There are two big methods to deploying enterprise software. The most popular and espoused by the big-box consulting firms we can term the “Big Bang” approach. We make a complete design, take 2 years to deploy but when it finally comes out it’s hopefully everything you ever hoped for. The other way to go is the “Phased” approach. Here we get an approach that may take longer to get to the complete solution and may even never get there but it carries the advantage of paying dividends along the way and being adjustable to change direction if the company changes over time. Which one’s better? Take a read of this article to find out.
With major ERP vendors like SAP and Oracle directing new efforts from the enterprise market to the mid-market and vendors like Microsoft directing new efforts from the end-user to the mid-market, there is bound to be some interesting competition underway. We can think of an ERP system as the unmoveable object but the wave of user support for Microsoft is not to be taken lightly. We can think of them as the unstoppable force. Both are headed to the same place. How does this affect the Enterprise Project Management market? This article tackles this subject.
Should you look for an all-in-one business management tool that does accounting, human resource management and project management or should you be looking for best-in-breed tools that can integrate with each other? This article looks at how software vendors are trying to extend their markets; Downward from the ERP vendors who look to move from the central Finance department out to other departments and; Upward from the desktop project tools towards the centralized management sections of the company.
Resource capacity planning is one of the most expected and requested aspects of enterprise project management yet it is one of the most elusive benefits to achieve. Why is this? If it’s so commonly requested, why isn’t it easier to deliver? This article talks about the different aspects of Resource capacity planning and gives some tips on how to achieve it.
People who look at project management systems rarely distinguish between the driving force behind such systems. Virtually all project scheduling systems are analytic in nature. They’re about estimates and projections. Yet data that looks very similar in Outlook or whatever you use for an agenda isn’t analytic at all, it’s commitment based. This article distinguishes between these different paradigms nd points out the trouble that can happen when the domains are muddled.
As project management tools have moved further and further from their Critical Path Scheduling roots, we’ve seen more of a focus on empowering the project management team and extending the definition of the project management team. This article talks about what to look for in collaboration tools for project management.
When you look at an Enterprise Project Management (EPM) implementation, looking at services is inevitable. There are so many aspects of deploying an EPM system that go well beyond simply installing it. Engaging an experienced deployment specialist who has seen EPM deployments over several organizations and under multiple conditions can help to avoid the most common and cost of pitfalls. This article looks at what to look for in an EPM services specialist.
Written originally over 10 years ago, this article is still particularly current today. Most project management tools written originally in the 70’s 80’s and 90’s were based on the Critical Path Methodology paradigm. They were fundamentally scheduling tools. Yet, the practice of project management has becmoe so much more. See my thoughts on whether we should move on from Critical Path as our driving force in the project management systems industry in this article.