Great idea on the CAN-PLAN (and any subsequent) software review. A short application process with "winners" selected by MVP ranking is very reasonable. This ensures that any selected reviewers will be "known" to the PP community.
I would think 2-3 reviews would be sufficient, but this is really up to the software vendor as to how many packages they are willing to provide.
I think the reviews should be a free form dissertation. The reviewer can then focus on the pros and cons as they see them. It would make sense to include a header or footer describing the reviewer (possibly including some structure from the survey). I think that a more in depth review (than the survey) in the form of a dissertation might encourage other vendors to participate. Thoughts?
Either we can choose who reviews or, as I prefer, we can allow applications (to a cut-off date) and then select based on MVP ranking (or some other measure).
How many evaluations are enough ?
We then need to advise our reviewers how long they have and how to structure their evaluation. Suggest we use the software survey as a framework for this (I know, I still have to edit it up).
We also need to agree the format of and output from the reviews with the vendor. Do we give him raw data, or do we attempt to collate or even analyse it ?
If we agree on the above, suggest we post in the CAN-PLAN thread stating our intentions and soliciting reviewers. We can also ask James to post a notice on the homepage to the same effect (big banner "Free software")
Spider Project is most functional and powerful professional project management software.
The first SP version was launched in 1993 and since then it has been constantly improved. Today is used in 34 countries though most Spider Project customers are in Russia. Spider Project offers numerous unique functional features and is the only PM software that optimizes resource, cost, and material constrained schedules and budgets for projects and portfolios.
The unique features of Spider Project include Quantity Based Scheduling, Conditional Scheduling, Skill Scheduling, Optimal Resource, Cost and Material Leveling, Resource Critical Path Calculation, Cash and Material Flows Calculation and Management, Trend Analysis, Advanced Risk Simulation and Analysis, Calculation of Success Probability Trends, Calculation and Management of required Project Time and Cost Buffers, Application of Corporate Norms, Management of many Parallel Budgets, Multiple WBS and many others.
Spider Project was and is used for management of many large scale programs in Russia, including $51bln construction program for 2014 Winter Olympic Games preparation.
The application areas where Spider Project is successfully used include Aerospace, Banking, Construction, Defense, Energy, Engineering, Infrastructure, Manufacturing, Metallurgy, Mining, Oil & Gas, Railways, Retail, Shipbuilding, Software Development, Telecommunications, Utilities, etc.
P6-Auditor - Display information from Primavera P6 audit tables in a user-friendly format
Unifier-Archiver - Extract and archive important documents and attachments from Primavera Unifier
Unifier-Loader - Load data into and out of Unifier via Excel
PCM-Loader - Import data into Primavera Contract Management with flexible and secure, template-driven Excel spreadsheets
PCM-Archiver - Extract and archive important documents and attachments from Primavera Contract Management
PCM-Unifier Migrator - Automatically transfer live and historical data from Primavera Contract Management to Primavera Unifier with ease
Create Radically Better Construction Schedules with ALICE Technologies
Use the power of AI to create construction schedules that reduce risk while cutting costs and build time. With ALICE, develop the ideal schedule during preconstruction -- or recover projects that are off schedule and over budget.
LOL... No.
Bernard Ertl
InterPlan Systems Inc. - Project Management Software, Project Planning Software
Hey Bernard, are they paying you enough to work (?) this late every night ?
Great idea on the CAN-PLAN (and any subsequent) software review. A short application process with "winners" selected by MVP ranking is very reasonable. This ensures that any selected reviewers will be "known" to the PP community.
I would think 2-3 reviews would be sufficient, but this is really up to the software vendor as to how many packages they are willing to provide.
I think the reviews should be a free form dissertation. The reviewer can then focus on the pros and cons as they see them. It would make sense to include a header or footer describing the reviewer (possibly including some structure from the survey). I think that a more in depth review (than the survey) in the form of a dissertation might encourage other vendors to participate. Thoughts?
Bernard Ertl
InterPlan Systems Inc. - Project Management Software, Project Planning Software
Either we can choose who reviews or, as I prefer, we can allow applications (to a cut-off date) and then select based on MVP ranking (or some other measure).
How many evaluations are enough ?
We then need to advise our reviewers how long they have and how to structure their evaluation. Suggest we use the software survey as a framework for this (I know, I still have to edit it up).
We also need to agree the format of and output from the reviews with the vendor. Do we give him raw data, or do we attempt to collate or even analyse it ?
If we agree on the above, suggest we post in the CAN-PLAN thread stating our intentions and soliciting reviewers. We can also ask James to post a notice on the homepage to the same effect (big banner "Free software")
Mark