old data from the old system into our new system. That posed some interesting and unique challenges.
I would have to look at Primavera all over again, because I know they're changing and evolving.
My advice is to plan, plan, and plan. Just know what it is you want and then go for it.
The most valuable features are time compliance, capacity and demand, and resource management; knowing who is allocated to what task, what projects, what activities, and if they're on track or not. We have time compliance goals, where we have to complete time sheets and we have to have one-on-one meetings with our leadership. That's another value: making sure that we're compliant with those.
Cost and agility; it helps with that.
We use the SaaS version. It is really good because we don't have to be responsible for the platform; the hardware, upgrading hardware, upgrading the software, or any of those things. It enables us to have fewer developer hours supporting the product.
I don't know what I need right now, but we're implementing a lot of tools and we need to make sure that we can integrate. So, I’d like to see more APIs and maybe some improved UI with the Jaspersoft Business Objects Reporting side of it, to increase customer adoption.
I have not given it a perfect rating because of the UI of the reporting in Jaspersoft; just some UI issues, I guess.
We've had good stability with it.
Scalability is good. It's a licensing model; you just upgrade your license when you need to add more users. That's good.
They provide good technical support. We don't have a lot of issues, but we've had success with getting feedback from them and getting resolution to our issues in a timely manner.
We were previously using Primavera.
We decided to move to CA PPM because we had an ELA with CA and we needed to get to a tool that we could integrate with other systems. Also, Primavera was legacy. We had it for a long time, so we needed to get a better tool.
In general, the most important criteria when selecting a vendor is partnership, collaboration and working together to provide the best solution.
I wasn't involved with the initial setup. I wasn't responsible for the product until just before it was implemented in production. I've been supporting it since then.
From what I’ve heard, initial setup was pretty straightforward. We had some issues with resource management APIs, but I don’t think that's any different from others. It was data related.
It takes time; it's not done overnight. It takes a year or two to implement.
The most valuable features of the solution are that it's process driven and helps push our business users to follow that process.
We use it for time tracking and that is a big aspect that we use it for. It's a very useful tool to track all those hours against all the project work that we do and to get the metrics to understand where our resources are going.
I would like to see a continued focus on the Data Warehouse and the reporting tool. There is a big opportunity there and some things are still not quite there when you compare it to other solutions that have turned out well.
Currently the Data Warehouse does not store/archive historical data. Anytime you run the Full Load to load it with data, the table is truncated and reloaded with a specific time interval of data. It would be really useful if that data stayed in there and did not need to be truncated so, over time, you would build a system with historical data that you could purge from the transactional tables.
Regarding Jaspersoft, the tool itself is lacking from a user community, especially when compared to BOXI and more mature tools. Our users already use BOXI and can do so much more when it comes to building reports on their own.
The solution is quite stable. Occasionally, we might have issues on some newer features when we go through upgrades but once we get past them, we usually don't have those issues again.
Our company has about 26,000 users on it. It's been extremely good for us. There are some performance issues that we have to work through. We are testing its limits but it's quite scalable.
Support can be a hit or miss depending on the engineer. I've worked with some very smart engineers that help you get to the root of the problem easily. On the other hand, with some engineers, they go through the bread-and-butter responses and sometimes that takes a while to get to the issue at hand.
I don't know as it was set up a long time ago.
This product does a lot so it would depend on what you are doing. I would recommend to use this software.
There are some improvements that the product can make in regards to the reporting solutions and data warehousing, It should also improve with the way the screens work. Currently, it is one of the best solutions out there and it has a lot of functionality. It could be better though.
In my opinion, the most important criteria while selecting a vendor is how responsive the organization is to your needs and that plays a big part. I know a lot of people with this software who have their own personal implementations or ways to do it. You can get into some issues that are unique to your own. When an organization is always willing to communicate and is flexible, that helps a lot.
The most valuable features are its compatibility with other programs, easy to use and the report generating feature.
It has consistent delivery of reports and all project-related information housed in one place.
We would like to see compatibility with more than just one scheduling tool. Primavera P6 is our tool and it drives our projects.
Currently, we are still in development and we're not in production. The few times that we've tried putting it in production, it hasn't been that stable.
From what I've seen at a recent conference, I'm quite impressed. You can do a lot with it and there is lot of room for growth.
They are very good and extremely responsive when it comes to addressing questions. They provide good suggestions for any troubleshooting.
We were using a previous solution; it was a combination of Microsoft Access, SharePoint tables and Excel. It was becoming too cumbersome and time consuming to produce reports and we needed something to manage all our projects. With the number of projects we were doing, the things we were trying to track and report on were getting more detailed; thus we needed a tool to manage all that.
The vendor’s ability to understand our current process, adapt to it while also being honest and setting guardrails for us on what their limitations are and what the product can deliver, were important criteria while choosing a vendor.
I was involved in the initial setup and it was quite complex. We're still in the initial setup.
Make sure that the production requirements are detailed and thorough, so that the vendor can understand what is needed for successful implementation.
We're not in production. We had gone to production, but we had to go back. There was difficulty in understanding our process and expectations from the start of the project to where we are now and that hasn't been realized.
Resource management is probably one of the most widely used features of this product and it is what we are using now.
One of the other features that we have started to step into but haven't really done yet, is portfolio management. It is a direction that we are heading in order to leverage it more deeply.
We mainly use resource management for resource forecasting which basically helps us to manage our resource capacity. In this way, we can understand our availability overallocation and that is really where we are using this tool most in our company. We definitely want to broaden our use of the features of this product.
The main benefits of using this tool as a service platform are leveraging CA to handle availability and stability of the platform. Also, they carry the load in terms of execution of any product upgrades. We need to be ready for the upgrade and help test the upgrade, but they keep us on the upgrade path. These are some of the primary advantages.
The organization is not benefiting as much as we would like it to. That is not necessarily a tool shortcoming but an adoption shortcoming. Basically, we need to shift and mature some of our business processes to leverage the tool's capability more. We are having some challenges for people in our organization to adopt this tool. The reason being that people get grounded in a comfort zone as to how they do things today or how they handle things outside of a tool. It could be inertia or people are just comfortable doing things the way they are doing them now, so change is hard.
In terms of projects, this solution has helped us to have one place where project statuses are kept. We have done some work with the standard status report format, so that helps in terms of everybody being familiar with how things are going to be reported. For timekeeping standards, we have one tool and do things one way.
A direction we are heading in, as we are not using the tool, is to do portfolio management or even to do some of our strategic planning; that is the direction we want to head in next.
Some of the things I was planning to look into while I was at a recent CA conference is how other people would implement features like portfolio management, resource capacity planning, financial management. That is what I went to learn more about.
There is some room for improvement in the UI. Some of the folks that use the tool, sometimes they feel it is cumbersome navigating around it.
We don't have any major issues with the stability of the product.
I am not aware of us having any scalability issues. As a matter of fact, I don't think our user base would be considered huge compared to other CA clients. We have around 2500 users, so it is not huge.
I haven't personally used technical support.
PPM being an industry, CA PPM is an industry-leading product and we certainly keep utilizing it. We don't have a compelling reason or business case to move away from it. In fact, we want to invest in it.
I was not involved in the initial setup. It happened before I joined the company.
Think about your business processes along with the tool’s capability. The tool has a lot of capability but you need to make sure your business processes are aligned to leverage that capability in order to maximize it.
The problem is leveraging the organization; it is hard to get people to adopt it. We need to shift some business processes so we can leverage it more. We have partnered with CA and they are doing what they need to do.
The project management part of it is definitely the most valuable part of it to us. We don't get a lot of value out of resource management or portfolio management yet. It really helps reporting on overall statuses at an aggregate level that we have going on. It's really the best part.
The way we're structured, we support a lot of different organizations. If marketing wants to see the status of all things marketing, along with their impacts on other organizations, we're able to whip that together pretty quickly. In all our previous tools, that was always a black box.
It changed the way our departments talked to each other. Particularly, IT became a delivery organization along with everyone else. They didn't talk before, and now they do; so all the data is front and center. They're starting to tear down some of those walls. They're sharing data now, as opposed to just hoping everything's OK.
It comes down to the shared space aspect of it, particularly when you start talking about code releases, alignments, and things like that. It seems to be that everybody is on the same page. There are a lot of things that get exposed because they're now sharing data. Some of those risks can now be mitigated ahead of time, as opposed to last minute. That was a problem we had back before PPM.
The whole business transformation thing that all industries are going through is very big right now. Those are the higher priority projects that we're able to dedicate money, resources, time, everything to those key initiatives, as opposed before when everyone had their own priority.
It's pretty stable.
It's scalable, but not great. We're a pretty large implementation. We have 120,000 active resources in the tool. We see a lot of performance impacts, particularly in the newer versions with Jaspersoft and things like that, so that part has been pretty disappointing. But, you know, it still gets the job done. It's just a little slow.
We brought in some people from Services (back when there was a Services) to do health checks and things like that. We were constantly opening up tickets, particularly with the newer versions and Jaspersoft and things like that.
We were using PTC Integrity. We outgrew it; and it didn't handle customizations very well. Of course, we overcustomized to the point where it wasn't usable. Something had to go. It was more of a workflow engine; and so, it worked for IT. But we wanted a space where we had business, IT, and other groups all in one space.
I've been there from day one. The initial setup was pretty easy. I was kind of surprised that just getting the app installed, up and running, was pretty simple. The complexities usually came with stakeholder requirements. That's where things got a little nuts; but just getting it up and running wasn't bad.
We also considered HPE. PTC was on our list early on. They had a newer version, and that just didn't do it. There were a handful, but it was six or seven years ago.
The most important factor in choosing PPM was the usability of the tool. CA was good about helping us getting it set up initially with some of the earlier requirements. We had to redo a bunch of that due to shifting business needs; but their assistance was a big factor.
Don’t overcustomize it. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it. We would've been better off if we could go back in time, roll it out of the box again, and use it for a predetermined amount of time before determining what we needed to customize.
We’re using the on-premise version.
The most valuable features are portfolio management and the resources; resources are the key for us.
It has benefited us as we can prioritize which products or projects we need to focus on throughout the calendar year and then correctly allocate the qualified resources to those projects.
We are in a SaaS environment, so we don't have direct access to the database. If in some way, we could access the database through that, it would be great.
Stability of this product is good. We had supported over 300 users and I haven't seen any problems at all.
It could handle a vast amount of data and a huge number of users that are using the tool simultaneously.
I have not used technical support.
We weren't using any sort of PPM tools earlier, it was all through spreadsheets.
In my opinion, the most important criteria for choosing a vendor should be knowledge, experience, willing to walk the customer through their issues, understanding what problems they have and how the vendor can help them achieve their goals.
The initial setup was straightforward. Using the tool, you can navigate it, tell it what to do or what not to do.
They should look at the tool itself because it's a powerful tool. It can do a lot of things, cover a lot of ground quickly and it can easily be picked up as far as skill sets go.
This tool solves a lot of the project-related issues. Right now, we're just figuring out how to use the resources.
We are mostly using this tool for financial purposes, moreover for financial reports. The reporting is based on the CA PPM tool; thus we mainly use it for finances.
Although we have integration with different payroll systems such as AP and FA, at the end of the day we are getting the financial information from GL for our accounting purpose. This is our main purpose for using this tool.
It has definitely improved the working of our organization. Now we have a controlled PPMO that is handling or managing the projects. They have proper guidelines and can apply proper SOX compliance. We have governance for PMs and RMs. Monthly, they review this stuff and they can report on that.
There are some challenges that we are facing in terms of Jaspersoft software. I talked to the product team and they are seriously working on that. I am hoping that another 6 months from now, there will be improvements in the reporting and performance areas that will be very helpful for the user community.
It is too early to discuss stability because we are just going live in the first week of December. Let's see for the next 6 - 8 months how it is working and then it will be more relevant.
We are using it not just in one department but at the enterprise level; also in both our geographical locations, i.e., Canada and the US. The product is scalable.
We have used CA support and they are perfect. They respond back on time and give us the required solution. Even if they are taking more time, they will inform us beforehand. We are okay with their services.
Before this product, we had 3 or 4 legacy systems. One was used for time reporting. It was not a centralized one; only the Canadian people were using it. The US office was using Primavera. We wanted to collaborate everything into a single domain and that is why we selected the CA PPM tool.
The most important criteria while selecting a vendor was more flexibility in the CA PPM tool. They were more approachable, so that was another reason.
Depending upon the environment you are in, whether you are on SaaS or on-premises, take the decision based on which environment your company wants to be in and not just get any product. Talk to other banks or any other customers who are in SaaS and have similar requirements. Based on that, make your decision. Since on-premises has some benefits and on the other hand even SaaS has its benefits, so based on that you can select your solution.
For us, it's the ability to feed payroll with accurate timesheets and capitalize project hours.
It provides accurate reporting for our investors who are traded on the New York Stock Exchange. So we must have absolutely accurate financial statements.
They just introduced Jaspersoft in 14 and some of the security around Jaspersoft is very difficult to use. You cannot really assign security group permissions for specific reports. It's very difficult to do, so I would really like to see them work on the security aspect of Jaspersoft reports.
I think it's very stable for the most part. We run into periodic issues, especially with Microsoft Project and its integration; but it’s always difficult integrating with a third party app.
I think it's very scalable. We just acquired another company. My company primarily does the lottery, and the company we acquired primarily does gaming. It is the same industry, but with very different practices. I think it really fits both because it's very flexible.
I love technical support. I love them. They're awesome.
I was not involved in the initial setup, but I think it was fairly complex. We'd never done anything like that before. There was another team that did the initial setup. It is just that through attrition, we lost them all; so I became the technical support.
Technical support is your friend. Technical support is wonderful. They're very helpful. They're very knowledgeable; and they can get you through most anything unless, of course, it’s a bug. In this case, they have to report it to their people.
I think the most important thing when you select a vendor is that it fits the business need. If the business isn't happy, it doesn't matter how much or how little you spend.
What we find valuable is the ability to bring all the different projects that we have into a central location. We have visibility into their status and the work that is going on. We can see whether the status is red, yellow, or green and can immediately identify how well the project is going on the dashboard. On the storyboard, it gives us a one page snap shot of the risks and issues, which can be brought to the attention of management in a quick and easy way.
It has helped to facilitate weekly program meetings. We can quickly review all our projects together and collaborate regarding where we need to work together and which projects need some help that we can rally around.
I think for us, we're still pretty immature from an organization standpoint in rolling it out. What we need is assistance from CA to help us roll out other features of the product that we already have and to utilize them to get the full value.
CA PPM is not easy to use. I'm a project manager and I have to use it every single week. Navigating around the menus to find what you're looking for is quite difficult. It takes several clicks to get to where you want to go.
We have been having some bugs and we are working with the vendor. But, we have not been able to solve why our financials for our project costs are not calculating correctly.
We haven't really had to test scalability. With our organization, we usually don't have more than 40 projects going on at a time and we only have about a dozen highly active users on it. I don't consider that too large of a scale.
We have tried to identify the bugs we have, but so far technical support hasn't been able to solve the issue with the project costs being calculated correctly.
I came in after it was already set up.
We haven't explored that yet.
I think it will give you a good 360 view of your project once you can roll out the other features. If you can incorporate your resource management so you can then track what people are working on, as well as the project financials, I think there would be value in seeing that holistic view.
If you're going choose that, make sure that you understand what you want to get out of the product. There's a lot to it and if you don't have a direction or strategy on how you want to use the product, I think you're not going to get the value out of your investment.
It's an integrated product. We can do project management, strategic management, and resource management all in the same place. We don’t have to get sources from everywhere. This helps us make decisions faster.
The main benefits of using the SaaS version are its availability, and that we don't have to think about maintaining the systems.
We are just starting our implementation. We deployed it about a year ago, so we're still waiting to see what the benefit will be. Now that everybody is using a single tool, we'll hopefully get some data that will help us manage our resources better.
We could use expanded reporting capabilities because right now that is fairly limited in what it does. I just heard that in 15.2, they have more reporting capabilities; so that will be great.
It has been good so far in terms of stability.
It is highly scalable.
We use CA tech support all the time. They are very accessible. When I need them, they are available to address any issues that I have.
We had about 5 or 6 different ways to record time for work that we do. That is reason enough to move to a single solution.
The most important criteria when we select a vendor are their reputation and their strategic direction. I think we chose CA primarily because of their reputation.
I wasn't involved in the original set up. I think it's pretty simple because we're on SaaS.
Do your research. Make sure you understand what the business requirements are before deciding on a tool because a tool itself is just a tool.
The financial portfolio management portion is valuable. It's really valuable for our executive leadership in order to make decisions on projects and portfolio funding.
It has provided visibility to finances. Where they are, how they're spent, as far as projects are related.
The solution is limited in terms of project management, collaboration, and things like connectivity to other applications. It's very limited in that functionality, unfortunately. We would love to see a better set of collaboration tools. We would love to be able to integrate more easily. I am very technical, as is my co-worker, and we can configure it as long as the availability is there. We would like to be able to connect more easily with SharePoint, maybe JIRA, and other collaboration tool such as Microsoft Project. We would love to be able to have that kind of platform so that we can do that inter-connectivity between all those applications.
It's a very stable product and a good solution. It’s limited in what it can do but for what it does, for what we need, it does just fine.
We're hosted, so as far as scalability goes for us, it's just a matter of user licenses. The user licensing itself could use a little bit of a revamp. Instead of giving everyone the same license, we should have read-only licenses and things of that nature.
I think the previous solution was homegrown. I don't think they had a solution, but rather they had a lot of little solutions. It is the same now, but at least we've consolidated the finances into one.
I wasn’t involved in the setup. From what I gather, it wasn't that complex because it was pretty base. It was all hosted and it was relatively turn-key.
Take a good hard look at what you need as well as where you may see your product needing to be in five more years. Then take a look around you at the market and see where things are moving. Even if you are not going there now, it doesn't take much to turn on a dime. You might need that expanded capability package later.
The most valuable solutions for us are being able to share data across the organization to help use technology to drive our processes. We are trying to use it as our system of record for reporting, integrating with Salesforce and SAP so all of our reporting will come out of the system. That's the plan.
I love the grid-like portlet.
It allows us to share data because that's the whole point of having a solution like this. You can run a business out of Excel, but you can't share that information. So this is the best way to do upward reporting to executive management, and to have an integrated platform with both project management and resource management.
I think it's helped us become a little bit more standard globally.
We're looking at using it as a forecasting tool but we're still making steps in that direction, we are not fully using that capability.
I would love to see skills-based capacity planning. We're pretty mature in our resource management. We decreased the number of roles that we are using, but this actually hurt our perspective for forecasting capacity planning. Now, we can’t drill down to the levels of proficiencies within a role. There’s no way to incorporate that into the portfolio, so it doesn't really help us. We would like to be able to drill down to the skills level better.
We would like to see skills built into the Portfolios. This way we could do accurate resource and capacity factoring in the skills of our resources. Not all resources are alike in terms of ability and we do not want to over burden ourselves with multiple roles to distinguish skill level.
Scheduling needs improvement. If we look at our demand and capacity in Portfolios, all we have to go off of are roles which do not accurately tell us how many resources we have to do the work.
Stability is fairly good.
I think it’s scalable. We're looking to expand, bringing on several new groups, so we'll likely go from 300 users to 800 users pretty soon. We've been cleaning up things as we go along. We ended up removing multiple financial entities to merge them into a single entity. This was a big project for us, but I think it's going to help us scale.
I was involved in one aspect of the setup, but not the entire deployment. I think it was fairly complex, but what I did was more on the business side, not the technical side.
We did not consider any other vendors.
Understand how your business works, and know that the PPM tool can only do so much. You have to develop your processes to go along with the technology.
I like to be able to keep track of all our project work in one place, so I don’t have to go get information from three different places. All the info is right there.
We are using the SaaS version of PPM. We don’t have to maintain the servers. We don’t have to keep up with all the hardware, and so on. It’s all taken care of for us.
The biggest benefit really is that we can easily find out the status of all project work in terms of the lifecycle of the project, how well it’s going, and who’s involved in any of the projects that we have going on across the company. It’s in one place. It’s easy. It’s simple to get all that good information. We need that every day, so we’re not chasing it around all the time.
There is a collaboration feature on each project. All participants in the project can share documents and share discussions. They can communicate with each other through actions items that they can get, emails, and so on, directly from the product. That’s the one-stop-shop we have for all of our collaboration on our projects.
We set up portfolio plans, and we create scenarios for our portfolios. We can determine if we decide to move this project out, or bring this project up, what the overall picture is going to look like in terms demand on resources and everything else. That’s all there. It’s all in one spot. We don’t have to gather a bunch of information from different places, and then try to compile it all. CA PPM does that for us.
There are always things that can be improved. There are always opportunities to make it do more things than it does, and it seems like CA does that. Every time they bring out a release, we’ve got improved features and new features. The sky is the limit on what they could do, really.
They have a different product for Agile management, for example. They could merge these two together, and come up with one product. That would be awesome. Even though they integrate, it would be even better if it was just the same product.
It’s very stable. We’ve yet to experience any downtime because of system crashes, or anything like that. It’s become more stable over the years as a matter of fact. In older versions, there was already a process engine and processes to help automate some activities. There have been significant improvements in that part of the application. It’s much more reliable than it used to be, and it’s very good.
It’s very scalable. No matter how many users we throw at it, it still works. It still performs. It still does what it needs to. The number of projects it handles just continues to grow, and it doesn't blink an eye. It keeps up with everything we give it.
CA technical support has been invaluable to us with this product. For upgrades, and for any kind of general technical questions that we might have, CA support has been outstanding.
Initial setup is a little complex, to be honest with you. Again, it’s improved significantly over what it used to be, so they’re continuously improving that whole process and the product itself.
Spreadsheets were not efficient. It was a real pain. We did not really consider any other vendors. We knew that CA PPM product was the right product for us.
The alternatives all fall short in some areas. CA PPM has a very robust portfolio management capability, for example. I have not seen another product with anything quite as robust as what CA PPM provides. Resource management is another area that CA PPM excels in, but other products just come up short.
We know CA. We’re closely associated with CA. We understand a lot about CA that maybe someone else wouldn’t if they were just coming in blind.
I think the Gartner Group information that’s provided, their magic quadrant report, and so on, is really helpful for understanding why you would go with CA for a product like CA PPM. CA PPM just outshines all other products in the Project Portfolio Management space in terms of capabilities, what it can do, and how it works. It’s really a good product.
Save time. Manage your projects in Clarity and in CA PPM.
The valuable features are the ability to manage our portfolio of products and initiatives that we're working on.
The PPM tool has allowed us to move from project management to product management without upgrading or changing the tool. That means cost savings. Just working with the vendor and being able to use the tool in different ways as we grow and scale has been beneficial.
I would like to see the advent of personas and making the tool more customer-centric. My needs are different than the next person's needs and the tool should know that and adjust the content that it shows me. That flexibility in the tool, that marginalization, would be very important. It meets our needs, but we're changing and evolving and the tool is coming along but it's kind of playing catch up.
Stability can be a challenge at times, but we've got an account rep and a support team with CA that helps us work through those issues.
I think it scales well. We're probably one of the largest organizations in the world and probably one of their biggest customers so it does scale well
I think customer support has been a challenge at times to get to the right people who can help us with problems. If we raise an issue, it should get to the right people who can help us address it. We don’t like to resubmit and say that the issues haven’t been fixed yet. Overall, technical support has been a challenge.
I was involved with the installation of the last version. Our last upgrade was pretty straightforward, largely because we didn't customize the tool to a point to where upgrading was complex.
When selecting a vendor, I want to know that that can support our scale. The size of the company, the ability for them to support us. Our large size is a burden for a lot of companies. I want to see their set-up process and their ability to support us, not only from a support standpoint, but from a feature standpoint as well. I want to know if the development team is nimble enough to adjust and be responsive to what we need. Are they going to fit our needs today and then tomorrow we have to go buy something else, because they can't keep up? That flexibility and size is important. Depending on those needs, I would say the tool is robust to handle portfolio management at scale, but depending on where a company is and their maturity, and if they're still Waterfall or Agile, for instance. If they're more Agile, I would point them to something else until this tool can catch up. In terms of just core basic PPM requirements, I think the tool does a good job.
CA PPM is an amazing product where you can evaluate anything, from concept to cash, all the way. It's not just project management, it's everything: enablement, managing, tracking, and controlling work.
CA PPM lets you forecast cost, effort, and identify capacity risks. It essentially tells you where your flaws are, and where you need to improve. You can manage your pipeline, your backlog can be groomed using portfolios, and you can use the waterline feature to do your annual planning.
It shows me my pipeline, my backlog, what my customers needs, where the demand is. It shows me where I have capacity, and what's my risk. I can rank my investments to deliver maximum benefit to the organization based on all these different controls. It usually provides a very good forecast: what you want to execute the next fiscal year based on your available capacity, demand, funds, and everything else. Also from a strategic alignment point of view, it can show you what kind of roadmap you have as an organization. What do we have committed? and things like that.
We are using the SaaS version of CA PPM aka on-demand. With SaaS, we are always current with the versions and everything else. We’ve given our heartache to somebody else for managing the server, uptime, SLAs, and everything else. We don't have an internal team that's always on call to make sure your mission-critical application is online. The SaaS version has a unique SLA established by the OEM to the customer to ensure it is up 24/7, and provides the highest quality of service.
There could be some additional enhancements, especially on closely integrating with CA Agile Central. Our CA Agile Central, formerly called Rally, is as an execution agent where Scrum teams are actually working on the product, which was planned and proposed in CA PPM.
We take the idealization backlog we established in CA PPM, define your features, and then take it into Rally to execute them. If I were to redo this whole thing, both of them would be one product, not two separate products. There's a lot of opportunity to merge them together to maximize the benefit to the customer.
We have not had any stability issues.
We have not had any scalability issues.
They're family, so they're very good, amazing.It is a collaborative effort.
Initial setup is fairly straightforward.
I'm end-to-end with Project and Portfolio Management software. I eat, breathe, and drink PPM.
Take baby steps. Go with a crawl, walk, run approach. The organization will never be ready to adopt any change, so user adoption is critical. Get a feel for your change. It should come from senior management. At the end of the day, we should show what's the value to each and every individual. What's in it for me? Then, yes, we can implement PPM anywhere without any stress.
Important things in picking a vendor are the support structure, and an orientation to reaching out and delivering value. CA Technologies always put the customer first and are factual, and deliver solutions that exceed customer expectations.
The Project Portfolio Management software helped get all of your projects, all of our project costs, and all of our people working on those projects gathered together in one single place so we know what we're working on, and where we're spending our money.
The main benefit of using the SaaS (software as a service) platform is that everything is taken care of for us. We don't need to buy the hardware. We don't need to do the installation. We don't need to do the upgrades. That's all done for us. It's just handled.
It gives us a better sense of what people are working on and where we're spending our money. It also lets us know what things are actually costing. So sometimes projects that aren't valuable are costing a lot of money. It gives us that information. It lets us know if we have enough people to take on additional projects, or if we don't have enough people, and we've got to make some hard decisions about those projects.
It's a single database, so all the information goes in one single place, and there are common workflows and processes, common forms and pages to fill out. We have the same information on these projects across business units and business divisions, and then within given teams, and we have that same common repository to view information.
Resource management is the key, so making sure we have the right people working on the right projects, and we have enough people to manage those projects. It gives the ability to add some prioritization and ranking of those projects as well.
So the only thing that’s missing is that the dashboards do not go into enough detail. The user interface and the user experience can be improved.
One of the things they're doing now is they're putting that new user experience in, a new user interface which is very simple and easy to use. It's something that people can understand easily without training, but it's still very limited. It only covers a little bit of the product. It covers just very basic project and task management. You cannot go as deep into it into the more detailed task management, or more projects, or in idea management, and so on. I'd like to extend that user experience into other areas and deeper.
It's stable. It's been around a long time.
It scales as far as you want to go, so there are no issues.
My impressions of technical support are a little mixed. You can get some very good people, or you can get a little less junior people. So sometimes you get your answer right away; sometimes it may take a little bit longer, but you can always get your answer. There are a lot of good resources out there. There's a great community, so you get a lot of good information and answers from the user community.
It's a very good solution. You get a lot of value out of it. If you're bringing it into an organization, the software is only part of the challenge. There are also the people and processes that you already have. Go in stages. Start with a step, and then take a bigger step. Don't try to do it all at once. Try to do a phased implementation.
The following features are valuable to me:
These features are useful in better organizing projects and resources for the PMO in our organization. And reporting is helpful in seeing a clear picture of project health at the project and portfolio level, so that practitioners make informed decisions.
I worked for one of the major manufacturing organizations, where they need to manage employees across geographical locations and minimize turnaround time for finding employees to assign work. With PPM’s Location OBS, they are able to find the nearest available employees for the work. This significantly reduces turnaround time.
Compared to other PPM tools, there is some room for improvement in:
Many of our clients were not using some of these features, because of complexity and less customization facility, and I would like to see OOTB portlets on this product.
Many features of this product are valuable to our organization, such as:
For an organization where doing projects is the one of the major sources of revenue, it helps PMs sees each and every small thing in their projects in a very easy manner.
As new technologies are being developed, it has to create interfaces for new-generation tools such as R, Python, SaaS & so on.
As my industry is going through a change where we need to make decisions according to data and not on speculation, analytics is one such domain that can be utilized for this purpose.
Because CA PPM is a tool where all data related to project will be kept, (past failure or achievement), I would like to be able to connect CA PPM to some kind of analytics that would help PMs to identify what could be the next step he/she has to take in the project. For example, do we need to add more resources or not, and many other similar questions can be answered as we have data and the tool to analyse it.
The kind of functionality has to be developed where a PM can identify what to do next if he/she faces a problem.
I have used it since 2010, i.e., 6+ years.
I encountered instability with V13.1 & v13.2, in terms of performance, but it was taken care of in very upfront manner by CA in the next release, v13.3.
In order to add customization, we can add a custom object. However, there is a limit of up to three levels in which parent-child relationship can be developed.
My rating for the product reflects the scalability of this product, which is very good compared to similar products available in the market.
I want to express appreciation for the technical support or level 3 support which CA offers to their clients. Their team are experts, and also know how to handle diverse customers with ease.
I haven’t used any other similar product but I am always talking with those guys to understand the differences.
As time passes by and new versions are released, setup is getting easier and easier. Organizations just need to understand their use case and set up the product accordingly.
In terms of pricing and licensing, this product is much cheaper compared to SAP PS, which is a similar product. Others might be cheaper, but they might not be able to fulfill all of your requirements.
As an individual, I never got an opportunity to evaluate the product before choosing CA PPM, but what I heard was that this product has scalability and usability that always attracts customers.
I have only one piece of advice before implementing this product: understand what you want to achieve with this tool. Otherwise, you will be clueless once it has been set up.
The most valuable for me is the opportunity to have a single tool to manager my entire projects portfolio. It is where I can see more value, because I can rate my projects, compare them. We can use a process based on PMI guides, because the solution supports it’s best practices, as lessons learned, change management, risks, baselines, etc.
We use CA PPMs resources to have the only version of the truth on a single path. Before CA PPM, each project was reported and managed with different rules, formats, etc. With the use of the tool, we could centralize, define KPIs, reports and manage better our portfolio. Besides, the SaaS license is a very good feature, because we enjoy the security of CA.COM with 100% of availability.
We use almost all features of the tool: baselines, change management requests, registration and search of lessons learned, and we developed our own KPIs dashboard.
In the past we had to deal with a lot of spreadsheets and power point presentations with different formats and with no vision if it was real project information. Nowadays, we have all managerial projects information into CA PPM solution, managed and administrated by planners and PMO roles. We can now report projects to all stakeholders in the same format with good information, besides having a unique and trustworthy repository.
Now, I have more knowledge about it, but in the beginning it was a little bit difficult to get used to its navigability, and end-users needs more help to get used to it. I miss the lack of integration between data, for exemple, between projects and portfolio information, but I think it was a problem of the implementation instead the solution.
Business Analytics information (a BI solution) with KPIs and dashboards and the possibility to expand these with custom data. It would be good to have more intuitive navigation.
I've been using it since 2014.
We use the solution as SaaS and it is always available.
We have contact with a CA company in Brazil, and simple questions are solved in time, but we have old questions that we couldn’t solve until now and it’s difficult to discuss as some issues are more complex with them. For example, reports with information and pictures. It’s a issue for us.
The implementation was simple and straightforward, even though we implemented it as a service. We had a six month project before the go-live. In this time, we configured some processes and learned to understand the mechanisms of the tool and trained end-users.
We implemented the tool with a CA partner, Deloitte. My advice is to have at least one senior expert of the tool in the team. We didn’t have that and I think if we had, today we would be facing fewer problems. It is important to know about issues and details about the tool to design a better implementation.
We evaluated four distinct solutions, and in the requirements/commercial negotiation, my company choose CA PPM.
I strongly recommend that you have your project and portfolio management process defined and look for a senior consultant expert in CA PPM.
Administration, project management, NSQL queries and portlets, XOG data transfer, user community forum, sandboxes and documentation.
Make timesheets more user configurable and controllable, e.g. user-definable filters and user-selectable tasks as alternatives to the population algorithm.
Make the rights administration more comprehensive, covering also areas now outside it.
Add custom fields that can be populated with SQL query results.
Launch the planned lightweight GUI.
Update Open Workbench to the usability currently normal in Windows software.
Add a GUI for XOG client.
Normally, the installation is fairly straightforward. In some versions there have been some hickups which have been cleared with support or community.
Recent versions have arrived with recommended actions to ensure a smooth upgrade, which were not needed for earlier versions. In many instances, the organizations have made configurations and customizations which make the upgrades more challenging, but they are not in the vanilla product.
Stability is usually good out of the box. If the system is not maintained, that will result in reduced performance and problems. The current 64-bit version is very scalable, bearing in mind that a clustered environment with load balancers requires knowledge in that area. The development of third-party items such as Java JDK, Tomcat and browsers is usually so fast that the versions supported by CA PPM are not the most recent ones. That can be a problem for larger organizations that have standard environments in those areas.
Standard support usually works and there is even the possibility to chat with support online.
There are some very experienced professionals with CA and also with other organizations who are active in the user community forums and their help goes very deep into the product. Further, there are office-hour chats where you can ask questions from several CA experts attending. The support is good and the supporters skilled.
The initial setup after installation is fairly straightforward. It depends on the functionality the organization wants to use, but I don't think I have seen the sequence elsewhere than the user community forum. The documentation covers installation walkthroughs, but after that, there are optional paths for proceeding.
I am a member of the implementation team. Sometimes there is vendor presentation in the team, but not always and then there must be SME's with prior experience. Plain in-house teams do not have the required expertise for an initial installation. Learning through trial and error will prolong installation and especially initial configuration.
In addition to the on-premise offering, CA offers this also as SaaS (on-demand). In my opinion, that allows a cost-effective way to implement only as much as you can utilize by having only the initial implementation team use the initial functionality. Then, if so desired, you can extend the functionality, number of users and move to on-premise. With on-demand, CA takes care of the system maintenance, but the user organization is responsible for the data maintenance.
Some organizations think that when they hire an implementation with prior experience, the implementation is straightforward, which is not the case. Unless it is just a version upgrade, the user organization does not know the product and consequently does not know the best way to use the product for their ways of working. Therefore, a development environment for the implementation team is a must, as well as a system for testing the developed solutions.
I have worked as a developer and Clarity consultant with multiple companies and found that using CA PPM made the organization’s daily work easy. Project Managers and the resources of companies can use the project and timesheet part as there are lots of reports available to use for management. Also, it is a customizable tool.
They need to improve it's mobile compatibility.
I've been using it for five years.
There were some performance issues, but in the newer versions it looks fine. If there are lots of customization it can become slow.
Very good as CA support has an option to help companies build their own support team to help with their daily activities and monitoring.
Previously, I used HPE PPM which id similar to CA PPM. I am sure that most CA users would say that the CA solution is more reliable than the HPE one.
I have worked with companies who were using vendor team for implementation and support.
People or companies looking for PPM tools can go for CA PPM as it is perfect for customizations and is user friendly. As usual, most of the products have pros and cons and this product also has some issues. By using a better team and knowledgeable people in your team you can make it fit perfectly.
CA PPM’s project management functionality is the most valuable. Being able to record project information, risks, issues, changes, status reports, tasks, and scheduling of resources etc. in one place instead of in different spreadsheets and documents is really important for project managers to manage their projects and for management to see the reports of that information.
Also, the time-tracking functionality and being able to track time to project tasks and other admin, sustaining tasks is also really valuable because we can see the actuals vs. the forecast for project metrics, and organization metrics. CA PPM has a mobile app that allows staff to time-track on the go, and also lets managers review and approve time on their mobile as well. This gives us a lot of flexibility especially for our services organization that is constantly travelling and removes barriers as staff do not need to log on to VPN with their laptop to time-track.
We were so disjointed previously because the project budgeted hours from our finance manager did not match the scheduled hours from our booking manager and that did not match the task hours from our project manager. Consolidating all the project hours into one location really improved the way we manage and budget project hours and helped get all these key people in alignment. This is critical for project success so we can execute on what is planned and if more hours are needed, a project change request can be done directly in PPM.
Additionally, being able to report on the data has been a real improvement. With everything in one place, running a report is real time and efficient. It really beats spending a lot of time manual time gathering the data and putting it into a PPT. PPM has provided a lot of visibility into our projects and the management has found the reports useful and insightful on project status and issues.
A huge pain-point is the Jaspersoft reporting. This is a new functionality that recently replaced the Business Objects reporting. Jaspersoft is extremely cumbersome and our end users dislike it, and are frustrated when using the criteria filter because many times the results returned do not match the results in the main system when using the inbuilt searches. It's a very frustrating function.
Another issue which almost became the deal breaker in choosing this system is scheduling. If you require scheduling resources across multiple projects for specific days dependent on the task, PPM is not designed for that. It allows you to see just the allocation across projects but not tasks. This becomes a real problem for a professional services group when resources are working on multiple projects at one time, and need to be onsite for different tasks so you need to be able to view across projects, and for multiple resources at one time. PPM has no calendar view for all the resources and what project tasks that are working on. We had to spend a lot of money customizing an add-on solution that could give us this calendar view.
A few other items that could improve, the time-tracking functionality is locked down and not very customizable. PPM gives you the ability to configure two attributes to help categorize the time, but that is all. It would be good to be able to add more flexibility to this module. Lessons learned module is only for lessons within a project. It is not possible to have this lesson be outside a project as a general lesson across the board. Also, there is no “template” that you can select for budget, there is only the ability to populate it from staffing so if that differs and in some cases it has to when you sell an engagement to a customer for one price but will not be changing that “budget” because it is a fixed contract, but you need to staff more hours.
There are definite improvements that could be made but overall, this is the best project portfolio management system I have seen and evaluated out there. I have evaluated several before we choose CA PPM, but CA PPM does give us the best project management functionality and features.
The near-immediate benefit was having all projects in one place. It has allowed for standardisation of reporting and statuses, and improved visibility across the organisation - particularly to senior management. The aggregate reporting that this enabled elevated our position in the eyes of senior management, as it has allowed us to provide more-informed, data-driven recommendations.
Their agile solution is separate from their PPM solution, and really should be available together. Also, integration capability with larger financial and resource management systems would allow more organisations to benefit from their portfolio functionality much earlier.
I have used it for five years.
Ironically, since going to the on-demand solution, we have had some inexplicable data and behaviour on our projects. The performance improvement that was promised was not as evident.
We took their 'on-demand' solution earlier this year. While it has been useful to just 'get to the problem' without having to get our SI involved, we are finding the amount of effort with their help desk trying.
We did not previously use a different solution. We were collecting singular project status reports on MS PPT, with little to no aggregate reporting.
Initial setup was fairly straightforward.
It was implemented by a vendor team. A huge lesson for us is to have our processes well defined - and preferably in use - before implementation. Because our PPM capabilities were so immature at the time, our team made many assumptions about how we would use the various functionalities and had those all implemented from the start. We have had a three-year journey of trying to roll this back.
There is a lot of potential for portfolio management functionality. However, integration functionality with other financial and resource management tools would go a long way, as it would allow for the input of the required information needed for portfolio management. For large(r) companies with established / preferred financial and resource management systems, it is unrealistic to expect them to move (quickly) to a new tool. For us, this has meant not using the portfolio management functionality at all.
We use the time sheet for reporting against tasks. We have a large user group that we keep track of all the time, and where people are spending it. From using the solution, benefits would include knowing what our people are up to, one, being able to post that to GL, we do use it as a sub-ledger. We also are starting more and more to use it for allocating resources, to make sure we understand what the availability of those resources are versus the work that we're asking them to perform.
Ease of use, the user experience has been our biggest obstacle to overcome. I've seen some of the things that they're coming out with next year, and I applaud all of those. It's been long overdue to get that type of user experience into place. I'm going to say user experience, not to sound like a broken record, scalability, we have a constantly growing, we probably grow organically 10% to 15% a year in our user base, so we've got to be able to scale. Stability and ease of support, I'm an application development manager, so we've got to be able to put in some changes, upgradability and things of that nature. All of that kind of comes together for my perspective, that's what I look for.
That's going to be kind of multifaceted for us. We've used the product since the late '90s on ABT, went live with Niku in 2004, that became Clarity, and then CA bought out Niku, so we've come a long way over a long time.
We have a very stable environment. We had our first outage, unplanned outage, this year for the first time in six years, and it was not due to the product, it was due to a third part vendor did something they shouldn't have.
Very scalable. We have, like I said, over 12,000 users right now, and I feel no problem, given enough money and time, that would scale up to whatever. I've discussed with other users of the same product that use many more than that.
It's been mixed. We get some technical support folks that know exactly what the need is, and we've had some that I've had to escalate a number of times before we could get an issue fixed.
Initial set up, user adoption was a little rough in the beginning, especially with the technology at the time. It was new, we were coming from a homegrown, "I have exactly what I want", to trying to use out of the box technologies.
I would put it right at a 7 to an 8/10, because I like what it is. It provides all the solution you need, the only takeaway, or coming off that 10 mark, is the user experience and the user interface. Forward looking to what the application is going to become by the time you go live and what you're going to do with it, not necessarily looking back and talking to users of long past, like myself, we have had it for a long time, but I try and keep my fingers on the pulse of what's coming.
For us, its most valuable features are about resource management, resource assignment, and time tracking.
It puts the right resource at the right place at the right time. Previously, what we were doing was kind of a manual process where it was based on relationships, and the sales rep would reach out to their specific technical person in order to talk to the customer. Now, since we have such a large pool and we're seen as being much more efficient to actually get the right resource with the right skill, not necessarily the one with the sales rep relationship, but who would actually know the most about it and possibly who was closest to the customer. It's one of our parameters that we have.
Improvement to the project hopper would be great. It's a feature that we could really benefit from.
We haven't had any issues with deployment.
We initially had some performance issues with some system down-time, but nothing recent. When they moved data centers, it gave us a lot more bandwidth and memory.
It's very scalable. We've been growing with it. We now have four different organizations on it.
They're very responsive. The call you back. They actually bother you if you're not as attentive as you should be, so that's actually really helpful. People are always knowledgeable. They'll walk you through the whole thing.
It was a long process. It took an awful lot of requirements, and I think the tendency of our company was to make it exactly what we wanted instead of looking to best practices.
You have to figure out your biggest need and pick the software based on it. A lot of times I think it's that one glamorous feature that people love that they want to go with, but I think you have to look across all the different requirements, weigh them, and take it from there.
The most valuable feature is work flow management. We really work with the business to make sure that we have an end-to-end reporting of the work flow tool for delivery for implementation and design for our customers.
We've been live now for three years, so now we're just really starting to get some really good data, which is helping drive head count, budgets, and cycle time. That data is probably the most important thing to us right now. It took us a while to get to the user adoption phase and get that data in there, but I would say that the output of it and then managing it to drive the business direction from this point forward is probably the most important aspect for us.
From an admin perspective on the business side, one thing I'd like to have is a drag-and-drop feature. I think that anytime you can maximize your effort and try to automate it, it definitely makes the admin user perspective a little bit better.
Also, I would say the intuitiveness needs to grow even more exponentially than it has, and I think with the project hopper and things like that, you're going to see that type of vision grow.
From an admin perspective, it needs to be more predictive. It's not as predictive as I would like to see.
We've had no issues with deployment.
We just upgraded to 14.2, and when we went from 13.1 to 13.3, we were very buggy. There were a lot of browser issues, performance issues, lag time, but this upgrade has been virtually seamless. A couple little tweaks here and there, but not in this version.
We started with a very small pilot in the central area. We expanded to the continental United States, and then we just brought on Canada, and also then looking to expand to Latin America. Within that, we have different groups that are using the tool in different ways, but still trying to report on a holistic view. I would say the scalability is definitely growing in an upward fashion.
I wasn't involved in the original setup, but the upgrade was much more simplistic than the first round. From a business perspective, it wasn't difficult.
I would look at ROI and really try to assess what type of information is going to drive the success of your company. If PPM could assist in doing that by either reducing cycle times or giving you real data in order to drive the direction of your business, then go with PPM.
It allows us to manage everything, and in terms of business value, its best features are about managing money and financials. We are able to show the business how we spent money and the results we obtained. The tool recognizes this need. Simply put, we use Clarity data simply to track planned vs. actuals. Of course, it is not as simple as that. We have budget plans for labor and non-labor, and we track against that.
This product definitely has strong service, which, along with the features mentioned above, has improved the way our organization functions.
I don’t know at this point what could be improved as we are trying to evolve our systems to work and streamline with PPM. I do, however, want to see more outputs and technical details. Also, they should improve reporting so that it's more in-depth.
We've had no issues with deployment of PPM.
We've had no issues at all with stability since we implemented this solution.
It’s very scalable and it's one of the major factors of why people get this solution.
We have had absolutely no issues with the support. They are extremely knowledgeable, and I haven’t heard of a situation of any complaints related to this from my team either.
It is complex because of our company, as we are asking the tool to do some things that it shouldn’t, but we made it work.
We have a budget allocated for a project, but the project is released over multiple months so we want to answer the question, “How much business value was delivered in a release and at what cost?” We also track to answer the question, “Will we be able to get all the functionality we need in the budget we allocated?" It is important to track this over short-duration iterations for a long-term product.
You have to look at your own internal systems and processes and optimize them before you implement the tool, but PPM can do a lot of things. It’s a flexible tool. Just don’t use that flexibility too much.
Improvement over using various Microsoft tools, like just spreadsheets and other things. It's standardizing and expanding its use for the features that help our company.
We just started using PPM in my department, which is an engineering department. What I do for it, is I actually support it as from an IT-end, so I get it installed, configured, and running, and then go on to the next feature that takes IT work.
I have seen it now run for about three, four months, and it has been a stable product once installed and configured right, so I have not seen many needs to reboot the application.
I know it as being used for two-server system.
We intend to get into the thousands of users. We haven't reached that point. It's not driving the hardware resources that we would expect to see as something that's taxing the system.
As far as the features that we've planned to use, there's Jaspersoft, which allows you to move from Business Objects, and of course we have an upgrade being planned.
Specifically from CA, no, but the support we got from this contracted company has been very supportive, we've got the help we needed.
My company was choosing between either contracting with CA or this other contracting firm, or having someone internally be the tech-lead for PPM. We chose to assign it to me, because I have the skills to install, configure support having basically the OS knowledge to support such a utility.
I would recommend going right into Jaspersoft, which is part of the reporting feature of PPM, not to start out with Business Objects. Go right to Jaspersoft if you can.
We've not been using the tool for long, although we love being able to track the cost per project, initiative, portfolio, and finances.
It helps us to track costs, and so it's also helpful when we’re planning to see the projected costs so that the company can make decisions and prioritize what projects to take on, and see the "what-if's."
Across strategic initiatives, it's improved what we do, as we did not use to have cost tracking across the company. It used to be based just on going with our gut, so the business didn’t used to track projects. Everything used to be dispersed across departments. Now it’s centralized so it adds to our consistency.
We want to get to know the CR functionality. We want to get a better picture of how to incorporate CR into our regular functionality.
We've been using it for two years.
So far no issues or crashes. Once during a little upgrade we had some issues, but they were typical and resolved.
We haven't had to scale.
I've not personally used tech support. We have internal tech support and they understand it. We use Regal in-house as well.
No, I wasn’t involved in the decision. This is scalable over a home grown solution.
It was already in place when I joined the company.
I would love to see the company teach me more how to actually take advantage of the tool. Know your requirement before using something like this and how it would fit in at the company in terms of the company culture and process. This is one of our struggles – they have, for example, never had to track time.
The best feature is the ability to control the demands of both big and small projects. For example, we recently implemented a CRM tool and it needed many resources and had many, many documents to support the project. PPM gave us the ability to control different projects with different needs at the same time because it's a unified tool.
We're able to allocate resources from various parties -- business analysts, developers, etc. -- as they work off a single platform.
I think it needs better reporting. The reports should be more user-friendly as they're currently hard to understand.
Also, the UI is pretty logical, but it's hard to extract the data I'd like to see from the reports.
There have been no issues with deployment.
It's very stable, and we have roughly 115-120 endpoints.
We have a lot of endpoints, and it's scaled just fine.
We evaluated the HP solution, but the CA solution was more complete and integrated better with Service Desk Manager (SDM).
The most valuable aspects of PPM are the project management modules and the visibility that it offers within them.
It gives us a view of where our project-management pain points are. Do we have enough resources? Where are our costs going? Are we spending too much internally, or should we be outsourcing?
The tool itself is comprehensive, but it's missing input from people like me. People need to be taught how to use it. Users are trying to teach themselves instead of learning effectively. So the education and training are what it’s missing.
We've had no issues with deployment.
From my experience, it's stable, as proven by its pretty large user base who agree on this.
It’s 100% scalable. It could be used in a small company and very large, equally effective and equally powerful.
Because it’s comprehensive, I only know that it's the best-practice solution. If we're using CA PPM, we're doing best practices.
If you're a basic user, the initial setup can be straightforward. But if you're exploiting it to the max, setup is complex -- and unwise. It would be like driving an expensive sports car and not knowing how to drive it.
If you are going to buy it, you should understand its usage, and make sure you appreciate how to exploit it because it’s not cheap and you’d be wasting your money if you won’t exploit it. Some organizations underutilize it, and I ask people why they bought it if they don’t exploit it.
The competitiveness of the product in terms of functionality is the most valuable feature. It has all the features that we and the people we work with need to do their jobs. The core features are PM management, resource management, portfolio management. Those are invaluable tools for anyone who needs to do IT governance.
The principal benefit is the ability to forecast demand and balance it against the capacity of the organization. That means the efficient use of personnel, minimal downtime, and maximum productivity.
There’s always room for improvement as business needs change. We give considerable feedback through the years to CA for product improvement, which should guide future development of the product. The needs of the end users are extremely important.
I have been a Clarity/PPM user for probably 15 years, since before it was called Clarity.
Extremely stable. It’s been out for many years, and although the version has changed, the core product is fundamentally stable. The code is configurable – you can configure it to make sense to the end user.
We have used CA Clarity/PPM from less than 500 to more than 100,000 and it scales perfectly.
They’re good at the fundamentals.
Out-of-the-box, it is straightforward, but every time you implement a new instance you want to change and configure it to meet the needs of your audience. It’s a strength of the tool that it can be configured that way – you don’t have to do things the way the developers want you to do it. You can design your own workflows and processes which makes it much more effective to use.
There are three things that are important when dealing with any vendor: support, support, support. There are lots of products out there that have similar features and functionality and wonderful interfaces, but if a software vendor is going to throw a bunch of CDs at you and leave you alone now that they’ve got your money, it’s no good. It’s how they support the product after you buy it.
I’ve evaluated the other PPM tools and competitors and found that CA PPM is heads and shoulders above the rest. The functionality is robust because of the partnership – CA partners with their user community to support the product.
It provides the functions you need to do governance in the organization which makes it best in class, in my opinion. It does a lot very well, but there’s always room for improvement. If you hit 10/10, the competition is going to leapfrog you and you’re done.
Talk to companies in their industry that are using PPM tools and find out what they like. If I’m in the banking industry looking for a PPM tool, I'd ask other banks.
The most valuable features is the broad spectrum ability to pull in all of our portfolio information and drive that down to where the end result outputs to our financials. This allows us to close books each month.
We're a private company, so we do a lot around CapEx from the perspective of revenue and how all that is driven from a financial perspective, so by having a broad overview of bringing things in through ideation and portfolio management and approvals for money spent, we're able to keep a pretty good control over that from a holistic, enterprise-wide perspective.
Particularly in our technology department, we get approvals for projects, expenditure for each project, and when the projects are approved, we're able to track them on the portfolio down to the project-level.
This is from a global-perspective too, as we're headquartered in Nashville but we have heavy usage over in Asia, Hong Kong, and our Tokyo office. CA PPM is pretty good in getting a really granular, line-item overview of where we're at, pretty much almost real-time from expenditures.
They've got to come up to the year 2015 on user interface. It's really just not there. We've recently been looking at other products, wondering if we want to make a move. We don't really think that's the right answer, but at the same time we're hoping to see something here to help us with what we're doing.
They've really failed to innovate on the user-interface perspective. The complexities of the product are it's strength and it's weakness. We have a poor level of user adoption right now, just because it's so hard for people who who go in just once a week to do something. It's difficult for project managers to go in and remember how to do it, get through things in the user interface. We're kind of hoping to see something here at this conference, future road maps for user interface improvements, HTML5, whatever, to lessen some of those qualms.
Deployment has had no issues.
Stability’s fine. It's feature-rich, and that's fine.
No issues whatsoever.
I don't believe that we've had any instance that made it outside of our internal support in recent memory.
We recently upgraded to 14.2, and that was smooth and issue-less.
It's functionality is way up there at a grade of 9-8 out of 10. It's the industry leader in what you can do with it. The ability to get in and do that stuff, for people maybe with a lower technical aptitude than guys like us at these conferences, the user interface would make it a 4.
Make sure you have a PMO in place that is a very strong center of knowledge for your project managers. Also, make sure you're providing solid training on the usage of the tool. If you elect to go with a more agile model where you're kind of doing away with PMO, then what happens is you lose that center of knowledge about the use of PP MCA, and as I mentioned before, the complexity of the use of it is it's weakest point. We're experiencing a lot of problems with that right now.
We are mandated by law to rigorously manage change to our systems and to ensure zero or very minimal impact to our customers. Given the systems that we had in place -- and we've got thousands of users and thousands of projects in major systems, comprising a large part of the economy -- we could no longer use disparate systems to govern all of those things. So we implemented Clarity PPM to enforce a standard change management protocol.
However, what we have found is we are leveraging the data behind it to do more portfolio management, which really boils down to, are we working on the right things? Are we using the right people? Are we getting return on investment? Are we utilizing our resources and it has opened up a level of transparency into our change delivery efforts and costs that we've never had before?
The answers are, yes. It's an amazing solution.
It has been severely disruptive in a good way, which is exactly what I had hoped for. Although we manage projects well, our practices were immature. But we didn't manage portfolios well. There was a lot of room for improvement and now that we're migrating to be a more data-driven organization with strategic alignment and execution and quality and performance and those kind of measures, it's changing the paradigm of project management in our organization.
Typically, a portfolio management tool or project management tool is bought by people that need to govern the process, but it is used by people who have to get the work done. It's nice to actually see a transition to the governance space to the user base because you will enable teams to collaborate, giving you better performance and better quality if you focus on the end users rather than a strict governance command and control model.
Even using basic functionality, capturing all the data, and standardizing simple practices has literally in the last 12 months lead to the behavior change that we wanted to see. It helped us accomplish our goals. It did that for us. We would not have been able to do it without this tool and/or the support.
I'd like to see improvement in broader portfolio management. It still seems to kind of be a specifically separate module from the project management and we really are aggregating a lot of data to make higher-level strategic decisions. Now that we're in that space, our executives want more. Specifically, they want to see high-level reports. They want to see the underlying data that supports it so that we can build that trust. So combining the portfolio and project management aspects would go a long way towards that.
I'm more of a super user on the business side of adoption. We are constantly in contact with our sales rep about challenges we have in maturity adoption and what pieces of the tool will support what types of strategic adoptions. I know that we had a technical resource on site to help us configure. I'm very happy with the level of support we've got from CA.
I'm actually leading adoption efforts and was part of the team that reviewed and implemented the tool. Adoption is always difficult. Change is hard and it's never really a technology-type thing. It's more of a human behavior-type exercise. We were challenged. We were absolutely challenged. We found our champions early. We set some minimum baselines and adoption. We reported on adoption and quality of data to motivate people to clean their stuff up. We let people innovate and go farther ahead and as they they pioneered some of the functionality. That's the hardest part of the whole thing, is getting people to adopt.
The thing with software is it can do anything but you can't adopt anything. Know your audience, know your internal customers. Start small. Keep it simple. Get the blocking and tackling and the basics down pat. You will see change. You'll see lasting change but you've got to stick with basics and build upon them.
Obviously, the project management aspect itself is valuable to us, but we're also using it for portfolio management and financial planning. The combination of these three functions makes this a great tool.
We used an old, in-house system and we configured CA PPM to look and feel like the old one. This didn’t benefit us and we should have probably used PPM as it came.
There were some bugs in the old version that were supposed to be fixed but are not. Some features that needed to be added have never been added.
After assisted implementation, we haven't had issues with deploying it.
The solution has up until this point been stable.
It has scaled well so far.
Online support would be an 8/10, but it depends on the person, and the first level is not good as the next level.
We got support for our implementation so that made it easier.
I only recommend to use it the way it was designed and to minimize custom configurations.
It allows us to manage our products with all its features, like configurability, filters, add-ons, third-party app integrations, etc.
In our company, we have several projects for which PPM really helps us. It mainly helps us track dates and deadline, and makes sure we're within budget with project costs. All this is very important as we deliver projects for our customers. We're also able to track projects for out customers.
Right now, we're also seeking CMMAI certification, and PPM is helping us with that.
The user interface is a little outdated. But nothing is perfect, though it has all components that we need.
We've had no issues with deploying PPM.
It's been very stable for us.
The tool has supported our scaling without issue.
We aren't using technical support.
Initial setup was totally straightforward.
Just buy it and use it as the tool and all its features are very, very good.
I like using the on-demand feature as it requires a lot less maintenance for me. Once you understand the product, it’s easy to use. It's initially challenging, but it does what it’s supposed to do. At this point, we can't ask for much more.
We upgraded from a previous version, and the reporting feature has made that aspect of our work easier. Other than that, I wouldn't say that it's changed the organization too much.
I think the user interface could be more user friendly. For people who don't use it as part of their daily routine, it can be challenging at first. You get used to it, but it could definitely use some improvement.
I've used it for eight years.
The system is extremely stable.
It has adapted well over time and handled everything we have thrown at it.
The support is excellent and very easy to work with. They are responsive, very nice to talk with; we have a long-term relationship.
Our previous version needed updating. There’s nothing more to say, we simply needed to update.
The initial setup was straightforward.
I implemented it myself and it was very easy.
Take the time to understand your desired outcome. You get so involved with what you want, but be sure to have a roadmap and game plan with using PPM.
For us, it’s all about resource management and schedule management. Without this, we would be in trouble. This solution has it and more.
It’s driven global consistency and the management of our projects. We have used it a long time and are seeing great benefits by sticking with the product.
We have not deployed the latest version, but a problem we are seeing is the inability to get data out of the system and into Excel. This is a feature we want and need.
We have been using this solution since 2003.
It has been consistently stable over the years. This for us is critical.
In terms of scalability, it has adapted well. We use it for both small projects and very large projects. I think it’s great that it handles both kinds of projects with equal power.
They're very knowledgeable, and there have been times in which we have had big issues which we call show stoppers. When this happens, you need a different level of support, and, thankfully, we are on first-name basis. Therefore, all is resolved quickly.
We did not have a global solution and we needed one. This was something we needed internally and now we have it. You need to really understand what the business needs are going to be; this is essential. Also, I recommend going out and evaluating, both personally and from people in the industry.
It's valuable for us to be able to get data across the enterprise. We focus a lot on resources, so being able to get the actuals by project is big. We do reporting at the enterprise level and are focused on the portfolio management side of things, so communicating, aggregating, and analyzing are important. We are married to Business Objects InfoView.
In our organization we are very siloed, so our executive management doesn't always see the value in sharing data across the enterprise. We feel that the business isn’t using it to its fullest extent, although it does give visibility as enterprise projects are moving through different regions.
It allows us to collect all of the projects for which people want visibility across different lines of business, but we have a lot of leaders who don’t understand a lot of the value of the information and what we could be doing with it, which is a business problem – that has hindered out ability to leverage the functionality with the tool and therefore some of our project managers aren’t fully engaged with the solution. It’s a top-down problem, but the tool is fine.
We’re happy with it. Very few performance issues.
We have not been overwhelmingly happy with that. We had the dedicated resource option, but it was challenging for us when we ran across problems during times of upgrade because we didn’t seem to get the assistance we needed. The documentation wasn’t always correct or thorough, or necessarily updated from version to version. There are some basic documentation problems, so we have found more valuable information for troubleshooting in the communities.
We get a lot of “I don’t know” or “let me find that”, but with nothing in the documentation, so we have ended up going with a third-party to help us as they had more expertise.
It was already in production when I joined.
We haven’t leveraged the full functionality of the solution. The tool is pretty great, and we have implemented some unusual things and not implemented some of other functionality that would enhance our use case. There are have been some challenges on the reporting side with maintenance, and that adds to our frustration when we go through upgrade after upgrade.
The main thing is defining your requirements – don’t let the tool drive your requirements. Understand what your goals are, so you can track that and really get the value out of the tool. It would be smart to use the functionality that exists within the tool in the out-of-the-box state, and only customize as necessary. Take your requirements and match up with OOB functionality and do the gap analysis to make decisions. When we first implemented PPM, we tried to make it into a previous tool that we had, which was terrible, so we turned PPM into the same type of tool.
Also understand what resource constraints you have in your organization to decide whether it needs to be on-premise or on-demand. Understand what level of control you really need in your environment because there are some limitations in the SaaS environment that you need to be aware of.
The most valuable features are project management, resource management, and idea management.
I run a PMO with a portfolio of initiatives, and we have to report on those to upper management to keep them abreast of the health of the products, critical issues, things that need to be escalated. To get the reporting, I need to ensure that the tool is easy to use for project managers.
It's really improved our organizational transparency. It gives us visibility into all of the projects and programs people are working on. That covers the health of the projects, financial health, resource allocation, etc.
The biggest area of improvement is reporting, though that’s going to be fixed in v14.3, which we’ll move to. There aren’t enough out-of-the-box, standard reports. The tools weren’t there for end users to write or create their own reports.
The user interface isn’t very intuitive for someone who’s not living in the product day in and day out.
Very stable, probably the most stable of any company where I’ve used it. It’s never gone down.
It’s very scalable – probably the most scalable for an enterprise that really wants to manage their portfolio of projects across the enterprise.
I’ve been working with it for about 15 years since it was Niku, then Clarity, then PPM.
We use our own technology team to support the solution, and if they can’t solve the issue they go to CA support.
I wasn't involved in the implementation.
It’s a very robust tool and really does everything we need it to do as a PPM tool, but the reporting has held back its adopting, as has the user interface. People tend to find folks who use it because they’re forced to be compliant and not because it’s their tool of choice.
Most obvious piece of advice is, don’t underestimate the effort in implementing a tool like this. Understand the maturity of the people in your organization relative to project management and discipline. The more mature they are, the easier it will be to sell. Make sure you’ve got the process down before you try to implement the CA PPM solution.
The most valuable features are resource management and portfolio management. We have too many projects in our organization and not enough resources, which PPM allows us to manage.
Right now, it’s supporting project prioritization. That’s why we brought it in. It lets us get a holistic view of what the projects are and whether there are deficiencies in a given area and whether we are short on something. We’re not quite there yet in utilizing its capabilities, but it’s getting better.
Anything that enhances portfolio management will help us out, but we’re still struggling internally to fully utilize that capability.
Pretty good. There are some hiccups in terms of our understanding of how the product works, and CA support understanding the problems as well. We didn’t understand that there are two components to PPM – in terms of the PPM solution and then the reporting is handled out of business objects. In our situation in on-demand if you run a report and then leave it up in business objects the time-out on the BO side is not the same as the time-out on the PPM side and it doesn’t synchronize and come across.
How that manifests- when it times out it makes my reports unavailable and can’t report anymore. We have a workaround for the moment. It took one or two months to even understand what the problem was, and CA didn’t understand either. CA provided a solution that was for on-premise versus our situation which is on-demand (cloud-based).
Not seeing any issues, but we’re only at 150 users. It could handle many more if we needed it to.
There were some misunderstandings when we set up our account in terms organizational differences within our business units, which we still need to straighten out with CA.
CA directed us to a systems integrator who may not have been completely skilled in the product, or maybe our timelines were too tight. Our product knowledge is still incomplete in some of the areas.
It’s a big robust application that does lots of things that we don’t use or need to use. Because it’s so configurable, in that way it is very complex.
Reporting has been an issue for us, so what I would consider a fundamental report that links financials to actuals. Do due diligence around time entry and allocations because that’s really the engine that drives resource scheduling and management. In order to get the tool to work there has to be a lot of underlying data that have to be good. Getting resources to put in their allocations, getting resources to make sure their time sheets are completed, and getting PMs to allocate and assign resources are all key.
It’s deployed corporate-wide and has a heavy user-base, and we provide custom modifications to the solution. I also do all the deployments for seven different environments with each having three servers.
I’d like the install to work a lot better and to be more tailored. It also needs to support a forced functionality of the install.
It’s not bad, though we have intermittent issues with services going down. It’s a background service that runs reports, which seems to hang every so often, so we need to be pretty diligent in keeping our eye on that. When it goes down, users aren’t able to run reports so we have to bounce the reports server. But overall, it’s fairly stable.
It’s pretty easy to throw into any environment.
Usually their tech support isn’t very good. We usually end up fixing it ourselves or writing our own XML code. But, they try their best.
If I call support, I don’t like getting a middle person, which I frequently do. I try to figure it out myself before I call them. Escalations are usually very good. We had an issue with a recent upgrade so we created a P1 ticket and escalated it after day one and they were right on it. They worked well with me and they were there with me for a 17-hour day to get the system up.
They’re getting better and have been better recently than in the past.
The installs never go smoothly. You can have all your system requirements met and all your ducks in a row. The CA XMLs won’t work.
We recently did an upgrade which took over two weeks to get up and running, which was an incremental update.
The install packages are the worst I’ve ever seen.
Overall it’s a very good, powerful product. It’s one of our two or three major products. It’s used by everyone, and it’s easy to customize. It’s fairly reliable once it’s deployed, it looks nice, the reports look nice, and it’s easy to move around. The only gripe I have is the install.
With any solution, you need to be able to customize and tailor it. You need to modify and add your pipelines and any other custom attributes you need, fairly easily and fairly quickly. It needs to be able to deploy from one environment to another fairly easily, which the CA PPM solution does.
The most valuable part is the ability to report efficiently across the globe how the company is doing. This is the biggest advantage to me.
Standardization across large company standard operating procedures. The biggest are financial reporting, task management, work breakdown structures, risk and issue reporting. As all of this can be done from one place. We can manage it all with change management.
I want to see trends and how things change over time. Now, you only see what’s live in the system, and there's no way currently to see what yesterday’s project was and how it's changed. They don’t have snapshots in time.
Also, I'd like flexible reporting that can be done quickly. Right now, we pull everything into Excel, and the length of time for reporting can be long.
We've been using it for 11 years. I joined five years ago and they had already had it for six years by then.
There's been no issues. There are occasional problems, but these are quickly resolved either internally or with the help of CA.
It scales well, but the problem is cost.
I haven't used it internally as our in-house IT team deals with them.
I wasn’t involved in the setup.
Buying in large quantities is more cost effective than a one-to-one basis. Periodically, we try to figure out how much we need to avoid buying one-to-one.
Look at the support as that's important, not what's in situ. However, things like trend analysis and flexible reporting are missing, which are weaknesses.
Take advantage of out-of-the-box functionalities. We made the mistake of doing a lot of customization when we set up 10 years ago, and it doesn’t play well with certain newer abilities or other output. So use as much out-of-the-box features that are already there as possible, as you never know what you want.
Product management and time management are the most valuable features for us, as it’s far superior to Microsoft Project, and the others are worse.
It's helped us with holding the staff who use it accountable. If we are tracking time, for example, you can determine whether employees are over/under loaded, etc.
An improvement would be location tracking to see where employees are.
I’ve heard a lot of good things, and for me it’s been fine.
We're small so we've had no problems.
We've never had to use them.
We previously used Microsoft Project, but this is better because our clients are using it as well.
I wasn't involved in the setup.
We were looking for a solution that had good testing space and SOA, and compared it to Microsoft Project.
Check other CA technologies, and see if you can integrate the technologies as they work well together.
Capacity and demand management allows me to know if I have enough resources for all the projects that I have to do. It helps to drive the whole budget of the department.
It allows me to easily keep track of and report costs for the company in order to reach our profit and loss objectives. It’s a good tool to manage capacity and demand which ultimately impacts the profit and loss.
This is the first time I’m using a partition (one installation for the holding company which includes a partition for my company and our sister company). It would be nice to have more configuration options at the partition level. Resources are at the system level and for an administrator, which can become confusing when troubleshooting issues.
We started the implementation last year, and are still doing this.
I have used CA PPM in three separate companies. I have never had an issue with stability. However, I have always used on premise and not SaaS. In general, I’m not a fan of SaaS. If there are stability issues, I know it’s on our end.
I do not have any scalability issues.
Currently, my implementation partner (R2) has only used technical support when we ran into an issue during implementation.
I've always been using this and I wanted to continue. I implemented a Microsoft Project Server at a prior company, and it was not as good. Where I am now, I got to pick so I chose this.
I am currently using a CA Partner (R2) to assist with the implementation.
I look at usability. As a resource, I want to do the least amount of clicks and streamline processes. I have looked at other products, however, CA PPM is the only solution that will keep a managed service provider plan in sync with timesheets when a Project Manager deletes a task that has actuals on it. This was the best feature and a huge selling point for me.
Let your employees understand the benefits of CA PPM and show them how much it will help them to do their work. A tool should be used to make their lives easier and not treated as an annoyance.
It gives us complete visibility of resource allocation on a global team.
It forced the organization to implement standard project management practices.
Make transitions easier to implement, e.g. if a new portfolio comes along, it should be easy to integrate to the existing portfolios.
I've used it for three years.
No issues encountered.
No issues encountered.
No issues encountered.
It's good.Technical Support:
No previous solution was used.
We used a vendor team.
We've not measured it.
We also looked at SAP PPM.
Plan, plan, plan. Make sure you understand your organizational needs and you know the process forward and backwards. The software is just a tool, if you do not understand what you're fixing, there is no way the software will help