Comparative Market Analysis of Project Management Systems

Transcription

1 University of Osnabrück Chair of Business Administration/Organization and Information Systems Prof. Dr. Hoppe (Ed.) Comparative Market Analysis of Project Management Systems Frederik Ahlemann Katharinenstr. 1 D Osnabrück pmstudie@uos.de 2nd Edition

2

3 ISBN??? Version nd March 2004 All trademarks and copyrights mentioned in this document belong to their respective owners. The University of Osnabrück assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. The University of Osnabrück further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. The University of Osnabrück shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. The information in this document is subject to change without notice and does not represent a commitment on the part of the University of Osnabrück in the future.

4

5 Brief Starting Guide Throughout the study, project management systems are described and classified using the so-called M-Model, which is a conceptual software architecture that includes all project management tasks. Management Board: Portfolios Portfolio Planning Definition of Strategy Portfolio Control * ** ** ** * * * * * * ** Project Office, Steering Committee: Programs Idea Evaluation Program Planning Program Controlling Program Termination Above: Icon used to illustrate the software functionality Project Manager: Projects Idea Generation Project Planning Project Controlling Project Termination Personal Information Management / Team Collaboration Administration/Configuration / Interfaces / Miscellaneous Left: M-Model Each software evaluation contains an iconified M-Model with stars indicating the degree of functionality the software system provides with regard to the corresponding component of the M-Model. 1 No Stars No Functionality: No software support in this area. One Star (*) Basic Functionality: Limited software support in this area. Two Stars (**) Advanced Functionality: Advanced software support in this area. The software offers dedicated functionality but does not have the depth that power users would expect. Three Stars (***) (Almost) Complete Functionality: Complete or almost complete functionality in this area. Users can expect to find elaborate functionality for the project management task. 1 For a detailed description of the M-model please refer to section 3.2, p. 13. i

6 Preface to the 2nd edition The 1st edition of the Comparative Market Study on Project Management Systems was an unexpected and overwhelming success. More than 140 copies of the study were sold, mainly to large enterprises, consultancies and medium-sized enterprises with large IT or R&D budgets. I would like to thank all my readers for their trust in the quality of this study. This second edition of the comparative market analysis has been improved in numerous areas. The most important are: 1. The study now contains detailed assessments of more than 45 products. 2. Existing product assessments have been updated and now reflect the current software versions. 3. Short profiles were added for some products that have not been analyzed. These profiles were provided by the manufacturers and are not the result of a product assessment (chapter 9). 4. The description of the evaluation criteria (functionalities) now also contain an explicit reference to the corresponding number of stars. Furthermore, many descriptions have been revised and extended. 5. The M-Model has been slightly improved conceptually. The middle management level now also comprises steering committees and line managers in general. The strict application of the term program to the second management level in the M- Model has been given up. 6. The evaluation framework has been improved and extended. Some evaluation criteria (functionalities) have been dropped, other have been added, and yet others were modified. The reasons for the modifications are twofold: First, the market for project management systems has developed in the meantime and some vendors offer new functionality. Second, some criteria have been dropped or modified due to a lack of practical relevance or because they are hard to measure. However, the general structure of the evaluation framework remains the same. 7. The classification of project management software systems has been extended and the description of clusters has been revised. The results can now be found in chapter The new chapter 5 contains a discussion of the project management software selection/implementation process. It presents success factors and a process model which explains how the study can be applied throughout the process. ii

7 9. The new chapter 6 contains frequently asked questions regarding the contents and application of the study. 10. Several minor errors and inaccuracies have been rectified. The preparation of this and the promotion of the previous edition of this study was supported by a number of colleagues. This time my thanks go out to: Teresa Gehrs, Christian Reuels, Christine Schroeder, Stephan Hüging, Karen Oesten, Barbara Meierkord and Cathy Illsley. Further thanks are extended to Prof. Dr. Uwe Hoppe, who gave me the time and necessary financial resources to prepare this study. Special thanks go out to Prof. Dr. Heinz Schelle and Dr. Georg Angermeier for their valuable feedback, which helped to improve the study. Again, I would also like to thank the many companies and their representatives who participated in this study and the many advisors among them who made the study what it is today. Osnabrück, January 2004 iii

8 Preface to the 1st edition Each project has its contributors, without whom a project would otherwise soon fail. My thanks go out to: Albin Sonneck, Johannes Krohn, Stefan Geraedts, Sven Packmohr, Teresa Gehrs, Corinna Haas, Christian Reuels, Christine Schroeder and Uwe Hoppe. Last but not least I would like to thank the many companies and their representatives who granted access to their software systems and spent time installing, configuring and explaining them. Osnabrück, January 2003 Frederik Ahlemann iv

9 Contents 1 Introduction Context of the Study Objectives of the Study Structure of the Document Research Design Selection of Systems Derivation of Evaluation Criteria Evaluation of Systems Final Verification Typology of Products Contents of the Study General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Overview: The M-Model as a Frame of Reference Idea Generation / Lead Management Idea Evaluation Portfolio Planning Program Planning Project Planning Project Controlling Program Controlling Portfolio Controlling Program Termination Project Termination Personal Information Management Team Collaboration Administration / Configuration Interfaces v

10 Miscellaneous Evaluation Summary Types of Project Management Systems Single-Project Management Systems Multi-Project Management Systems Plan-oriented Multi-Project Management Systems Process-oriented Multi-Project Management Systems Resource-oriented Multi-Project Management Systems Enterprise Project Management Systems Service-oriented Multi-Project Management Systems Project Collaboration Platforms The Project Management System Selection and Implementation Process Success Factors A Process Model Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 67 7 Results of the Study pleP GmbH: 3pleP Project - Suite General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary POINT AG: teamspace General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary ACME Interactive: OurProject General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary ACOS Projektmanagement GmbH: Acos Plus General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Advanced Management Solutions: AMS REALTIME PROJECTS General Product and Vendor Information vi

11 7.5.2 Product Functionality Assessment Summary Artemis International Solutions Corporation: Artemis General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary ASTA DEVELOPMENT PLC.: Asta Powerproject General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary BBL-Software GmbH: Projekta General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary cando AG: cando General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Cataligent Projekt GmbH: Cat General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary documentum: eroom General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary EFK GmbH: PCS - Projekt-Controlling-System General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary ESNA Ltd: NUCLEUS General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary FeRox Management Consulting GmbH: fx-project vii

12 General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary GSI Gesellschaft für Steuerungs- und Informationssysteme mbh: PSIpm - Project Management General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary HISC AG Projektmanagement: Alpha Project Line / TeamLink General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Information Desire Software GmbH: Projectile General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Integrated Strategic Informations Systems Pvt. Ltd.: iplan General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary INTERMET GmbH: ANTILOPE General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary MediaSolv.com Inc.: vproject General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Meridian Project Systems: Prolog Scheduler General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Metafuse, Inc.: Project Insight General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality viii

13 Assessment Summary Microsoft: Microsoft Office EPM Solution General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Microsoft: Microsoft Office Project Standard General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary MoveYourMind: PROJEKTCHART INTERAKTIV General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Nagarro: Projistics General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Nesbit: ProMOS General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Niku Corporation: Niku General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary parm AG: PARM - Project Accounting and Risk Management General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Planisware SA: OPX General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary PlanMill Ltd: PlanMill PSA General Product and Vendor Information ix

14 Product Functionality Assessment Summary PLANTA Projektmanagement-Systeme GmbH: PPMS General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary PlanView United States: Planview General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Primavera: P3e - Project Planner for the Enterprise General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Primavera: SureTrak Project Manager General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary PRIME smart systems GmbH: Prime General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Project/Open: Project/Open General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary ProjectExchange, Inc.: ProjectExplorer, WebTime General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Projektron GmbH: Projektron BCS General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary x

15 7.40 PUS Prozess- und Systemtechnik GmbH: PQM General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Scheuring Project Management AG: ressolution General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Sciforma Corporation: PSNext General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Sciforma Corporation: Sciforma PS Suite (Project Scheduler) General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary Standpipe Studios Inc.: Vertabase Pro General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary UGS PLM Solutions: Teamcenter Project General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary untermstrich software GmbH: untermstrich General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary VESCON GmbH: OpenTime General Product and Vendor Information Product Functionality Assessment Summary xi

16 8 Product Comparison Single-Project Management Systems Plan-oriented Multi-Project Management Systems Process-oriented Multi-Project Management Systems Resource-oriented Multi-Project Management Systems Enterprise Project Management Systems Service-oriented Multi-Project Management Systems Project-Collaboration Platforms Additional Products with Short Profiles Actano GmbH: RPlan Idealplan Software GmbH: Idealplan Projekt Manager KLUSA GmbH: KLUSA PAVONE AG: PAVONE Project Management project-it GmbH: project-mta project-it GmbH: project-psp Additional Products without Short Profiles 445 xii

17 List of Figures 2.1 Evaluation example The M-Model Management levels in the M-Model Support for creativity techniques: Mindmapping Hierarchic classification system A very simple financial plan for a profitability analysis Design study for portfolio configuration functionality Design study for project scorecard functionality Example: Milestone trend analysis in Artemis Example of a risk management plan Example of a view definition (Microsoft Project 2002) Product types within the framework of the M-Model Example of a plan-oriented multi-project management system: Primavera P3e Example of a process-oriented multi-project management system: Nesbit ProMOS Example of a resource-oriented multi-project management system: Scheuring ressolution Example of an enterprise project management system: Artemis Example of a service-oriented project management system: 3pleP Example of a project collaboration platform: Documentum eroom Controlling Cockpit in 3pleP Project-Suite Central Resource Desktop in 3pleP Project-Suite The teamspace project management module Creativity techniques in teamspace Start screen in OurProject Work breakdown structure in OurProject Milestone trend analysis in ACOS.Plus xiii

18 7.8 Comparison actual vs. target in Acos Plus Gantt chart in AMS REALTIME Projects Reporting with AMS REALTIME Projects Investment / project overview in Artemis Fiscal benefits in Artemis Typical view of ASTA Powerproject: tasks, floats, critical paths and histograms Gantt diagram and capacity overview in ASTA Powerproject Gantt chart in Projekta Costing scheme in Projekta Scheduling in cando Resources in cando Work breakdown structure and Status Reporting in Cat Portfolio Overview in Cat eroom start screen eroom database Project profile in PCS Timesheet in PCS Portfolio overview in Nucleus Project register in Nucleus Project overview in fx-project Project profile in fx-project Gantt chart in PSIPENTA PM Capacity overview in PSIPENTA PM Open issues in Alpha Project TeamLink Meeting items in Alpha Project Line Projectile Startup Screen Planning and tracking with iplan Comparing project performance with iplan Financial key figures in Antilope Cost overview in Antilope Work breakdown structure and Gantt chart in vproject Calendar in vproject CPM-Gantt chart in Prolog Scheduler Portfolio Gantt with a cumulative graph of current actual work in Prolog Scheduler Project overview in ProjectInsight Gantt chart in ProjectInsight Project status in Microsoft Project Web Access xiv

19 7.45 Team setup in Microsoft Project Web Access Guided project planning in Microsoft Office Project Standard Guided custom reporting in Microsoft Office Project Standard Work breakdown structure and navigation window of PROJEKTCHART INTERAKTIV Milestone trend analysis and navigation window of PROJEKTCHART INTERAKTIV Dashboard in Projistics Example report in Projistics Base data of a project in ProMOS Project status overview in ProMOS Portfolio Dashboard in Niku Project Storyboard in Niku Project structure on 6 levels with import/export to Microsoft Project in PARM Timesheet in PARM Resource assignments in OPX Project portfolio in OPX Microsoft Project and Planmill Timesheet in Planmill Project profile in PPMS Capacity overview in PPMS So-called HomeView in Planview Gantt chart in Planview Gantt chart in Primavera P3e Risk definition in Primavera P3e Work breakdown structure and Gantt chart in Suretrak PERT chart in Suretrak Expenses in PRIME Resource assignment in PRIME Client view in Project/Open Project view in Project/Open Project information in WebExplorer Options in WebExplorer WBS and Gantt chart in Projektron Timesheet in Projektron Gantt chart and timesheet in PQM Reporting in PQM Resource overview in ressolution xv

20 7.81 Capacity diagram in ressolution Reporting in PSNext I Reporting in PSNext II Gantt chart in Project Scheduler Earned value analysis in Project Scheduler Schedule in Vertabase Pro Project overview in Vertabase Pro Timesheet in Teamcenter Performance Workplace Capacity overview in Teamcenter Performance Workplace Project monitoring in untermstrich Resource control in untermstrich Project data in OpenTime Workload overview in OpenTime Screenshot RPlan Screenshot Idealplan Projekt Manager Screenshot PAVONE Project Management Screenshot project-mta Screenshot project-psp xvi

21 Abbreviations API ASP ASP BSC CPM CRM C/S CET COM CSS CSV CRM DCOM ERP EVA GPL HTML HTTP HTTPS IIS ISP IT J2EE JDBC JDK JRE JVM LDAP MPX MSDE NPV ODBC OLAP PC PDA PDF Application Programming Interface Active Server Pages Application Service Provider Balanced Scorecard Critical Path Method Customer Relationship Management Client/Server Central European Time Component Object Model Cascading Style Sheets Comma Separated Values Customer Relationship Management Distributed Component Object Model Enterprise Resource Planning Earned Value Analysis GNU General Public Licence Hypertext Markup Language Hypertext Transport Protocol Hypertext Transport Protocol Secured Internet Information Server Internet Service Provider Information Technology Java 2 Enterprise Edition Java Database Connectivity Java Development Kit Java Runtime Environment Java Virtual Machine Lightweight Directory Access Protocol Microsoft Project Export Microsoft SQL Server Desktop Engine Net Present Value Open Database Connectivity Online Analytical Processing Personal Computer Personal Digital Assistant Portable Document Format xvii

22 PERT PIM PMS PPS PSA RDBMS RE SBU SME SOAP SQL SSL WBS XML Program Evaluation and Review Technique Personal Information Manager Project Management System Production Planning and Controlling System Professional Service Automation Relational Database Management System Runtime Environment Strategic Business Unit Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Simple Object Access Protocol Structured (English) Query Languages Secure Socket Layer Work Breakdown Structure Extensible Markup Language xviii

23 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Context of the Study Over the last decade more emphasis has been placed on the general significance of project management for modern enterprises than ever. Globalization, the emergence of new technologies and increasingly strong competition in almost all industries force companies to constantly adapt their processes and products in order to meet the requirements of the market. 2 As a result, permanent organizational change, inter-organizational collaboration and knowledge work have become typical behavior patterns in today s economy. Projects to implement organizational change, redesign business processes and develop new products have therefore gained significantly in importance in everyday business. An ever-increasing number of people work in project-oriented assignments. 3 Project Management Software Systems are widely regarded as an important building block of today s project management. 4 The nature of such systems has changed considerably in the last decade and they are still developing from single-user/single-project management systems to complex, distributed, multi-functional systems that no longer cover project planning alone. 5 This development reflects a general change in the way projects are carried out today; inter-organizational, distributed projects that are part of enterprise- 2 Perich (1993), p ; Picot, Reichwald, & Wigand (2001), p. 2 6.; Pells (1998); Vahs & Burmester (1999), p See the results of a representative study in which more than 70% of executives and qualified employees confirm that the significance of project work will increase; o.v. (1999), p. 92. Cp. also Balck (1991), p WHITE and FORTUNE have stated that more than 75% of project managers use standard project management software, cp. White & Fortune (2002), p See the results of previous studies on project management software, e.g. Dworatschek & Hayek (1992). 1

24 Objectives of the Study wide project management have become the norm in many businesses and companies. Software systems are one of the strongest enablers for such projects and help minimize frictions caused by geographically dispersed teams, time zones and organizational boundaries. Unfortunately, the market for project management software systems is not transparent. Hundreds of vendors compete for millions of users of such systems, and the variety of underlying technologies and concepts is wide. The reason why some systems are licensed is often because the vendor is the only one known offering a specific kind of technology or functionality, not because it is the most suitable one. A more suitable competitor may not be taken into consideration simply because he is not visible. 1.2 Objectives of the Study The objective of this study is to offer a solid foundation of information for decisionmakers intending to buy or rent a project management software system. We have prepared an account of all project management software vendors known to us. For those who permitted us to evaluate their software we offer a description of its functionality at an intermediate level of detail. Obvious weaknesses of a software system that can be stated independently of specific user needs will also be mentioned. However, we will neither offer a ranking of software systems nor state any direct superiority of a specific software system. Instead, we will make the software systems easily comparable with regard to their functionality and technical architecture. The study can therefore be used to identify suitable software systems, offering the possibility of a rough pre-selection before vendors are contacted. In contrast to other project management market studies 6, we have concentrated on a medium-level comparison of the systems. For example, you will not find any information about the time-scale of Gantt charts in this study. We believe that such information is of limited use for companies that are in the early phase of a software selection process. In this study, project management systems are compared by their functionality to support the overall life cycle of projects and their ability to provide all levels of management with the information relevant to manage not only one but dozens or hundreds of projects. In the study this is called enterprise-wide project management, which covers a lot more processes than single-project management. As a consequence, the target group for this study is not project managers or project controllers who have to prepare a project plan for a single project. Rather, the study offers information that could be useful for project offices or the management who intend to 6 Cp. Dworatschek & Hayek (1992); Voss (2002).

25 1.3. Structure of the Document 3 streamline project management processes and improve the coordination of project initiation, planning, execution and termination. 1.3 Structure of the Document Chapter 2 describes the research design of the study. Chapter 3 provides a comprehensive presentation of the contents of the study and the evaluation criteria. Moreover, the conceptual foundation upon which the study is based is discussed in this chapter. Chapter 4 contains a detailed description of the product typology that is used throughout the study. Chapter 5 discusses the software selection and implementation process. It presents success factors and a process model that can help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this process. Chapter 6 contains frequently asked questions (and corresponding answers) regarding the research design, the contents of the study and its application throughout the software selection and implementation process. Chapter 7 contains the results of the study. Each software that has been analyzed is presented in detail, covering general product and vendor information, the product functionality and a summary. Chapter 8 contains comparisons of the evaluated project management systems. Chapters 9 and 10 contain information about project management software vendors who did not give permission for their software packages to be evaluated within the study. However, the products in chapter 7 contain a short profile provided by the vendor that facilitates the unterstanding of the general functional focus of the system.

26 Structure of the Document

27 Chapter 2 Research Design 2.1 Selection of Systems Within the framework of this study we have only assessed stand-alone project management systems. ERP systems with project management functionality are not taken into consideration. 7 The study does not analyze industry-specific functionality - only generic project management functionality is evaluated. Systems that are primarily designed for the following purposes are specifically not the object of the study: Procurement Management, Executive Reporting (unless project management-specific), Strategy Definition and Budgeting. The manufacturers and their software systems were identified in an Internet inquiry. We assessed the products of all vendors who agreed to participate in a one-day workshop in which we applied the evaluation critieria to the software. The first edition of the study was initiated in June 2002 and was completed in January The second edition was initiated in June 2003 and was finished in January Functionalities of new versions that have been released in the meantime were incorporated into the study. Since not all vendors could be taken into consideration due to time constraints, a third edition of the study is planned for August This third edition will contain detailed evaluations of approximately ten further products. 2.2 Derivation of Evaluation Criteria Within the framework of the study we focus on breadth and depth of functionality rather than on non-functional quality criteria. For this reason, our evaluation scheme consists almost exclusively of groups of functionality that are useful for enterprise-wide project 7 This is planned for a later edition of the study. 5

28 Evaluation of Systems management or project management in service companies. These functionality groups were created in two steps. First of all, we followed a top-down approach and deductively derived necessary functionality for enterprise-wide project management and for project management in service companies from a theoretical point of view, using the so-called M- Model. 8 Subsequently, we looked at the functionality the software systems offer (bottomup approach). This was undertaken to make the theoretical findings more realistic and to validate them. Furthermore, it enabled us to ensure that the study reflects the functionality of state-of-the-art project management systems. The results of this phase were mainly summarized in the form of an adapted M-Model, as elaborated in chapter 3. This version of the M-Model was extended by functionality groups assigned to each process element of the model. 2.3 Evaluation of Systems The evaluation of the software was carried out in workshops with experienced consultants at the University of Osnabrück, typically lasting one day. Some evaluations were carried out at the manufacturer s site since the complexity of the software installation and the hardware and software requirements forbade an evaluation at the University. Evaluation was undertaken within the framework of the adapted M-Model. We checked the extent to which the software systems support the functionality, as expressed in the M-Model, by analyzing the software and its documentation. With the help of iconified M-Models, we summarized the findings for each software system, as explained on page i. In principle, the software systems are evaluated by stars expressing the extent to which the software offers a certain kind of functionality: No Stars No Functionality: No software support in this area. One Star (*) Basic Functionality: The software offers basic support in this area. The functionality is limited to the input and maintenance of necessary data and some simple reports. Two Stars (**) Advanced Functionality: The software offers advanced functionality in this area. The software distinguishes between different user roles and provides these roles with corresponding functionality. However, state-of-the-art project management techniques are not completely implemented as power users would expect. 8 Cp. Ahlemann (2002).

29 2.3. Evaluation of Systems 7 Three Stars (***) (Almost) complete Functionality: Three stars are given when the software offers an (almost) complete set of functionality necessary to perform a process step. Users can expect to find elaborate functionality for their specific role and state-of-the-art project management. The functionality has a high degree of configurability and allows seamless integration with other functionalities. Generally, stars are not given for workarounds and functionality that was originally not designed to support the process step concerned. E.g., some manufacturers implement budgets by creating special resources. This is regarded as a workaround and is not considered in the study. However, we rewarded systems with stars that could be customized in a fast and easy way to meet the requirements of the M-Model. In order to be able to summarize the evaluation results at the level of the M-Model, each functionality has a percentage reflecting the weighting of the particular functionality regarding the aggregated evaluation (scoring model). Thus the aggregated evaluation result is! where is the evaluation result of process step$ and software%,& is the number of functionalities for process step$ ', is the evaluation result for software%, process step $ and functionality( (the number of stars), and is the weighting of functionality( in process step$. is a function that returns the integer value of the argument, cutting off decimal places. #" Example: Regarding the process step Idea Evaluation, the software system ProjectWorld was evaluated as follows: ) Creativity Techniques (20%): ** ) Idea/Project Classification (40%): ** ) Lead Management (40%): *** The aggregated result is:!+*-,/.!!+*-,/.0 21 *,/.0!3.0. This result is rounded down to 2 so that the iconified M-Model would look like that in fig The criteria weights are derived from empirical studies on the application of project management methods and processes, as well as on individual discussions with project managers and project management software manufacturers.

30 Evaluation of Systems Definition of Strategy Portfolio Planning Portfolio Control Idea Evaluation Program Planning Program Control Program Termination Functionality (Weight) Eval. Aggregation Idea Generation Project Planning Project Control Personal Information Management / Team Collaboration Administration/Configuration / Interfaces / Miscellaneous Creativity Techniques (20%) ** 0.2*2 = 0.4 Project Termination Idea/Project Classification (40%) ** 0.4*2 = 0.8 Lead Management (40%) *** 0.4*3 = 1.2 2,4 ** Figure 2.1: Evaluation example

31 2.4. Final Verification Final Verification At the end of the study, the detailed evaluation results were presented to the manufacturers for final approval. The manufacturers were given the chance to suggest corrections which were verified by us and subsequently taken into account. The assessment summary was not presented to the manufacturers in advance. 2.5 Typology of Products Since project management systems differ significantly from each other with regard to their target group and functional focus, it does not make sense to compare all systems with each other. Instead, we created types of project management systems with comparable functional focuses and target groups. Rather than applying statistical methods 9, we analyzed both the marketing message of the manufacturer and the functionality of the systems. In doing so, we created seven product types that are described in detail in chapter 4. 9 The random sample is too small to reach a valid conclusion for the entire population.

32 Typology of Products

33 Chapter 3 Contents of the Study Each product evaluation basically consists of three sections. The first section gives an overview of the product and the manufacturer. The second section contains the detailed evaluation results. The last section summarizes the findings. Below you can find a detailed description of all information that was collected or created by us throughout the preparation of this study. 3.1 General Product and Vendor Information Since most decision-makers do not only make decisions regarding functionality, we also provide information about the technical architecture, software requirements, hardware requirements, Internet-ability and the manufacturer. This information was taken from the world wide web, brochures and manuals or was provided directly by the manufacturer: Version The version number of the software that has been evaluated. Available Since This is the year in which the first version of the software with the current architecture was released. Preceding products are not taken into consideration. This date has to be seen mainly with regard to the technology and not with regard to marketing; it reflects major changes in architecture, not in the naming of the product. Contract: ASP, Self-Hosted, Rented, Open Source The general contractual conditions under which the software can be used. Typically, software licenses are offered that allow the licensee to install and use the software running on one s own hardware (Self-Hosted). Some vendors offer their software as an application service; the licensee can then access the software over the Internet, which does not require any additional hardware or software, e.g. for special servers (ASP). Alternatively, 11

34 General Product and Vendor Information the software can be rented but has to be installed on local computers (Rented). Furthermore, some project management software applications are available as open source products which can typically be modified by programmers but come without any warranty (Open Source). Installations The number of installations of the software, which is typically the number of server systems that have been installed. This number can be regarded as an indicator for the distribution of the software. Users This is the total number of users working with the system at all customers. Typical number of users This is the average number of users per installation. Largest installation This is the maximum number of users the system has ever been installed for and used by successfully for a single customer. Architecture Short description of the technical architecture. The simplest architectures are file-based, which means that a monolithic software application accesses files that contain the project data. Advanced, so-called 2-tier architectures shift the data storage towards special database management systems. State-of-the-art 3-tier architectures are based on an additional third layer which comprises the complete application logic so that input/output, application logic and data storage are clearly separated from each other. Internet-Ability Due to the fact that an increasing number of projects are carried out by teams working in multiple locations, the use of project management software over the Internet is gaining in importance. Although many applications offer web-based clients, complete Internet ability is not always automatically guaranteed. One can only speak of limited suitability for the Internet, especially if firewalls have to be reconfigured and proprietary browser plug-ins are required. Client The software requirements for the client (the work place computer) are described here. Hardware requirements are only mentioned if standard personal computers are insufficient to run the software. Server In analogy to the description of the client, the software and hardware requirements for the server are described here. Industrial Focus / Functional Focus The industrial or functional focus of the product as stated by the manufacturer. Support/Hotline This is a description of the support that is available for the software. This comprises telephone hotlines and Internet-based support. If support is available in various languages or on 7x24 base, this is also indicated.

35 3.2. Product Functionality 13 Consulting Larger software solutions in particular require consulting services for the installation and customization of the system. Here, possible consulting partners and the type and size of the consulting workforce are described. References Reference customers for this specific product as made known to the public by the manufacturer. This list does not claim to be complete. Pricing This section contains information that gives us a first impression of the general pricing of the product. Due to the extent of typical price lists and general terms and conditions, we are frequently not able to present the complete pricing scheme. Pricing Example I This is a price example for a small installation with the following characteristics: 10 normal users (functionality for personal information management, team collaboration and timesheet), 1 project manager (complete functionality) and 1 system administrator. The project has 50 activities. Pricing Example II This is a price example for a medium installation with the following characteristics: 100 normal users (functionality for personal information management, team collaboration and timesheet), 15 project managers (complete functionality), 10 management users (mainly reporting and monitoring), and 1 system administrator. The entire installation is for 100 projects with 2,000 activities. Pricing Example III This is a price example for a medium installation with the following characteristics: 1,000 normal users (functionality for personal information management, team collaboration and timesheet), 100 project managers (complete functionality), 100 management users (mainly reporting and monitoring), and 3 system administrators. The entire installation is for 500 projects with 10,000 activities. Pricing Example IV This is a price example for a large installation with the following characteristics: 10,000 normal users (functionality for personal information management, team collaboration and timesheet), 1,000 project managers (complete functionality), 500 management users (mainly reporting and monitoring), and 10 system administrators. The entire installation is for 5,000 projects with 100,000 activities. 3.2 Product Functionality This section describes the M-Model, its elements, and the corresponding software functionality, as analyzed throughout the study. The weighting of the functionalities are placed in brackets behind their title.