Post #49,665
8/17/02 3:45:20 AM
|
SureTrak
www.primavera.com
Not cheap.
Not easy.
Very very powerful stuff.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #49,680
8/17/02 10:41:56 AM
|
Re: SureTrack
I've used SureTrack a little, years ago - the version before it was bought by Primavera and the version just after. It worked pretty well compared to others, but it looks like the price has gone up a bit (presumabley the features have also).
I abandoned all affordable project management software as insufficient to any use whatever. None of them could handle scheduling a single worker's time among two or more projects (I understand Primavera could).
Primavera bought SureTrack so they could offer a "low-end" product, since Primavera itself is a bit pricy.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #49,773
8/19/02 9:30:18 AM
|
Care to elaborate?
I abandoned all affordable project management software as insufficient to any use whatever. I'm trying to impose some sort of order on what I'm doing, in a way I can show the grand-high-muckety-mucks why I'm doing it that way. And even they aren't using any kind of formal project management. I don't mean just PM software. I mean they don't have any "process" at all. It's constant fire-fighting. Long-term planning is an afterthought at best. That being the case, I'm hoping to show the projected improvements we could see from actually doing some planning. I don't expect my anecdotal descriptions to carry much weight, so I need something more formal to approach them with. Until I can create a project managment position for myself, I don't have any budget to get the software with. That's why I was hoping for something OSS. Is there anything that might be enough to get me to that plateau, then try to get something usefull? ===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #49,791
8/19/02 12:49:26 PM
|
Now, my project software experience is dated . .
The last time I used one was about 5 years ago, and the software was a couple of years old at the time. Hopefully, things have improved, but here is why I found it not worth the bother for my uses.
First problem was that projects had to be large enough to completely consume the entire time of those involved, because only the most expensive software could allocate one person among projects. Since the software could not work with multiple conclusions you couldn't combine projects on the same spread either. This resulted in not being able to reconsile time conflicts.
Second, it was very tedious to set up and maintain, and if not maintained, it was worthless (as a project manager - see below). This means the project must be large enough for someone to be assigned to maintaining the plan as a priority task. The only people I saw actually using project managment software as such were those on contracts that required it.
Project managers did, however, have frequent use for presentation. I saw people (and did myself) toss together a plan for presentation, but update it only occasionally, (just before a progress presenetation). The "computerized" reports implied credibility.
I can see where this sort of software could be invaluable for large, complex projects, like building airplanes, but it's a hassle for small ones, especially if those doing the work also have to take time out to update the project plan - unless, that is, the software has improved considerably.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #49,794
8/19/02 1:02:55 PM
|
That's what I'm afraid of
This means the project must be large enough for someone to be assigned to maintaining the plan as a priority task. Is that just the nature of the project managment beast? It seems, the more I look at it, that the only way for these tools to be useful is if there is someone whose full-time job is keeping it updated. Which, for a project manager, is their full-time job. Maybe this is an efficiency you just can't realize until you scale above a certain point. I saw people (and did myself) toss together a plan for presentation, but update it only occasionally, (just before a progress presenetation). The "computerized" reports implied credibility. That's the point I'm at right now. I need to show that we need some kind of procedure other than, "This just broke; go fix it." ===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #49,800
8/19/02 1:37:44 PM
|
time and billing software might be more useful
."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
|
Post #49,851
8/19/02 8:29:32 PM
|
Pick up some books in the Agile Software Development series
A theme that was repeated there is that project management techniques are overhead. They are absolutely critical and necessary overhead as a project gets larger, but overhead they unquestionably are. You neither want too little or too much management overhead, and the subject of that series is figuring out where the happy medium is. Here is my capsule understanding of the theme, for which I will neither guarantee accuracy or completeness. You should try to figure out what your actual needs are, and aim for the least intrusive project management regime which is sufficient to your needs. Note the phrase "sufficient to your needs". Nothing will not do. But neither is it useful to apply a methodology scaled for 20 people to a project with 5. The two groups have different needs, and therefore require different methodologies. So how do you judge "sufficient to your needs"? Experience helps. As does understanding what needs a methodology addresses. Here are some of those needs:
- Keep people from having to talk to each other. 5 people have 10 lines of communication to manage. 10 have 55. 20 have 190. It doesn't take long before people spend almost all of their time just talking to other people trying to learn things that they need to do to do their job. Appropriate organization and documents can channel communications and cut down how much time needs to be spent in conversation. These do not have to be bureaucratic in nature, for instance prominently placed whiteboards can eliminate a lot of repeat conversations.
- Allocate resources. Projects need resources. Resources need to be allocated from somewhere. Knowing the resource requirements ahead of time on projects allows management to allocate them properly, and also identify when you are overcommitted so that you can cut projects out of the pipeline.
- Reliable scheduling Businesses need to be able to plan ahead. Should we be planning to advertise the new product? Will we have resources to tackle another project in the planning stages? You don't want to be committed to an answer and then have to change it.
- Identify risks Good development processes aren't good because they do something really right. They are good because they avoid a lot of wrong things. An primary among them is having a plan that basically boils down to hoping that everything goes right. Because something is going to go wrong, you don't know what, you don't know where. But you want to be ready for it and you want to know how to address it when it does. Just knowing simple things like who is critical path helps.
- Control interruption rates This is special for programmers. Programmers become much more productive after about 20 minutes of focussed concentration. The average office environment interrupts you far more often than that, so you never get productive. Project management is one of many tools to arrange that your developers can have long periods of scheduled time where they can focus.
So those are the basic needs that official management addresses. The question that you need to ask is whether your team loses more time to the above factors than you have to lose with the paperwork of a more intrusive management regime, and the sheer deadweight of adding people whose job is to be (in Barry's words) ...a glorified secretary, sit there and take notes.Cheers, Ben Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
|
Post #49,822
8/19/02 3:44:09 PM
|
MS Project experience
First problem was that projects had to be large enough to completely consume the entire time of those involved, because only the most expensive software could allocate one person among projects. Since the software could not work with multiple conclusions you couldn't combine projects on the same spread either. This resulted in not being able to reconsile time conflicts.
MS Project can divide people between project, not real gracefully but MS Project doesn't do anything gracefully. I'm not 100% sure about the second since I don't build or maintain the project plans but I don't think it can.
Second, it was very tedious to set up and maintain, and if not maintained, it was worthless (as a project manager - see below). This means the project must be large enough for someone to be assigned to maintaining the plan as a priority task. The only people I saw actually using project managment software as such were those on contracts that required it.
Setting up a project in MS project is a pain, but maintaining it is mearly annoying. As long as the database doesn't get corrupted which has happened to us several times over the past year.
Also, I need to mention that Project Central, the web client for MS Project has one of the worst interfaces I have ever seen. It is both ugly and clumsy.
Jay
|
Post #49,826
8/19/02 4:03:41 PM
|
it is both ugly and clumsy
sounds like the old os2 interface :)
me dux,
thanx,
bill
."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
|
