The deployment doesn't take much time. It is very fast.

We don't do any maintenance. The solution is SaaS and managed by the Micro Focus team.

We do the installation ourselves. I have a product administrator for all of the Micro Focus products in our environment who is doing all the administrative duties for us on all the Micro Focus products.

Regarding our implementation strategy, it becomes quite complex if you use other Micro Focus products as well. It's not as straightforward as just upgrading Quality Center. We use service virtualization and we use Mobile Center. For us, it's important that we follow the process to make sure that we're on the most recent releases of all products that can integrate. The integration portion of the Micro Focus documentation is quite important to us.

We implemented the solution using a vendor team. They have been supportive in explaining the new configuration and values and how they have changed since I used it last.

We implemented the solution by ourselves. We indigenously built a model for integration. We were a team of seven and an executive, meaning eight members were involved. The team included software developers and product managers.

We need one engineer to deploy and maintain the product.

We used a third party for the setup.

N/A

We have done the implementation in-house.

It was done by our tool administrator.

We did have some internal help, but we didn't have a full-time consultant. We didn't have any external help. We used a team of three people (part-time consultants).

The implementation team was all internal: two other people and myself.

I started with the testing. Then, after the launch, I was working with the requirements and defects. Therefore, the deployment was a step-by-step process for quite a long time.

Initially, the implementation was done by Micro Focus. After that, the four admins take of upgrading, et cetera. The initial implementation was done many years ago by Micro Focus, and thereafter it's all the admins who take care of everything else.

The deployment is done in-house.

The tool was simple enough to learn by using the manuals. I learned how to configure the tool, and I conducted the company-wide training. I maintain and configure the system.

Vendor. The team was very qualified, both technically and from a user perspective.

We used a vendor team with in-house machines for the implementation.

The implementation was done in-house.

It was done in-house.

It was done in-house. The team that works here has experience with HP Quality Center and ALM on other projects. The team expertise is high.

We developed our solution in-house.

We implemented it ourselves.

The initial deployment was with a vendor over 14 years ago, but all subsequent updates have been done in-house.

It was done in-house.

They come in and set it up.

We have an in-house one team who are supporting several portfolios within our IT organization. I would say their level of expertise is good to excellent.

Initially we implemented Quality Center ourselves but then went with an outside vendor later due to some complications. Depending on the complexity of your organization I recommend working with an approved vendor or service partner to setup your installation.

HP ALM resellers typically perform the initial set up and configuration of the HP ALM site and user projects. In some cases, larger testing firms are also resellers and provide the tool as part of the project. I fundamentally disagree with buying a tool from its eventual user.

I advise clients to do the upfront planning and limit users with access to the site administration console to three or less. The planning required for a successful implementation requires much more time and effort than the deployment itself. Deployments are typically scripted while planning requires humans. Access to the HP ALM site console is separate from project access. I have seen sites with twenty or more registered site administrators. I believe this occurs more as a symptom of long term neglect than an implementation issue.

I was a consultant for a Fortune 500 company where we implemented this product not only in our own environment, but for our clients as well. I have implemented this product to over 50 companies since 2006, including top pharmaceutical, and medical device companies within the health and life sciences industry.

I always see ALM as an enterprise solution, so I don't go for the project implementation. You also need to maintain it. If one project has an issue, it may be very different in another project. There's also an issue when you have a user who is working multiple projects. E.g., where does the user have an issue? From a maintenance perspective, project implementation is not very handy so I always try to treat it as an enterprise solution, not as a project solution.

It was implemented before I joined the company.

We had an in-house admin team.

Very good and professional.

HP hosts the application with no issues, and a vendor does the desktop update. This desktop vendor is expensive and inflexible.

We used a third-party team.

A vendor was used for support during the implementation, but we had internal knowledge as well.

We are implementors. We help clients set up and deploy the solution.

We did it in-house.

We used a mix of an in-house team and a vendor team.

An in-house team implemented it.

We used an in-house team to implement.

The vendor was okay. The person sent in to do the installation was very knowledgeable on the product.

In house.

We did it in-house.

We paid for an HP consultant who wasn't experienced. They called everyday about everything to the central development team of HP.

We implemented it in-house.

We used a vendor who were 10/10.

In-house implementation.

An in-house team performed implementation as needed.

In-house

We did it in-house.

In-house.

It was implemented by our client team and we helped them with the offshore installation.