Trends & Tools Results of the PSA Survey 2005

Trends & ToolsResults of the PSA Survey 2005

Project Performance Improvement CoPAugustus 2005

PPI Competence Centre 2

Book: Trends in Project Performance Improvement

Third survey into the PSA solutions market

Previous versions published in 1999 en 2001

The survey:• 153 suppliers were invited (100%)• 49 indicated they would participate

and have received the questionnaire (32%)• 34 questionnaires were sent back (69%)

Questionnaire of over 900 questions! Based on the PPI Process Reference Model Six chapters with trends and developments For each supplier a scorecard


34 scorecards

A scorecard per solution Four categories:

• Internal• External• Technical• Functional


Approach

All answers have been analysed and used in this publication. The answers have been processed as follows:

• Breakdown into process areas and processes based on reference model. • Each process received weight from 1 to 3, based on the relevance of that process for

the process area as a whole. • Each question was given a weighting from 1 to 3, based on the relevance of the

question for the process. • A “B-answer” counted for 4 points a “C-answer” for 1 (the function is only available by

using a custom field). A “N-answer” for 0 points. Formula for calculating the scores.

• Answer * Question value * Process Value = Score for the questionAllocate resources 3

Reservations that have been made on a role level can be replaced by an allocation of one or more individual resource by one single action of the resource manager.

3

B 36When replacing a role allocation, only the resources with that role are shown in the pick list. 3 B 36The resource manager can indicate the allocation of a resource on a project in: - the average percentage allocated for the lead-time of the project

2 C 6It is possible to indicate on which specific days of the week a resource is allocated on a specific project (for instance every Thursday and Friday of a week).

2B 24

It is possible to indicate to which allocation percentage the alloction of a resource should be rounded up (for instance a round up of 25% indicates that a resource can be planned in intervals of two hours ).

3N 0


Some detailed findings (based on average results)

34% offer the functionality to change the start or end date of a project in the portfolio view. So playing with scenarios (on a project level) is supported by a limitednumber of solutions.

48% offer the possibility to use scheduling parameters to determine a programme planning.

60% support what if planning on a project portfolio level. In 61% of the solutions a what-if planning can be compared with the original plan.

28% supports adjusting a multi-project planning by drag-and-drop.

>90% offer support for multiple rates per resource (cost 94%, billing 92%, internal 82%).

54% offer support for sorting a list of suitable resources by rate.

57% show the results per resource per selection criterion.

57% offer the possibility for the project manager to decide the level of time capturing (project, phase, task).

Differences show on detailed, more complex questions.

Trends

Trends in the PPI market


Trend – Portfolio Management

Increasing interest in project prioritization. Scenarios are used to decide on portfolios.

• Surprisingly only 71% supports assigning a priority to a project. • Priority is used by 48% for planning multiple projects on a programme level. • 60% supports saving scenarios for later comparison.

Increasing focus on formal business cases before starting a project. • 65% support planning future cash flows

on a timescale.

Project transparency required on an enterprise wide level.

• Traffic light reporting is supported(budget 74%,risk 66%, progress 88%).

• Assigning a project to more than one programme (by a %) is supportedby 43%.


Trend – Project based working is maturing

Increasing focus on formal programme management methods.

Organizations start to recognize programme management needs a different approach from project management.

Programme and project manager are more and more regarded as a role instead of a post.

Programme Governance Offices are positioned as line departments.


Trend – Focus on metrics and process management

Metrics to evaluate and manage projects and programmes become more advanced.

• When planning a new project data from from previous projects can be reused. For instance the roles needed (74%) and the average experience of the roles (60%).

Organizations are looking for support to register and track PM related KPI’s.

• KPI’s per resource can be entered in 51% of the solutions.

Tools should support in easily managing project processes and procedures.

• 70% have workflow functionality. • Only 48% offer the possibility to define a

loop in the workflow (which is quite basic).


Trend – Cost focus

Handling of invoices from external resources is changing to make it cheaper.

• Reversed billing is supported by 63%.

Outsourcing of application management of PSA solutions. • 88% of the solutions can be used with an Application Service Provider construction.

Scorecards

Scores of our partners


Solution scoreAverage score

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC

The scores of our partners


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


USP and PoI for Assistance

Unique Selling Points: Graphical OBS A delegate can be appointed for

timesheet approval per part of the organisation

100% score on administrate ledger Graphical GUI for creating

workflows

Points for Improvement: No calendars No role hierarchy A project manager cannot execute

what if analysis It is not possible to drag and drop a

project in a general (overall) planning

No full text search on documents. Solution scoreAverage score

Assistance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Assistance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Assistance

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


USP and PoI for Augeo

Unique Selling Points: Adjust portfolio planning by drag &

drop Graphical OBS

Points for Improvement: No internal cost rate for a resource Changes in a generic calendar do

not effect a resources calendar No Gantt Chart available via web-

access. VWC and FAM


Augeo

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Augeo

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Augeo

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


USP and PoI for BEN

Unique Selling Points: Graphical OBS A delegate can be appointed for


100% score on administrate ledger

Points for Improvement: No CRM No KPI’s on resource level No role hierarchy No full text search on documents.


Business Engine

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Business Engine

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Business Engine

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


USP and PoI for Clarity


drop A matching percentage per criterion A delegate can be appointed for


Points for Improvement: Limited number of project priorities The project manager cannot

determine the level for time capturing (project, phase, task)

A document has to be saved multiple times in database to link it to more than one object. Solution score

Average score

Niku

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Niku

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Niku

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


USP and PoI for Mercury ITG

Unique Selling Points: A matching percentage per criterion 100% score on (fixed) asset

management Graphical GUI for creating

workflows

Points for Improvement: No effective date for a rate change. It is not possible to request a certain

level of expertise.


Mercury

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Mercury

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Mercury

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


USP and PoI for Microsoft EPM

Unique Selling Points: Document can be added by drag &

drop.

Points for Improvement: No rate per client, no billing rate No programme level No ideas No support for Adapt Portfolio No end date for a resource Project ID’s cannot be generated

automatically A project cannot be set to the state

closed. It is not possible to drag and drop a

project in a general (overall) planning.


Microsoft EPM

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Microsoft EPM

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Microsoft EPM

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


USP and PoI for Tenrox


drop Rate of a resource can be used as a

matching criterion Document can be added by drag &

drop. Graphical GUI for creating

workflows

Points for Improvement: FAM


Tenrox

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Tenrox

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC


Tenrox

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%CRM

BDM

PDM

HRM

RAM

PEM

PCM

PIM

FAM

KDM

CAM

VWC

Tenrox answered the questionnaire combined with the possibilities Microsoft EPM offers.


Who implements?

Implementation Overal

l Ave

rage

Assist

ance

Augeo

BENClar

ity

Mercury

ITG

Microso

ft

Tenrox

At 50% of your customers the system is implemented by:- yourself (the supplier or reseller of the system) 73,5%- the client themselves 17,6%- an implementation partner 50,0%- an independent service provider 2,9%

Luckily most of our partners work for 50% or more of their implementations with an implementation partner.


Purpose of the survey and the book

Collect and update data about the functional coverage of PSA solutions. Useful for acquisition and selection projects.

Propagate our thought leadershipTo be used in maintaining relations and create new opportunities.

Erwin DunninkProject Performance Improvement

Capgemini Nederland B.V.P.O. Box 2575

3500 GN Utrecht

Mobile + 31 6 1503 0434 [email protected]

Documents

Trends & Tools Results of the PSA Survey 2005