We've never had any issues with scalability. We have teams come and go all the time. We have teams in India, America, Ireland, Poland, Italy, England... we are spread out everywhere! Rally is our key tool for scrum planning and our single source of truth, and it handles it all flawlessly.

Currently, we are handling small to mid-sized tasks or projects on Rally Software, and we find it absolutely scalable. We can easily expand in terms of tasks, user stories, or resources without any issues. However, we don't handle very large projects, so I cannot speak to its scalability in that context. In my experience, the solution has been good enough for our needs. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Rally Software was scalable for my project, so I'm rating it eight out of ten.

I didn't encounter any scalability issues.

Scalability has been good. Again, the reporting, helps with it.

I haven't had much of a problem with scalability. It seems quite scalable.

It is the most scalable product of its kind out there.

That is one of the advantages of CA Agile Central: Its ability to scale. Other tools that we have looked at or heard of, that is one of the limitations they have. The reason why we use Agile Central is its ability to scale across teams of teams. 

It scales.

I don't know about scalability. From my understanding, we're medium to small in the grand scheme of things. There are much bigger shops than us. But we're not small either. We're in the hundreds. So, it seems like there's plenty of scalability.

I personally have not encountered any scalability issues.

No issues with scalability for me either.

For scaling, we look for Agile Central to be the leader for the software that's going to get us to the next 4.5 Scaled Agile Framework.

I have not encountered any scalability issues. We typically pull in 15 to 25 user stories every sprint so maybe 100, 125 stories for a specific PSI, and it has no issues meanwhile.

There was some slowness noticeable on days of heavy usage by many users (peak usage impact).

We did not have scalability issues.

The scalability is fine. We don't have a huge development team, so it doesn't really need to scale that big.

Although, it is a manual task, we can get the data easily in a table format. Since it is a manual process, it is not straightforward. However, we do have a large number of users, who are doing this kind of matrix analysis. We have around 52 to 55 product owners, who are managing up to three scrum teams each. Thus, you can take an average of around two scrum teams. At the end of every release/sprint, we are pulling up this data matrix, to know what has happened exactly during this particular release, i.e., where we were good or not. There are charts, where we can do burnup/burndown and have all those variations between accepting the user stories, until the time it is completed.

We need some similar type of matrix for other criteria as well, such as how many defects are there or the BQ scores that have been given to the user stories. For example, if my release plan comprises 30 user stories, then how can I identify out of my release plan, how many user stories are not created well, due to issues such as the requirements were not clear enough or they were too big or did they have architectural insignificance or not. Thus, if we get this type of matrix, then we have the justification for it. However, if we have to pull out the data manually and if, we haven't grabbed the correct parameters, then we can miss out on some of the criteria, for this 30-point user story. We won't be able to pinpoint exactly as to why the release plan has not been carried out correctly.

In terms of the scalability, not many issues were experienced.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

We have 1,000 to 1,800 users on the solution right now. We bought 2,000 licenses. 

The solution helps us scale our agile projects. 

Different teams that I've been with in the same organization use different tools. I have used TFS and Jira. I would go back to Jira or TFS in a minute. I don't find Rally good for scaling what we're doing. A good percentage of this part of my organization does use Rally, but I don't find it conducive to building transparency across the organization. We should either have TFS, Jira, or Rally. However, because of the lack of reporting, Rally won't be suitable and scalable for the whole organization. People want to see and measure what teams are able to do, and if they can't do that quickly, senior leadership is not going to be on board. If every team had to dig as much as I have to dig, it is not scalable.

In terms of users, we have implementation consultants, which is kind of a hybrid role between a BA, a PM, and a QA. We also have engineers, application developers, business analysts, managers, project managers, and directors. We have senior leadership, like AVPs, who periodically go in there and look at stuff randomly, but for the most part, it is usually used by managers and frontline staff like myself. About 80% of teams in our business unit are using Rally. My team has 15, but the number is easily more than that.

Scalability is getting better. It used to not be as good, but they are adding some features that make it easier to build portfolio items in.

The problem before was that there were just a lot of little bugs where you create a project in one place and it would not continue to exist in another. Also, there were not very good templates or anything. So, they are improving on that. 

It slows down a little bit if you have a lot of information in there. It seems to work really well, however.

I like the personalization of the home screen because I may not want to look at everything, i.e., the same things that other people want to look at. So it's nice to be able to personalize my home screen. I have a lot of stuff on my home screen, and it seems to be able to handle it just fine.

We have not had scalability issues.

Rally Software is scalable but could be better.

When we try to generate some reports, it takes a long time to load due to the increased number of users.

It requires better scalability for the implementation of the whole suite. We do not use it in that fashion, and visibility is sometimes a problem.

We are housed with our business units and we are a Fortune 200 company, but not all the elements of the business units can always see an aspect of a project or stories. They can't get those stories, which are not necessarily visible. I happen to manage development on a product that has impact across all business units, across all business departments. So, I have to do some housekeeping, and maintenance in trying to broadcast what we are changing about the software to those other units that do not necessarily have the ability to see those changes, or awareness that those changes are happening.

I've not necessarily put the scalability factor to test yet, but the nice thing is once you have a small handful of people using it, the number of people and information in it has tripled over the last couple of years. So, it was scalable for us in that sense and then, also in terms of the number and diversity of customers, as I mentioned. It's been good in the sense, that we've needed it but I don't think we've really put it to the test.

I can't comment about scalability.

We've had some scalability issues but, to be honest, because it's a SaaS product, I'm not sure if it's a function of our network or Agile Central. Sometimes it's difficult to tell, because we've got a lot of internal networking that we're doing in terms of security, etc., that slows things down. So when we have had complaints about it, a lot of times it may be us that's at fault and not so much Agile Central. But, an important factor in choosing Agile Central was scalability.

We're able to scale as much as we need right now.

The scalability of Rally Software is easy to do.

I can't really comment on scalability. It seems to be suitable for our needs, however, we haven't tried to scale the product and therefore wouldn't really be able to comment on its capabilities.

We do plan to potentially scale in the next three to six months. At that point, we'll have a better sense of how it will handle an expansion.

I'm not sure how many users are actually on the solution at this time.

I see no problems with scalability. In addition to what we're doing, I know our Services team and Product Development team are using the product, so I expect scaling is not an issue.

There weren't any scalability issues. For my work, it is perfectly suitable as of now, so I don't see any scalability related issues, for my work as of now.

It’s meant for scaling and that’s the top functionality.

I don't think we've had to worry about scalability too much yet. We just use it for one piece of software still, right now. So it's still very small, we're almost kind of piloting it right now.

I'm not sure how well it scales. It's worked so far with our team.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

We have over a thousand employees using it and it is extremely scalable.

We use Agile Central at scale already. The tool is being used across the entire bank and across the world. At last count, we had 7,000 or 8,000 people using it across multiple teams in multiple organizations and these are active licenses. I believe we are already using it at scale in a very real way to deliver value.

The scalability is definitely good because for a company like ours, with a huge amount of data month over month and year over year - with every release the data piles up. We are not going to delete any of the historical data. So far the scalability is good.

There were no scalability issues. However, I have not used this tool extensively enough to comment on this topic.

We have not had any issues with scalability.

I have not had scalability issues at all.

Scalability, is good, but needs some improvements on some other aspects of the framework, such as Portfolio Kanban. It requires a little bit of work, but we can make it happen. It’s the best tool.

Scalability is very good. No problem there. It will scale as you need it to. That's not a problem.

In terms of scalability, we're a pretty big project, with thousands of teams out there, so sometimes we feel like we're pushing the tool to its limits. We start to see slow-downs in response time, and things like that, but it continues to function, for the most part. We'll see as it continues to grow. It usually shows slow-downs in the UI, or particularly in the web service interfaces, that are trying to fetch out data for large projects with thousands and thousands of features. Things can be slow because it's a lot of data to move.

There were no scalability issues.

We have started a little slow. There are just a couple of teams that are using CA Agile Central, so we've not really scaled it up for multiple teams across the organization. However, within our group there are 3 or 4 teams that are using CA Agile Central right now.

As far as I know, there are 16-17 people using it, and since I'm relatively new with the company, I'm not sure what the plans are in terms of scaling its use.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Opening new browser windows (middle-click) takes FOR-EV-ER, relatively speaking. While it is MUCH faster to just click a link in a given instance/tab, the general user behavior is to open new tabs and that takes WAY too long.

There were no scalability issues experienced by us, to date. We had a user base of 500 in 2015, and will have 3,000 by the end of 2017. We have not encountered any noticeable limitations.

There are always latency issues when accessing anything in CA Agile Central Portfolio Manager; it takes a good 10 seconds to load. This isn’t only due to concurrent users, it can be the case at 1 AM when no one is on. It hasn’t been that much of a nuisance.

It's very scalable.

We try to make the most use of the API as much as we’re able, such as for automation updates. But we see a limited use of this regarding the dashboard. Aside from that, this a very good, powerful system.

We ran into some problems with archiving some old stuff but we created a separate tree and that's where we put all the archive stuff. It's still there, it's still accessible but it's not messing with the reports of your enterprise.

We have had no scaling issues with Agile Central. We have worked anywhere from a couple of teams up to about 15 to 20 teams on Agile Central.

Since we are more of a Waterfall shop, as we bring new teams into the agile approach, I think it is quite scalable for us. However, it will probably be a more longer term poll. 

I have not seen any scalability problems.

I think the scalability is there for our organization. We are not in a position to take advantage of any of that yet.

The scalability is very good. We are planning to complete the whole lifecycle of development activities.

Regarding scalability, I don't know. I only know how we're using it as a company. Like I said, I think there's probably more that we could be doing. We're just not quite there yet.

It scales well in terms of setting up the workspaces and the hierarchy, we find that that works really well.

I guess if it can give more integration, something like Outlook, and more automated instead of manual entries, then scalability would be OK. We have around five thousand people using the tool.

We haven’t had any issues with scalability. We have increased our user base seamlessly.

I don't see any scalability problems.

There have not been any scalability issues.

It is scalable. There are no issues there.

It's scaled fine for us.

Scalability works well for us.

Scalability is good. Based on what we have done so far, it is scalable. No problems faced so far.

We have a solution group as well, Testing Services within our organization. If we are looking for any modification within the tool, we can go to them saying, "Okay, when the tool came in it had a particular layout of, say, 100 fields. But based on my requirements, I want to improvise that, I don't need them. Eighty fields are good, but the remaining 20 fields I want to change over to this, make it more meaningful, more for my own organization. Customization.

So when we go to the Testing Services group, they take their time to have it implemented on Agile Central and then we pull a report. For example, the Defect Dashboard. Now, the Defect Dashboard came with some basic things. My anticipation regarding the Defect Dashboard is, I need to see more details, like what was the root cause, sub-root cause. I track it down to that level. So that customization we can easily do. That makes it helpful.

Sometimes it takes a few seconds to scale, such as when changing the size of Windows.

There were no scalability issues.

We have not had issues with scalability.

I think scalability is good.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Scalability is good. I have not faced any issues so far.

I’m currently working for a large Fortune 500 company and we haven’t any issues with scalability.

We have no scalability issues. We have 185 users. However, because we are a cloud product, we are at the mercy of the internet routers and traffic.

We are a big company. We have about 170 teams, and we find it scalable. It has been used for more than 1500 people at our company.

The tool scales effortlessly. The only drawback is if we wanted to create a new workspace because migrating existing data between workspaces is difficult, especially if heavily customized.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

We're at 13,000-plus companies. We have lots of applications, lots of different teams with upstream and downstream dependencies. Different teams have different maturity levels in terms of how they are using Rally. Some are just getting on board, and some have been using it for a long time. So we're trying to consolidate that.

Scalability hasn't been an issue. I wish it were, but so far the adoption has been good. We have a ways to go before I would imagine that there would be any scalability issue.

There were no scalability issues.

For larger projects, the tool gets significantly slower.

We have 800-1200 users. I haven’t seen any issues so far. Rally was installed three months ago and the transition is going well.

There were no scalability issues.

I have used Agile Central in small organizations, as well as large organizations working in a Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) environment.

The scalability is incredible. It's not always straightforward and easy. It’s varied, but there is a lot of overhead in getting there. There is a lot of thought process that you need to put into it. People were already pressed for the work they already have. Asking them to set up entire systems to integrate and be flexible is quite a change.

I do not have a bunch of users. I have not tried scaling it.

We have not had problems with scalability.

We have not faced any issues.

Scalability is good.

There were some scalability issues after integration with internal tools like TFS.

CA Agile Central scales very well. We have 170,000 users.

We are not sure so far on this as we haven’t used it long enough but we hope it will be scalable

We have not had any scalability issues. We have scaled it to some degree, four or five teams, but that's just a fraction of where we're going.

It scales very well. It improves in technology constantly and gets up to speed with the latest and greatest. Basically, all the functionality. 

As usual, there were some scalability issues. If you have many items on the screen, it becomes a bit slow.

We have had no Issues with scalability.