Does anyone have any thoughts on implementing an enterprise Project Tracking / Resource management solution. Especially - ABT's Result Management Suit - Integration with MS Project 98 - Level of project management expertise needed to track time and resources in a meaningful way at the task level. - Any experince with decoupling the scheduling tool from the project tracking and resource management tools. Resource are pulled out of the pool and put back in but not tracked while they are on a project via the plan in the PT and RM tools.
In response specifically to your "decoupling" question, In my experience, it's not an easy thing to do. Once you've removed the Resource being tracked and placed them into a separate scheduling/planning tool, you lose the tie to the master resource pool. That's why the "suites" that are out there sell -- the promise of itegrated resource mgt. and project mgt. makes them very appealing. I think the downside of these suites is that they take a certain level of commitment across an organization -- which is sometimes tough to get. If only a part of the organization is using the suite, the "enterprise-wide" benefits cannot be gotten -- you're managing a fraction of ALL of your resources / projects.
So, I guess the first thing to test within your own organization is whether or not they'd be willing to step up to the enterprise-wide commitment to such a solution. If the answer is "yes," then I'd take a look at the available solutions out in the market. (**See a recent discussion, also in the Project Management Central area, for researching such solutions.** )
Saving Changes...
Anonymous
George
My experience with ABT was that it only worked when copuled with a tracking tool. We used TeamWorkbench and this gave us the data we needed to keep everything in step.
If you can only operate by decoupling then you need a good human interface to handle the inevitable queries which wil arise and see through attempts to hang on to resources which are no longer deployed on Priority 1 work. Saving Changes...
David GoldsteinDirector Delivery Services| VeritasSanford, Fl, United States
My corporation recently purchased this Enterprisewide PM solution. (We purchased sometime in Jan of this year) If I can give you any advice, it would consist of: 1.take your time in implementation 2. contract with ABT or another firm to get plenty of ABT Workbench training (or if you plan on using MS Project, get plenty of training on the actual integration, we have found it to be less than perfect)3. Take your time during implementation and test. We rushed through our implementation and skimped on the consulting and have paid the price. Due to our lack of understanding of the intricacies of the integration between the repository and MS Project, we have had a multitude of issues. Also, our management has had a problem deciding on the tool to use (ABT Workbench or MS Project) so we spend a lot of time doing rework between the two tools. ABT has been extremely helpful during this process and will usually have a consultant on hand when you need one in a clutch. Saving Changes...
I've been looking for the perfect solution for close to 3 years for my org. After looking at 32 different packages and various add-on solutions, I have found no package available on the market that will meet the needs of the average worker, the PM, and the facility or resource manager. The biggest problem is the current PM SW persistantly propagates the misconception that all resources that need to be scheduled are people. THIS IS NOT TRUE! Further, all resources can't have seperate E-mails or accounts. Don't fall for the ERP sales line that they can handle this. It may or may not be true based your buisness type and the amount of money you can afford to spend. Which ever solution you do go with it needs to be: (a) easy to use and maintain, (b) use a standard SQL 92 database so the data can be added to and pulled from for integration with other legacy SW and future supportability (stay away from propriatary data formats for storage), (c)the price must be worth it (i.e. the ROI should not be based on everything going write and rediculus alternative costs). PM with out colloboration by all parties is nothing but schedule publishing. The simplest, easist, and cheapest solution I have found that provides for a central database, central resource repository, etc as discussed by myself and the other contributors is called TEAMCENTER by Inovie SW. Website= http://www.inovie.com. I have no affilliation, but was highly impressed with this SW and plan to buy it once they add one minor (in my planned usage major) upgrade (probably version 3.01). Installation is so easy, I had it running in 10 min. My runners up include (a) Project Control, (b)Project Office, (c) Project 2000 with Project Central (Project 2000 currently crashes when saving to an ODBC database. Weight for SR-1).
Has anyone checked out PMOffice from Systemcorp? I've been looking into these kind of systems for my organization, and as far as I can tell, this product is the only one that comes close to being a total PM solution. However, I have not spoken to too many folks who have used this or are aware of it. Saving Changes...
Todd WethyProgram Manager| Volkswagen of AmericaAuburn Hills, Mi, United States
Greg,
I too have been looking at PMOffice, and so far it is high on my list of possible tools. I'm going to use my trip to Connections 2000 to see the product (as well as others) up close and personal. Saving Changes...
Many discussions are ongoing with regard to the proper selection of a software package for enterprise resource management (e.g see this discussion topic). We have been in a selection/evaluation process for many years but didn't found the right toolset yet. We know that there is no ultimate. This is due to the fact that our experiences while working with different s/w vendors also showed that very less experience exist for a large scale, globally operating real enterprise RM solution (> 18000 employees). Many of the new client/server products are fairly new and don't have a long history. Furthermore, new products are coming out quickly and it is impossible to keep track. I'd like to post an experience question to users of the new Microsoft 2000/Project Central. Are there any specific experiences/functionality provided to accomplish an enterprise RM solution ? Specifically scaleability,performace, fuctionality, integration with other ERP systems (SAP) are important factors to consider. Has anybody done a thourough evaluation based on these criteria and can comment if this product is suitable for a large organization ? Any other expert comments are more than welcome. Thanks you ! Saving Changes...
I've just returned from Connections 2000 in Houston. At first, I was very dismayed by what I saw there: the same old vendors, the same old products (with minor enhancements), still primarily old technology (client/server).
What I was hoping to find was a entirely web-based program, scalable, proven, and able to tackle the enterprise resourcing issue. For the most part, I did not find this.
However, I thought readers of this discussion may be interested in one vendor that did get my attention: InventX. This company is relatively new (ca. 1997), but it has some incredibly fresh ideas when it comes to project management. They produce a product that is entirely JAVA (no client!), modular (you only buy the capability you need. ATTN: MS PROJECT!!), and has already been implemented by some big names in industry (I had to sign an NDA to get this info, so I don't think they'll appreciate it if I post here). You can check them out at www.inventx.com.
Our organisation has been running on PlanView (www.planview.com) for 2 years now, and we are happy from a central Resource Management perspective. We are in the process of rolling out the new Web based version of the software. I agree with the other authors here: you need to do a proper assessment of your organisations requirements of such a tool. Also determine the 'Project Management Maturity' of your organisation - the likelyhood of success is severly reduced if you try and implement each and every feature of your chosen solution and you do not have consistent Project Management processes in place. Saving Changes...
SORRY IF THIS IS ALL IN ONE PARAGRAPH BUT WHEN I PREVIEWED THE REPLY I CONLD NOT GET NEW LINES TO STICK..... I see that you have a substantial volume of responses most of which I agree fully with, so I will not re-itterate points already made but I do think that the issue of Project Manager empowerment has not been discussed.
The company I work for has adopted a de-coupled model which does not work. Although we have a good tracking process and a relatively good resource pool management process the fact that they are de-coupled means that the Project Managers feel that they are not masters of their own project schedules.
This feeling mainly comes about due to the additional management level that we had to introduce to co-ordinate the resource pools and the allocation of thise resources to multiple projects.
This additional management tier is needed to make the translation from work packages / deliverables into physical resources, in other words the human intervention required to maintain the 'coupling'.
This currently leads to problems of Resource pool Manager / Project Manager favouritism; that the work performed by the resources is not always the work on that the Project Manager planned for, but often the work demanded by the line manager of the Resource Manager ; and that the process of performing 'what if' analysis on complete portfolio re-prioritisation is nearly impossible due to its sheer level of manual updates.
If you want to know more you can make contact with me via Ganthead.
