Application for the integral project life cycle.

Carlos -

There is no "best" - it really depends on the project's context, the industry you operate in, and what constraints exist.

I've never found a single platform which is able to handle the full end-to-end aspects of delivery. While there are comprehensive EPM solutions, they usually lack product lifecycle capabilities which are also needed by the team.

Some degree of integration is inevitable - for example, with your HR systems for understanding the organization structure and with your financial systems for reducing the manual effort involved with updating cost actuals.

Kiron

I have worked on developing enterprise level systems like you describe, but I don't have any particular favorites due to the tradeoffs.

Integrated systems may address the issue you describe about information integration, but with many groups in a value stream, different groups have different perspectives of "best" in their jobs. Tailoring the tool to your needs for efficiency either requires support from the software vendor, or your own IT dept. This can result in huge IT costs and a lack of flexibility for how your various teams mange data. It can also drive a huge data and process migration effort.

Eventually, businesses get frustrated with the integrated tool costs and lack of agility. They push for more home-grown right sized tools developed from the bottom up rather than pushed from the top down. Then you are back to the integration problem where translating data from one tool to another is problematic and expensive.

This pendulum of preference swings back and forth over the years. There tends to be a hybrid between integrated systems and one-off federated systems for specific needs.

Carlos -

You may find that for your situation a best-of-breed point product for those knowledge areas where you need richer functionality coupled with a general information management toolset such as MS Office or a wiki would serve well.

Kiron

This problem gets compounded when you have outsourced work. You may find it difficult to impose specific tools on a supplier, especially if the contract is for managed work.

Staff augmentation contracts are easier: you simply deal with each contractor as though they are an employee (i.e. licenses, training, access, . . . ).