2009

Project Portfolio Management

Alternatives Results &
Recommendation Report

Joe Armenta | Jay Nath

CCSF-DT
5/26/2009
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Table of Contents

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................2
Introduction...............................................................................................................3
Executive Summary....................................................................................................3
Recommendation Summary.........................................................................................3
Evaluation of Alternatives.........................................................................................4
Evaluation Methodology..............................................................................................4
PPM Alternatives Descriptions......................................................................................4
Conclusion.................................................................................................................6
Appendix A................................................................................................................7
TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP....................................................................................7
Appendix B..............................................................................................................12
SURVEY OF FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CRITERIA......................................................12
Appendix C..............................................................................................................16
FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION MATRIX..........................................................................16
Appendix D..............................................................................................................20
City Services Auditor Project Management Software Solution Evaluation Spring 2008 ...20
Appendix E..............................................................................................................27
VENDOR QUOTE INFORMATION ..............................................................................27

Page 2
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Introduction
This is an evaluation with recommendations report for the Office of the CIO, which had
indicated the need for a review of cost alternatives for a Project Portfolio Management (PPM)
software application. A PPM application assists DT Management to view, analyze and
collectively manage all current or proposed projects, or groups of projects, across the
organization. Our objective is to identify suitable applications with the optimal Total Cost of
Ownership (TCO), as well as the best functional fit with our business and technical
requirements.

Executive Summary
DT’s Project Management Office (PMO) currently is using CA-Clarity for DT’s PPM
application. It is the central repository of all projects for which DT is responsible, including
COIT projects. This is what we call our “Book of Business”. However, the high-cost of the
Clarity solution prompted DT to evaluate possible alternatives. To this end, Blair Adams,
DT’s Chief Technology Officer, and Chair of the COIT Performance Subcommittee, undertook
a project to accomplish this.

So as to establish a set of objective functional criteria by which to evaluate possible

alternatives, a voluntary web survey was sent out to IT Managers across the City (Appendix
B), and from the responses a weighted functional evaluation matrix score sheet was derived
(Appendix C). Since it was important to consider all aspects of costs, a method to calculate
Total Cost of Ownership was identified and adopted as well (Appendix A). Along the way, a
number of candidate solutions were identified, and based on a research-driven selection
process; four finalists were evaluated and ranked as follows:

1. Project.Net

2. NetSuite - OpenAir

3. MS - Project Server

4. CA - Clarity

Note that this report does not preclude a more formal RFI/RFP process in the future.

Recommendation Summary
Based on the weighted scores from our evaluation matrix (Appendix C), our
recommendation is to test Project.Net, on a 90-day trial basis.

Page 3
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Evaluation of Alternatives

MS-Project NetSuite
Server CA-Clarity OpenAir Project. Net
501.47 567.13 697.73 736.20

Evaluation Methodology

We began by gathering the business needs of those in DT who are currently using Clarity
(PMO, COIT Staff, and PMs), as well as those in DT who are seeking similar functionality
(Contracts Section). From this a list of functional requirements was developed, and a
voluntary web survey was sent out to IT Managers across the City (see Appendix B), which
asked respondents to assign relative weights to each requirement. From the survey
responses a weighted functional evaluation matrix score sheet was derived (see Appendix
C).

Since it was important to consider all aspects of cost, a method to calculate Total Cost of
Ownership (TCO) was identified and adopted as well (see Appendix A). We made every
effort to obtain cost information that was as accurate as possible from vendors, as well as
from DT’s relevant known internal costs. When direct vendor cost quotations could not be
obtained in a timely manner, cost estimates were extrapolated from similar vendor sources.
Costs were examined for two modes of service: 1) On-Demand/Software-As-A-Service
(SaaS), which is remote hosting by the vendor; and, 2) On Premises/In-House hosting by
DT.

After preliminary discussions with the alternate vendors, each one was then asked to demo
their solution to PMO Director Joe Armenta and R&D Manager Jay Nath, and each
performance was rated against our functional evaluation matrix score sheet. Since we are
currently using Clarity, we were able to evaluate this ourselves. Finally, the Criteria Weights
derived from the survey were applied, and the final weighted scores were calculated
(Appendix C).

PPM Alternatives Descriptions

Microsoft Office Project Server

Page 4
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

MS Project Server is an extended version of Microsoft Project, using Windows SharePoint

Services and Web Access. MS Project Server stores project information in a central
database. The Project Center supports reports across an organization at the project level. A
Project Administrator can control security defining users and access rights.

The project manager can communicate project plans and task assignments to team
members via home pages in Web Access. Team members can communicate status and
changes to keep the project manager up to date.

Resource workloads can be analyzed by project and by resource with the Resource Center,
allowing organizations to forecast future resource requirements and make more efficient use
of resources.

However, at this time Microsoft seems to be relying upon third-party vendors to provide
true project portfolio capability (dashboards, aggregate views, etc.) Also, since Windows
SharePoint seems to be a technical prerequisite for implementing Microsoft’s vision in this
arena, the true cost of implementation has the potential to be much higher.

Computer Associates Clarity PPM

CA Clarity PPM supports core project and portfolio management functionality. This
functionality provides the ability to unify PPM information and processes into a single system
of record. For individual projects, and groups of projects (portfolios), Clarity can track
resources, organizational structures, budget and financial information, issues, and individual
resource-task timekeeping. A Project Administrator can control security defining users and
access rights. Access to Clarity is via web browser.

Because Clarity has a limited innate project scheduling capability (CA offers its own open-
source product Open Workbench for this), it supports the importing of project schedules
from either MS-Project (with limitations), or CA Open Workbench (preferred).

Clarity also supports the attachment of external documents at the project and portfolio
levels, through its collaboration feature.

In our experience with using Clarity, there have been some difficulties with configurability
and ease-of-use.

NetSuite OpenAir Professional Services Automation (PSA)

NetSuite OpenAir is currently being piloted by the Controller’s Audit Division. The Controller
initially looked at CA-Clarity, and some other candidate software offerings (see APPENDIX
D), before selecting OpenAir for pilot. OpenAir is aimed at project-based businesses,

Page 5
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

providing automated time and expense tracking, billing, reporting, and basic project
management and work breakdown structures.

While OpenAir provides most of the desired project portfolio functionality, some of the
desired graphics capability; such as, Gantt charting at the portfolio level, etc. are still “in the
works”, and are not yet available. Nevertheless, OpenAir provides strong resources tracking
and analysis tools; is easily customizable; and has a robust reporting suite.

Project.net

Project.net is Commercial Open Source. Project.net is a web-based enterprise project

management application that supports the management of portfolios of projects; i.e.,
groups of projects into various portfolios.

The application can prioritize and measure projects using scorecards, and can create
business graphs of portfolio information such as status, budget variance, and completion
time line. The graphics support project status color codes and arrows to indicate
improvement.

More attractively from the individual Project Manager’s standpoint, the application also
provides robust collaboration tools; such as, centralized discussion boards for all project
participants, the ability to attach documents and links to other project objects, and the
tracking of who has read each message. Project.Net is the only one of the four candidate
products which could demonstrate this capability. The application can also import project
plans from Microsoft Project.

Conclusion
Besides the all-important cost considerations, we strongly believe that migrating to
Project.Net or OpenAir for DT’s PPM solution will also provide the added benefits of
enhanced

• Project Portfolio management capabilities

• Resources tracking and analysis across projects

• Project collaboration tools for the PMs, and project team members

• Usability for PMs, and project team members.

Page 6
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Appendix A
TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP

The following worksheets summarize the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for each of the PPM
solutions which were evaluated. Each vendor submitted a TCO worksheet, except for
current vendor CA/EnPointe. (See APPENDIX E, for additional information.) We made every
effort to obtain cost information that was as accurate as possible from vendors, as well as
from DT’s relevant known internal costs. When direct vendor cost quotations could not be
obtained in a timely manner, cost estimates were extrapolated from similar vendor sources.

Costs were examined for two modes of service: 1) On-Demand/Software-As-A-Service

(SaaS), which is remote hosting by the vendor; and, 2) On Premises/In-House hosting by
DT.

Below is the summary table of TCO for the PPM applications evaluated, followed by the
detailed worksheets for each one.

Cost Summary

On-Demand/Software As A Service On Premises/In-House Hosting

(SaaS)

PPM TCO Per User Annual Cost Per TCO Per User Annual Cost Per
Application (Three Years) User (Three Years) User

MS-Project $2,510 $837 $5,290 $1,763

Server

CA-Clarity $8,616 $2,872 $10,980 $3,660

OpenAir $2,514 $838 Not Offered

Project.Net $1,142 $381 $2,321 $774

Page 7
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

MS-Project Server

There were two additional factors here which proved difficult to estimate. The first was the
fact that this vendor has third-party business partners providing the possible solutions, and
the second was that most of them require MS Sharepoint to be in place. Both these factors
have the potential to boost these estimates considerably. However this might be
mitigated, by Enterprise Agreement pricing.

5/13/2009
Year 1 = 2009
On-Demand
On-Premises

MS Project Serve
Number of users (ma
S ubscription fee per
Page 8
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

CA-Clarity

DT is currently using Clarity, and this pricing reflects the actual cost amounts based on 150
users, which is what CA is willing to quote over three years. However, only about 50 DT
users actually use the application, hence the difference between the number of
subscriptions per user per month, and the TCO per User.

5/27/2009
Year 1 = 2009
O n-Demand
O n-Premises

C A-C larity
N umber of users (m
S ubscription fee pe
Page 9
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

OpenAir

This vendor does not offer their software to be hosted in-house by the customer.

5/13/2009
Year 1 = 2009
O n-Demand
O n-Premises

OpenAir
N umber of users (m
S ubscription fee pe
Page 10
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Project.Net

Although this solution’s software source code is Commercial Open Source, there are still
costs involved.

5/13/2009
Year 1 = 2009
O n-Demand
O n-Premises

Project.net
N umber of users (m
S ubscription fee pe
Page 11
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Appendix B
SURVEY OF FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Other CCSF Departments were solicited for their input via Web Survey. Their responses
and/or participation, was strictly voluntary. The survey asked respondents to weigh the
relative importance of functional requirements for a PPM software application. The final
weight for each criterion is the average of the responses received.

SURVEY RESULTS as of 4/8/2009

Completed (90% Questions 15

answered) Survey Count

Response 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 AVG

Completed Survey? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Weight

Ability to view a list of projects 5 5 4 2 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 4.40

for an organizational unit with
basic information (start/end,
budget, etc) and status
indicator(s)

Ability to view aggregate 5 5 2 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4.07

information (total budget,
duration, total resources, etc)
and status for an organizational
unit

Ability to prioritize projects at an 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4.47

organizational level

Ability to provide project status 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 3 4.53

(approved, deferred, rejected,
completed, etc)

Ability to view resource 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 3.67

allocation across portfolio,
projects or by resource

Ability to view portfolio and 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 2 4.00

project schedule in a single
view (Gantt, network, etc)

Ability to view progress 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 3 5 4 4 4 2 3.93

indicators of projects

Page 12
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Ability to generate reports of 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 2 4.13

projects by (e.g.): time; status;
organizational unit; budget
amount; resource
allocation; and metadata
(custom data elements)

Ability to track production 5 4 3 3 3 5 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 3.73

support activities, especially for
resource capacity planning

Ability to record basic project 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 5 4 3 4.47

information (description, budget
code, project ID, etc)

Ability to import MS Project file 3 3 3 5 3 4 4 3 3 4 5 3 4 4 3 3.60

with essential information
(tasks, interdependencies,
resources, completion %age,
dates)

Ability to export to MS Project 2 3 3 4 3 2 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 2 3.07

file

Ability to link and/or upload and 4 5 3 5 3 5 3 4 3 4 5 3 3 4 3.60

attach any type of file to a
project

Ability to manage basic project 4 5 4 3 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4.40

management functions within
application
(adding/updating tasks,
resources, etc)

Ability to create & link 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 3 3.73

subprojects to projects

Ability to use and create project 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3.80

templates

Ability to reserve resources 3 4 4 3 3 1 5 5 3 3 3 4 2 3 3.07

(different than assigning)

Ability to establish milestones 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 4.53

and phases

Ability to view all projects for a 4 5 4 4 3 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4.27

project manager with basic
information (start/end, budget,
etc) and status indicator(s)

Page 13
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Ability to view milestones and 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3.73

tasks in a calendar view

Ability to upload and attach 2 5 3 4 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3.53

project artifact documents (e.g.,
contracts, etc.) to project,
milestones, or tasks

Ability to generate reports of: 4 5 5 3 3 5 4 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 4 4.13

open tasks, outstanding tasks,
upcoming tasks, resource
assignments, work
completed, over-assigned
resources, etc.

Ability to get email reminders of 5 4 3 2 3 5 4 3 5 3 2 3 4 2 3 3.40

upcoming tasks

Ability to establish, and reset, 3 4 4 3 3 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 3 4.00

baselines for schedules

Ability to track issues 5 5 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 5 4.20

Ability to track change requests 5 5 4 4 3 5 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4.13

Ability to enter 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 4 3.40

running commentary /notes at
the project level and at the task
level

Ability to define and execute 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3.53

task workflows, including date
or task triggered email alerts to
task owners

Ability to update completion of 4 5 4 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 4 4.33

your tasks, with actuals

Ability to view all your 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 3 4.27

outstanding and upcoming
tasks across various projects in
a single view

Ability to update your availability 5 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 5 5 4 3.87

Email alerts are sent to you 5 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 4 3 3.87

when new tasks are assigned

Ability to export all, or selected, 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3.93

data to a common and open file
format

Application is mature, and has 3 4 2 2 4 3 4 1 3 2 5 4 4 2.73

been in use for at least five

Page 14
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

years

Permission/Security allows for 5 5 3 4 4 3 5 5 5 3 2 5 5 5 5 4.27

isolation between organizational
units, projects, and project
artifacts

Ability to check-in & check-out 5 4 3 3 4 5 3 2 5 4 2 4 4 5 4 3.80

document attachments

Ability to configure basic system 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 5 3 4 4 4 3.87

functions using GUI

Application utilizes modern and 5 5 3 4 4 3 4 5 3 3 2 4 5 4 4 3.87

open standards such as
HTTP, FTP, xml, SOAP, and
JMS to allow for enterprise
application integration

Ability to host application on-site 3 1 4 5 4 3 1 5 4 2 2 1 4 4 3 3.07

/ in-house

System provides web-based 5 5 3 5 4 3 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4.27

user interface

Relative level of timely 5 4 3 3 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4.07

Business Continuity / Disaster
Recovery for system

Please add any comments, suggestions, or requirements we may have missed. Thanks!

The product(S) selected must add value for the PM... i.e., the PM has to want to use the tools in his/her daily
job. It can't be simply another vehicle to report information about projects that use other products to actually
manage and control.

Page 15
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Appendix C
FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION MATRIX

The following matrix computes the weighted score for each of the PPM solutions which were
evaluated. Raw scores were determined by Joe Armenta and Jay Nath.

Project Portfolio Management Applications Evaluation

MS- CA- MS-

Project Clarit NetSuite Project Project CA- NetSuite Project
Server y OpenAir . Net Server Clarity OpenAir . Net

Criteria
Weight
CRITERIA (1-9) Raw Score 1 (poor) - 5 (excellent) Weighted Score
Total Cost of Ownership
Relatively Inexpensive 3.00 2 1 3 4 6.00 3.00 9.00 12.00
TCO

Management
Requirements
Ability to view a list of
projects for an
organizational unit with basic
information (start/end,
budget, etc) and status
indicator(s) 4.40 4 5 5 5 17.60 22.00 22.00 22.00

Ability to view aggregate

information (total budget,
duration, total resources,
etc) and status for an
organizational unit 4.07 3 3 4 4 12.20 12.20 16.27 16.27

Ability to prioritize projects at

an organizational level 4.47 3 4 4 5 13.40 17.87 17.87 22.33

Ability to provide project

status (approved, deferred,
rejected, completed, etc) 4.53 4 4 5 5 18.13 18.13 22.67 22.67

Ability to view resource

allocation across portfolio,
projects or by resource 3.67 3 3 4 4 11.00 11.00 14.67 14.67

Ability to view portfolio and

project schedule in a single
view (Gantt, network, etc) 4.00 4 3 2 3 16.00 12.00 8.00 12.00

Ability to view progress

indicators of projects 3.93 2 4 5 5 7.87 15.73 19.67 19.67

Page 16
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Ability to generate reports of

projects by (e.g.): time;
status; organizational unit;
budget amount; resource
allocation; and metadata
(custom data elements) 4.13 2 3 4 2 8.27 12.40 16.53 8.27
Ability to track production
support activities, especially
for resource capacity
planning 3.73 3 4 4 4 11.20 14.93 14.93 14.93
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Project Management
Requirements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ability to record basic project

information (description,
budget code, project ID, etc) 4.47 3 5 5 5 13.40 22.33 22.33 22.33
Ability to import MS Project
file with essential information
(tasks, interdependencies,
resources,
completion %age, dates) 3.60 5 1 4 5 18.00 3.60 14.40 18.00
Ability to export to MS
Project file 3.07 5 1 4 5 15.33 3.07 12.27 15.33

Ability to link and/or upload

and attach any type of file to
a project 3.60 4 3 5 5 14.40 10.80 18.00 18.00

Ability to manage basic

project management
functions within application
(adding/updating tasks,
resources, etc.) 4.40 5 3 5 5 22.00 13.20 22.00 22.00
Ability to create & link
subprojects to projects 3.73 4 3 4 4 14.93 11.20 14.93 14.93
Ability to use and create
project templates 3.80 4 4 5 5 15.20 15.20 19.00 19.00

Ability to reserve resources

(different than assigning) 3.07 2 2 5 4 6.13 6.13 15.33 12.27

Ability to establish
milestones and phases 4.53 5 4 5 5 22.67 18.13 22.67 22.67

Ability to view all projects for

a project manager with basic
information (start/end,
budget, etc) and status
indicator(s) 4.27 4 5 4 4 17.07 21.33 17.07 17.07

Ability to view milestones

and tasks in a calendar view 3.73 3 3 3 5 11.20 11.20 11.20 18.67

Ability to upload and attach

project artifact
documents (e.g., contracts,
etc.) to project, milestones,
or tasks 3.53 3 3 5 5 10.60 10.60 17.67 17.67

Page 17
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Ability to generate reports

of: open tasks, outstanding
tasks, upcoming tasks,
resource assignments, work
completed, over-assigned
resources, etc. 4.13 4 5 5 0.00 16.53 20.67 20.67

Ability to get email

reminders of upcoming tasks 3.40 1 4 4 2 3.40 13.60 13.60 6.80

Ability to establish, and

reset, baselines for
schedules 4.00 5 4 4 5 20.00 16.00 16.00 20.00

Ability to track issues 4.20 2 4 5 5 8.40 16.80 21.00 21.00

Ability to track change
requests 4.13 2 2 2 5 8.27 8.27 8.27 20.67
Ability to enter
running commentary /notes
at the project level and at
the task level 3.40 1 1 4 5 3.40 3.40 13.60 17.00

Ability to define and execute

task workflows, including
date or task triggered email
alerts to task owners 3.53 1 5 3 3 3.53 17.67 10.60 10.60

(Add'l Requirement from

Survey Response) The
product(S) selected must
add value for the PM... i.e.,
the PM has to want to use
the tools in his/her daily job.
It can't be simply another
vehicle to report information
about projects that use other
products to actually manage
and control. 5.00 4 1 3 4 20.00 5.00 15.00 20.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Project Team Member
Requirements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ability to update completion

of your tasks, with actuals 4.33 3 3 4 5 13.00 13.00 17.33 21.67

Ability to view all your

outstanding and upcoming
tasks across various
projects in a single view 4.27 3 3 5 5 12.80 12.80 21.33 21.33
Ability to update your
availability 3.87 2 3 5 5 7.73 11.60 19.33 19.33

Email alerts are sent to you

when new tasks are
assigned 3.87 1 5 5 5 3.87 19.33 19.33 19.33
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Technical Requirements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 18
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Ability to export all, or

selected, data to a common
and open file format 3.93 3 4 4 4 11.80 15.73 15.73 15.73

Application is mature, and

has been in use for at least
five years 2.73 2 5 5 5 5.47 13.67 13.67 13.67

Permission/Security allows
for isolation between
organizational units,
projects, and project artifacts 4.27 2 5 5 5 8.53 21.33 21.33 21.33

Ability to check-in & check-

out document attachments 3.80 2 3 5 5 7.60 11.40 19.00 19.00

Ability to configure basic

system functions using GUI 3.87 2 4 4 2 7.73 15.47 15.47 7.73

Application utilizes modern

and open standards such as
HTTP, FTP, xml, SOAP, and
JMS to allow for enterprise
application integration 3.87 2 1 3 2 7.73 3.87 11.60 7.73

Ability to host application on-

site / in-house 3.07 4 4 1 4 12.27 12.27 3.07 12.27
System provides web-based
user interface 4.27 4 4 4 5 17.07 17.07 17.07 21.33
Relative level of timely
Business Continuity /
Disaster Recovery for
system 4.07 4 4 4 4 16.27 16.27 16.27 16.27
501.4 567. 697.7 736.
TOTALS 127 144 178 188 7 13 3 20

Page 19
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009
Appendix D
City Services Auditor Project Management Software Solution
Evaluation Spring 2008
Software Name Pros
MS Project Server Overall-
• “Industry Standard” for Project
management
• Familiar Microsoft user
interface/functionality (e.g. able to use
“right-click” menus and drop down
menus at top of screen)
Individual Project Management-
• Attractive & user-friendly interface: sets
standard for entering project
tasks/subtasks and setting relationships,
dependencies, and milestones on the
project level.
• Excellent gantt views-nice drag & drop
functionality.
Page 20
Cons
Overall-
• Implementation may require outside
expertise (up to 6 months, full time) and
extensive customization.
• Requires reliance on internal IT support –
may require continued consultant support
for installations, upgrades, and
troubleshooting.
• Customized reporting may require the
export/import of data from outside data
sources.
• Requires implementation and coordination
of other software (i.e. portfolio server,
sharepoint, etc.)
Not evaluated because trial is not available:
• Time Capture/Time sheets
• Reporting
• Enterprise level project/portfolio planning
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009
Software Name Pros
@task Overall-
• Can be hosted by vendor-does not
require internal IT support.
• Faster implementation than with MS
Project (it is a stand-alone software).
• Has robust individual project
management and portfolio managing
capabilities.
Portfolio Planning-
• Good ‘capacity’ planner – can view
availability of resource pools and
assignments.
• Nice ability to ‘group’ projects by priority
for viewing.
• Good gantt views of project progress,
phase status.
• Good high level view of projects and
alignment with business need.
Individual Project Management -
• Clunky interface, via web applet. It is
functional however-similar to MS
Project, though more difficult to use and
not laid out as well.
Page 21
Cons
Overall-
• Difficult to navigate through website –
Applets are slow to load and clunky.
• Seems to require lots of customization
and support hours from @task.
• Built-in reports insufficient/not relevant to
our needs.
• Custom data can only be added for
projects and resources, but not for actual
‘time’ (may not work for CSA’s payroll
needs).
Time Capture-
• Cannot enter payroll categories for
projects (dealbreaker??)--May require
integration with a separate timesheet
program.
• Timesheets are generated for any period
designated by user-may lack sufficient
controls for our purposes.
Reporting-
• Customized reports are not intuitive –
difficult to use and lacks documentation.
• Out of box reports generally do not meet
our needs.
• Can’t include individual schedules in
payroll report
Employee Calendar Views-
• Cannot set employee calendars for
irregular schedules (i.e. flex schedules)-
may require customization or work
arounds.
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Software Name Pros Cons

Unanet Overall- Overall-

• Good interface and simple to use. • May require connecting to MS Project in

• Can be hosted by vendor or on-site.
• Reasonably priced (one time fee of
$4,500 + annual fee of $18/user license)
Time Capture-
• Attractive/easy to use timesheet
interface.
• Allows for allocation of project
hours/costs to departments.
order to provide adequate functionality for
individual project management and
portfolio management.
Portfolio Planning-
• Can’t view project portfolio in
Gantt view.
• No good system to prioritize projects.
Individual Project Planning-

• Can select payroll codes and activity
codes for hours.
• Can select specific project tasks in
timesheet.
• Clunky gantt interface for project
task/subtask entry-may need to interface
with MS Project.
Reporting-

• Flexible Reporting and report Creation. • Can’t include individual schedules in

Resource Assignment-
• Can assign projects to a ‘role’ for
planning and then assign to staff.
• Good view of resource availability and
booking percentage (calendar view).
Individual Project Management -
payroll report.
Employee Calendar Views-
• Cannot set employee calendars for
irregular schedules (i.e. flex schedules)-
may require customization or work
arounds.

• Interfaces with Microsoft project to

import/export task list.

• Can import tasks from Excel.

Reporting-

• Reports appear to address our payroll

needs, and are flexible enough for good
custom report generation.

• Interfaces with Crystal Reports (on-site

hosted version)

Page 22
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Software Name Pros Cons

Daptiv Overall- Overall-

• Good interface and intuitive. • Relatively expensive ($7,000 annual

configuration fee + $40/user annual
• Uses Java-doesn’t require slow/clunky license fee).
web applets to load.
Time Capture-
• Is hosted by vendor.

• Good user support with this software • Cannot select payroll codes and activity
(included in licensing). codes for hours-cannot add these fields.

Portfolio Planning- o Options are adding tasks to

projects called ‘overtime’ or
• Meet’s CSA’s requirements for adding non-project work category
prioritizing projects and for management to track overtime hours.
views. o May require use of another
• Nice gantt views of project portfolio. timesheet program (TEC??)

• Nice ability to view resource availability • Cannot generate future timesheets.

and “what-if scenarios”.
Time Capture-

• Good user interface.

• Can charge time to projects without

charging to individual tasks.

• Allows for allocation of projects

hours/costs to departments-through
project properties. However, this is
clunky.
Resource Assignment-

• Can assign projects to a ‘role’ for

planning and then assign to staff.

• Good view of resource availability.

• Can first assign projects to a resource

‘type’ (soft assignments) before making
actual assignments.
Individual Project Management -

• Task view sheet similar to Microsoft

Project – very attractive interface. It can
also be used in assigning auditors to
tasks and for setting dependencies.
Reporting-

• Report generation appears very robust

and flexible enough to meet our needs.

• Interfaces with Crystal Reports or

Cognos for advanced report creation
with subtotals/groupings/etc.

Page 23
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Software Name Pros Cons

Replicon Overall- Overall-

• Web Resource • Web Timesheet has robust time entry
and reporting capabilities—it is the
• Web ONLY timesheet software that will allow
Timesheet for allocating of project hours to multiple
funding sources without
customization/work arounds.
• Reasonable cost ($6,000 for licenses
plus $2,000/year for support)
• Web Resource does not allow for portfolio
planning and has very elementary project
scheduling/assigning features- rule out
for CSA
• This is primarily a payroll/time capture
oriented program and will require
integration with other software solution to
meet CSA’s needs.

• IF we use, will need to integrate with a Portfolio Planning-

project/portfolio management solution
(i.e. Daptive or Microsoft Project). • Inadequate

Time Capture- Resource Assignment-

• User-friendly and highly customizable • Inadequate

timesheet interface. You can add any
Individual Project Management –
number of attributes (i.e. columns, such
as ‘category’ or ‘activity’). • Inadequate
• Per sales, you can charge time to
projects (without charging to tasks).

• Allows for allocation of project

hours/costs to departments without
customization.
Reporting-

• Reporting on time/hours is robust- will

meet payroll needs.

• Quarterly billing report needs (based on

allocation of hours) will be met.

• Nicely customizable reports for project

hours and staff hours-similar quality and
features to current Crystal Reports.

Page 24
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009
Software Name Pros
TeamMate Overall-
• TeamSchedul • Continued use would avoid resource
e costs associated with implementation of
a new system (i.e., need for
• TeamTec development, training, etc.).
• Good Time Capture program – meets
payroll needs.
• Nicely integrates with Crystal Reports
and other ‘home-grown’ databases.
• Because of access to database and
integration with CSA tables, can meet
some ‘peculiar’ needs, such as
calendars on timesheets for payroll.
Time Capture-
• Meets all CSA’s needs except being
able to allocate project hours to multiple
departments/funding sources. This need
may be addressed by using
“homegrown” table.
• If TeamSchedule is used properly,
allows for projects to be displayed as
assigned.
Reporting-
• Flexible reporting with the use of Crystal
Reports-meets most user and
management needs.
Calendar Views
• Simple user views of assigned projects.
Page 25
Cons
Overall-
• TeamSchedule does not allow for projects
to be scheduled in more than one ‘plan’-
must either create a ‘new’ project or roll
over the plan.
• Is hosted in-house. Requires upgrades
and maintenance by IT.
• Questionable software stability.
Portfolio Planning-
• Inadequate ability to prioritize, view, and
schedule projects. May be better
addressed in new release or with the use
of TeamRisk.
• Cannot assign projects to a staff ‘type’
(soft assignment) and cannot view
availability of staff pool prior to
assignment.
Resource Assignment-
• Cannot assign staff to holiday hours since
it will allow for charging to a code not
compatible with CSA payroll needs.
• Clumsy/inadequate assignment
functionality.
• Clumsy gantt views, slow functionality,
requires constant refreshing of screen.
Individual Project Management –
• Projects can be assigned to users,
however, cannot be broken down into
tasks – CSA needs to decide if there is a
need to track project hours and to make
assignments based on task.
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009
Software Name Pros
Tenrox Overall-
• Reasonably priced ($30/user, plus
$18,000 for first year ‘quickstart’
installation package) – includes hosting.
• Full-featured work-flow system – may
allow for integration of CSA
policies/procedures (e.g. training
approvals, leave requests…) into
software system.
• Notification emails work with Lotus
Notes.
• Can track biweekly schedules (per sales
– need to verify)
• Allows for “split-billings”-not thoroughly
investigated
Portfolio Planning-
• Can prioritize, sort, group and view
portfolio—meets CSA needs.
Resource Assignment-
• Can do ‘soft’ assignments to staff and
view availability--interface (grids) a little
clumsy (not as nice as Daptiv).
Individual Project Management –
• Projects can be assigned to users,
however, cannot be broken down into
tasks – CSA needs to decide if there is a
need to track project hours and to make
assignments based on task.
Time Capture-
• Assigned projects appear on timesheet
AND/OR can select projects from menu.
• Dashboard view of hours indicates
overtime hours based on rules and
employee schedule set-up. This MAY be
adequate and MAY be an alternate to
having employee select hour ‘type’.
• Good views to see completed,
approved, unapproved timesheets.
Page 26
Cons
Overall-
• Payroll report may not be adequate for
CSA.
• Custom report creation through the use of
pivot tables may be inadequate for CSA
needs.
• Tracking of staff availability for
assignments is confusing/cumbersome
(grid method).
• Heavy reliance on dashboard views.
Reports are not as useful.
• Rude/aggressive salesmen
Time Capture-
• Cannot select ‘category’ attributes for
hours – overtime must be automatically
calculated by system in dashboard view –
may not meet CSA’s requirements.
• May not be able to automatically calculate
overtime since two-week schedules MAY
not be supported in current version—may
have work around according to salesman.
• Cannot select ‘activity’—however, if this is
explicity in the task title, it should not be a
concern.
Reporting-
• Built-in reports don’t meet CSA
requirements.
• Custom reporting relies on pivot-tables-
not adequate for presentation.
• May not be able to use Crystal Reports to
generate required CSA reports-
investigating use of VPN connection and
crystal.
Resource Assignment-
• No calendar view of project assignments-
only a worklist view of assigned projects.
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Appendix E
VENDOR QUOTE INFORMATION

The following is additional correspondence from vendors, which was submitted in addition to
the TCO Worksheets.

*******************************************

From: Jeff Jennings <Jeff.Jennings@microsoft.com> [mailto:Jeff Jennings

<Jeff.Jennings@microsoft.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:43 PM
To: "'jay.nath@sfgov.org'" <jay.nath@sfgov.org>
Cc: Jeff Jennings <Jeff.Jennings@microsoft.com>
Subject: Completed docs.

Jay,

Here is pricing to accompany the enclosed completed questionnaires:

Pricing =
Project Pro $ 650.00 x 50 comes w CAL
"For Project Server so no additional cost for current 50 Project managers. They may already own
these since they are using it now."
Project Server $4400.00 x 2
Portfolio Server $4400.00 x 2
Portfolio CAL $220.00 x 10

Two servers to support redundancy.

Project CAL's for resources or executives are additional $120.00 each only.
Provides full access to PWA.

Please note this qualification from our partner:

"On the TCO spreadsheet, one of the differences is that if SF chooses SaaS, they just need to buy
the Project Pro licenses, but if they choose on-premise, they also need to buy Project Server,
Portfolio Server, SQL Server, and Windows Server (in the SaaS model SPLA licensing for those
products is built into their per-user-per-month fees). I have put in some estimates of license costs
for those products (and SA costs for years 2 and 3), but it would be much better if you would fill
out those parts of the TCO spreadsheet before sending it back to the client."

Thanks for the extra time. Let me know if you have questions...

Jeff

Page 27
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

From: McConnell, Mac

Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:38 PM
To: ollie.blanton@sfgov.org
Cc: jon.walton@sfgov.org
Subject: En Pointe Quote to CCSF DT for First Year of 3-Year CA Clarity Subscription
Agreement

Hello Ollie,
Here is the quote for the first year of the three-year CA Clarity SAAS subscription agreement which has
been negotiated with Michele Oushakoff. This quote replaces the existing licensing quote for the previous
agreement's second-year (also attached for your reference), and represents a much lower cost and
extended period of license coverage.

Additionally, I am working with Michelle and the CA services group to create two phased SOWs and
quotes for additional assistance in upgrading the CCSF instance configuration and functionality, as well
as mentoring/training for DT IT staff. CA's scope of work for these services won't be finished until mid-
June, and I will be sending those documents at that time.

Please let me know if you have any questions about the attached quote.

Thank you.

Regards,

Mac McConnell | 650 996-7269

CCSF Technology Store Account Executive

En Pointe Technologies Sales, Inc. | enpointe.com

1 California St., Ste 2800

San Francisco , CA 94111

FAX: 415 765 7121

and, see our dedicated CCSF website at sanfrancisco.enpointe.com

En Pointe Customer Service (800) 800-4214 x 5777 Hours: 5:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (PST)

Page 28
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

Department Name & #:

Ordered By:
Dept. Contact Phone #:
Department Approval:
(Signature & Date )
Other Approval:
(Signature & Date )
DT Approval: (Signature
& Date ) Page 29
 PPM Alternatives Results & Recommendation Report
May 26, 2009

-----"Grant McGrail" <gmcgrail@openair.com> wrote: -----

To: "'Joe Armenta'" <Joe.Armenta@sfgov.org>

From: "Grant McGrail" <gmcgrail@openair.com>
Date: 05/07/2009 12:32AM
Cc: <Jay.Nath@SFGOV.ORG>
Subject: RE: Follow-Up Demonstration of OpenAir

Joe, Jay – Thanks for your patience. I’ve confirmed that we will not be offering the on-
premise as an option moving forward. Growing as a SaaS company, well over 99% of our
clients are leveraging that technology at this point. While we are committed to supporting
those clients who purchased on-premise models years ago, our firm feels that it is in the
best interest of our clients and shareholders to wholeheartedly commit to Software-as-a-
Service.

I hope you find the attached helpful.

Jay – I’d also be happy to align another demonstration, analogous to the one I gave Joe last
week, at your convenience.

Kindest regards,

Grant

www.twitter.com/openairPSA

From: Tim Hok <tim.hok@project.net> [mailto:Tim Hok <tim.hok@project.net>]

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:19 PM
To: "jay.nath@sfgov.org" <jay.nath@sfgov.org>
Subject: Project.net - TCO document

Hello Jay,

Here is the TCO document. We can make alterations after you have had a chance to review
the numbers.

Best Regards,
Tim

Tim Hok
VP, Business Development
http://www.project.net
617 621-0060 x123

Page 30