Broadcom Clarity Reviews

It is mainly used for project management, developing the portfolio of the project and the budget process of all projects.

For a very long time, Broadcom Clarity had not developed the old interface that Broadcom no and we were not able to see any new features on the system because of the older UEX. We switched to the new UX at the end of March and it needs some time for the user to react to the new features.

But if overall main features are being talked about, the financial part of Clarity is really appreciated.

Among things to be improved, Clarity can really work on its SAP interface. The current interface lacks out-of-the-box connectors for different applicators in the system. Therefore, this requires external support, which is beyond our expertise. In-house development is done for the interface, but as the system becomes complex, there is a building need to maintain the necessity of updates. If the updates aren’t maintained, then the system might be compatible. Additionally, the report generation process using a different software poses difficulties, leading to the need for external consultancy to create specific reports. Certain features, also face compatibility issues with our existing system. Despite these limitations, we find the system satisfactory overall, although a learning curve exists, especially for those unfamiliar with its particularities. 

I have personally used Broadcom Clarity for seven years.

It is very scalable. Currently, we have around 350 users, the majority of whom are from various governmental services. Though some smaller organisations, such as the tax service, use the software for their projects, their numbers are limited. Despite offering a variety of services, there is an underutilization of its features. We have the capacity to activate more choices to improve the information flow between the system and SAP, particularly in the financial area. Previously, node two was the option, but we're now lobbying for modifications that may need changes to the system's financial structure. Furthermore, we have forthcoming services that are interested in using the product, and thankfully, supporting them will not need large setup modifications.

Yes, we have contacted technical support and customer service. The transition to the new UX has unlocked new adjustments in certain areas compared to an older version. The features like information handling, planning and resource allocation have made it a little unstable. We contacted the support team and their response has been quick and swift. Although they didn’t offer us the exact solution, we have got almost appropriate workarounds for the solution whenever it was needed. 

In recent times, I have been involved in the purchase of the license for this solution. However, the process of procurement changed and the option to buy individual licenses was no more available. The new subscription model was introduced, as a followed-up trend in the industry. The subscription costs put us in shock because it was double what we paid in the past as the yearly maintenance. We negotiated and the price was dropped. But this incident made me observe a lack of transparency from Broadcom in terms of licensing expenses. This isn't unique to Broadcom but seems to be a broader industry issue.

Currently, we're using it as a Project and Portfolio management tool. We temporarily attempted some financial tracking, but one of the problems with companies is they never want to fully adopt a tool. It actually winds up being more complicated to try to just do partial adoption. So, right now, we're mainly using it for project and portfolio management.

We're one version or two versions behind the latest one. We are on 16.0.1. We have chosen on-prem deployment, but there are cloud solutions.

As a Project and Portfolio management tool, it allows the company to allocate costs based on projects, goals, or strategies. You can break down costs a lot easier because of the amount of detail you can put into the project. Being able to provide metrics and being able to break down costs is very important. It allows people to easily categorize costs.

The dynamism of the application where you can modify it to fit your needs is valuable. For example, you can create fields, metrics, and measures on the fly. You don't have to be limited to what the out-of-the-box format would be. It allows you to generate fields, metrics, and reports off of that with relative ease.

The volume of information you can get out of a system is valuable. There is always a caveat when companies partially adopt something. So, resource capacity planning is an incredible value, but because we only partially use it, it is only partially valuable here. We don't fully put all the resource information in.

One of the things that have always been a bit painful is the integration with reporting utilities. The current integration is with Jaspersoft, and there are a number of difficulties with that. If you're using out-of-the-box fields and everything, it is a bit slow and clunky. It has a drag-and-drop interface for the users. On the backend side, there is a report designer. They haven't given or allowed me any training on it yet. So, it has been a bit limited in its features. On one of the earlier report utilities, they had one called Actuate, which had VBA as its base programming language, and you could do quite dynamic things behind the scenes, whereas the Jaspersoft interface seems rather locked. So, you're limited in your options. Being a programmer, you like to have room to be able to invent and create rather than just being limited to a few selection boxes.

I started on the software in July of 2007. It has been 15 years.

It has been very reliable. It has improved over time. In some of the earlier versions, they didn't have pre-checked utilities to validate your setup to see if you're going to run into a problem, and in the later versions, they started introducing that. It really improved the upgrade capabilities. That would be one place where I would give them credit for improving.

It is incredibly scalable. It is deployed on-prem. I ran into a little bit of a complication trying to move to the cloud, and then I saw someone offer a solution to that problem. Basically, the application needs to be able to communicate with itself, and we set up multiple instances. In a cloud environment, you can basically set up a super large instance of a cloud environment and have all the instances on that same cloud server. We had the opportunity to move to a cloud, and I just didn't do that because I didn't have a solution to that simulcast issue where the application needed that to work, but the cloud didn't offer it. In a cloud environment, because it doesn't allow multicast, you'd have to expand just one cloud server, but you can re-instantiate a cloud server with a larger environment, but with the on-prem solution, you can just add another server and add instances and some items. You can just keep expanding. It is very expandable.

In terms of usage, in my organization, they're using it for project and portfolio management, but not as much for time or resource tracking as they used to. Its usage changes with the business environment. So, it is rather unpredictable.

I believe there are 2,000 users at the moment. We were at a high of 10,000 for a while, but then they scaled back a bit. We have all of our contractors entering time via the Clarity system, and then I have an interface with an external company called Beeline, where we export timesheets there, and that is for a contractor payment processing center. The system is very dynamic where you can generate exports and transfers like that. They create projects within Clarity, and this is where portfolio management comes into play. I transfer the assignments and the project information to Workday. The resources enter their time in Workday, but the project design and tracking are kept track of in Clarity because Workday, I guess, doesn't allow the same level of detail that Clarity does. I know it sounds a little complicated, but that's the way companies work. 

I regularly have tickets, mostly for complications in trying to generate reports or something like that, or if a user has some trouble with a financial report or something else where they get an unexpected result. Usually, we find that it is just a data issue. A lot of the problems you run into are just because the data gets put in incorrectly, and it takes a bit to find that, especially when there are millions of records. 

I would rate their support at least a nine out of ten. They're pretty responsive, and you can escalate tickets. With some of the earlier versions, I had a call that lasted 36 hours. I went around the globe and a half. You start with the US support, and then you move to the next time zone, and then to Australia, and then to India, and then to England, and then back to the US. It was a little difficult, but we finally were able to come to a solution, which was really good.

Positive

I came, and it was already in use. I was put into designing solutions for importing data and exporting data. They have a custom scripting language called GEL scripting language, and because I had a history in that as well as databases, I was able to take on multiple roles without too much difficulty.

In terms of maintenance, the system requires you to monitor it and keep track of errors and such, but so far, what I've noticed is that a majority of the errors are user data-driven. It is medium-light as far as maintenance goes. They've improved the application over time to where some of the maintenance-level jobs have become more stable. 

They have a job called time slicing, which breaks time data into its different components, and occasionally, in the previous versions, it would run a long time on year turnovers and month turnovers. The year was the biggest one, where it would run for a couple of days. Now, it runs almost instantly all the time. That was a giant improvement.

The licensing costs are a little bit high, and unfortunately, it has been a while since I've had that paperwork in front of me. I don't remember how much it was, but it seemed like it was fairly high.

It is probably comparable to some of the other solutions because I do know that, for example, on a lot of the AWS stuff, they found that the costs wound up being higher than having some on-prem solution. Comparatively, Clarity is within the price range of other solutions.

The one tip that seems to be fairly universal is to get management approval or get executive sponsors for it, and it would be best to implement it universally across an entire company so that it is not like you're just feeding this set of resources over here and not setting up other resources. Universality is probably the easiest way for the best implementation because I have sincerely complex scripts to auto setup resources. Originally, we had it based on sets of team codes. So, I created a dynamic team code list to only activate this set of resources and not others. It becomes complicated when you only partially implement the solution, or technically, it is more complicated on the programming side.

I would rate it a seven because it is very dynamic. You can generate any of the metrics and fields you want, and it has a lot of great out-of-the-box calculations. Some of the complications come when your company decides to change directions. It does take a bit to find all the changes you made. There is a little bit of a complication there. For example, if you customize a lot of screens and such, it is a little tough to keep track of what changes. That can become a complication. Out of the box, it has got a lot of great project and resource calculations and financial calculations that you could readily implement anywhere.

We use the solution to manage projects and provide reports for management.

You can find the statistics of the products, share reports, and open boxes. Additionally, its ease of use helps with project management.

The solution could improve the experience for the simple user by converging the comments and dashboards.

The stability is very good.

I rate the solution's scalability a six out of ten.

Support is complicated. You should probably try contacting Broadcom Clarity if you're seeking the best experience for end-users within your company. They have the expertise and resources necessary to address any issues promptly and effectively.

Positive

The initial setup is easy. It's an easy platform but primarily used by the IT team. The engineers usually use Primavera.

The solution is not more expensive.

A long time ago, I worked as an engineer and administrator for a device company. However, I worked there only briefly, handling importation for my company. I suppose it's because I lacked experience. The package had various tools available. We decided to try using it for our engineers and IT staff in the Philippines. However, it wasn't suitable, so we decided to buy Primavera for the engineers.

The company offers low-cost support and service. We don't need to change anything because the box code and tools are good. We have a code for configuration for our users. If they understand the new system, it's easy to request changes. They can modify the dashboard and configuration for specific data.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Broadcom Clarity PPM for business. We have many types of business cases which have to be approved, then once approved, we move them from idea to business case to project. We use the platform for different projects.

Broadcom Clarity PPM is a high-value product. It's amazing, and it helps us become productive. It's a nice product. It's helpful, and we can do a lot of things faster through Broadcom Clarity PPM.

We also love that the platform is scalable and very stable. We have trust in it, even from a self management perspective.

Easy to enhancements for any requirements In Clarity PPM environment VS other platforms.

Broadcom Clarity PPM has some areas for improvement, particularly its dashboard, because it's too slow. The look and feel of the platform need to be enhanced. The UX or user experience of Broadcom Clarity PPM also needs to be improved, e.g. sometimes when you need to do something on it, you need to click three or four times for the action to go through, instead of clicking just once.

An additional feature we'd like to see in the next release of Broadcom Clarity PPM is being able to communicate through the dashboard. If the dashboard enables us to communicate and shoot the message there, that would be amazing.

I've been using Broadcom Clarity PPM for 10 years, and I'm still using it, as I'm a technical person.

Broadcom Clarity PPM is very stable.

Broadcom Clarity PPM is a scalable platform.

The Broadcom Clarity PPM technical support is good. They always reply back to us. Support for the platform is amazing.

Broadcom Clarity PPM was really smoothly to install. There were no challenges with its initial setup. The deployment took three days. The installation of the software only took a little time, e.g. three days, but we spent two to three years with the configuration.

We used an external team for the implementation of Broadcom Clarity PPM, particularly just for them to give their inputs. We used Ignite as the third party.

Broadcom Clarity PPM costs us $500K, and that's only for the installation and kick off within the first year. For each succeeding year, it'll cost you $200K.

I have experience with Broadcom Clarity PPM only. I have no experience with Jira.

We have 800 users of Broadcom Clarity PPM within the organization.

We have one guy: a business analyst, and he's in charge of handling and maintaining the project and Broadcom Clarity PPM itself.

Everyone in the organization is using Broadcom Clarity PPM now, so there's no need to increase usage, e.g. all our departments including top management, even the CEO, uses the platform. We can approve, reject, and do things on the platform. We monitor each project and dashboard through Broadcom Clarity PPM, e.g. every PM on the CapEx project has access to the platform.

The advice I'd give to others who are looking into implementing Broadcom Clarity PPM is that they need to be agile. They need to be flexible.

I'm giving Broadcom Clarity PPM a rating of nine out of ten.

Broadcom Clarity PPM is used in retail, oil, accounting, and industrial companies.

In strategy management, transparency, real time to analyse results and act quickly. Alignment through all the company.

The most valuable features of Broadcom Clarity PPM are demand, project, and product management.

Setup could be made easier.

I have been using Broadcom Clarity PPM for approximately 12 years.

Broadcom Clarity PPM is a stable solution. However, if the solution is not deployed correctly there can be some issues.

The scalability of the solution can be done by adding more features. We work with customers to meet their scalability needs.

We have approximately 100 to 9,000 people using the solution depending on the company.

The configuration process for Broadcom Clarity PPM can be challenging initially. The complexity and duration of the setup may vary depending on the unique needs and services of large corporations. Despite being a standardized procedure, it can still pose difficulty.

We deploy the solution to others and we use it for the deployment.

The amount of people for the deployment depends on the environment. For example, 10,000 people there need to be approximately 10 people for the deployment.

The price of Broadcom Clarity PPM is reasonable. My customers pay a license to use this solution on an annual basis.

The solution is good but I would recommend a team from Broadcom to do the implementation. If a poor implementor does the work there could be problems.

I rate Broadcom Clarity PPM a nine out of ten.

I basicually use it for program management at financial services clients.

We primarily use it as a standalone program management tool.

Value streams, investment cases, road mapping, and fast destinations. These are the ones we use to manage stuff.

The risk management capability is good. It has a decent way of raising risk issues, connecting them to tasks or projects, and notifying users based on the access level.

I would like to see probably a little more features in terms of agile project delivery. It's mainly used as a program and project management tool, but it's not that great for agile projects.

Another major concern I see is usability. Many users I've worked with, including myself, feel that the application could improve in terms of user-friendliness.

I have been using it for three years. 

Stability is fine. The major concern I see is usability. Many users I've worked with, including myself, feel that the application could improve in terms of user-friendliness.

It is a scalable solution. Scalability is not an issue. I have seen it in an environment with around 20,000 users for one of my clients. 

ROI is good only when you're using it at a large scale. If you have a few users, it's not that good in terms of ROI.

We had to pay for licensing. It's costly. That's the main concern.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. It's been designed well and is very compliant with regulatory requirements. Security aspects are good in Clarity.

Clarity is pretty good for program management.

Broadcom Clarity PPM's most valuable feature is the plenty of modules, such as portfolio, project, resource, and time.

Broadcom Clarity PPM could improve by adding advanced reporting in the tool. There are a lot of out-of-the-box reports, but I would like to see more advanced reporting.

I have been using Broadcom Clarity PPM for a few years.

Broadcom Clarity PPM has high availability.

The scalability of Broadcom Clarity PPM is very good.

Broadcom Clarity PPM's support has a very large team, larger than Planisware when it comes to technical support.

I have used other solutions other than Broadcom Clarity PPM, such as Planisware. Broadcom Clarity PPM is better than Planisware because they have the multi-road mapping feature. This feature gives clients very good visibility on what needs to be done and what will happen in let's say two or three years.

Broadcom Clarity PPM takes a couple of days to implement.

The price point of Broadcom Clarity PPM is less than Planisware. If a customer comes to me, and the cost is the main parameter for the selection of a tool, then I'll recommend Broadcom because cost-wise, they are less than other solutions.

If you have to train a consultant, certification costs around 3000 euros and Broadcom Clarity is only $250. There is a substantial difference.

I would recommend Broadcom Clarity PPM to others.

I rate Broadcom Clarity PPM a nine out of ten.

Clarity PPM's strongest features are project and resource management.

Clarity PPM would be improved by developing better support for the Agile framework.

I've been working with Clarity PPM for around seventeen years.

Clarity PPM is very stable across different purposes.

Clarity PPM scales very well.

Broadcom's technical support is good - you raise a ticket with the support team, and they immediately assign a consultant to you.

The initial setup is very simple, and Broadcom provides you with an installation guide.

I evaluated Planisware, but Clarity PPM is more scalable, its focus is built across resource management, project management, and time sheets, and it can be integrated with Microsoft Project.

Clarity PPM is an open design tool that you can design the way you want. I would give Clarity PPM a rating of nine out of ten.