I came, and it was already in use. I was put into designing solutions for importing data and exporting data. They have a custom scripting language called GEL scripting language, and because I had a history in that as well as databases, I was able to take on multiple roles without too much difficulty.

In terms of maintenance, the system requires you to monitor it and keep track of errors and such, but so far, what I've noticed is that a majority of the errors are user data-driven. It is medium-light as far as maintenance goes. They've improved the application over time to where some of the maintenance-level jobs have become more stable. 

They have a job called time slicing, which breaks time data into its different components, and occasionally, in the previous versions, it would run a long time on year turnovers and month turnovers. The year was the biggest one, where it would run for a couple of days. Now, it runs almost instantly all the time. That was a giant improvement.

How easy or complex the initial setup for Broadcom Clarity PPM depends on the client, as my company worked with three different clients. For one client, the setup took two months and that included business processes, but it was a little bit on the simpler side. With heavy implementation, for example, the most recent project my company implemented took one year, but it was not because of Broadcom Clarity PPM. It was because of the client's business processes, security implementations, and a lot of other things that were highly custom. If it's an out-of-the-box setup, it would be completed within one week or so, and people can get started with using the tool.

Broadcom Clarity PPM was really smoothly to install. There were no challenges with its initial setup. The deployment took three days. The installation of the software only took a little time, e.g. three days, but we spent two to three years with the configuration.

I would rate the ease of the initial setup around nine out of ten. It's a friendly tool and I think people find it more familiar compared to other PPM tools.

We initially deployed Clarity PPM on-premises, but 90% of our customers are on the cloud, and we still have a few legacy customers who are in the process of migrating to the cloud from an on-premises setup.

Typically, with out-of-the-box features, it took maybe two to three months to deploy, but we have a larger and complex implementation, which can take twelve months.

Broadcom Clarity PPM takes a couple of days to implement.

It was a long time ago. It went well. It was challenging because we thought we knew everything we wanted to get out of the tool, but we didn't know what we didn't know. So there are a lot of things, now, that we would have gone back and done differently, and made a lot simpler in the beginning.

Upgrades have gotten better each time. We just, a month ago, upgraded from 15.1 to 15.3. It's been the smoothest upgrade that we've ever done. Past upgrades, we certainly had some challenges, especially going from 14 to 15 or 13 to 14, but they've gotten better each time.

Last time, when we upgraded to 15.1, we had some challenges around Jaspersoft, and also some issues with supporting some of the complex process work flows that we had designed internally, that were affected by some changes in the process engine. But recently, with this most recent upgrade to 15.3 there were really no problems to speak of. 

It was already installed when I came to work for my current employer.

I was there in the initial set up of our upgrade, so we upgraded to 13.4 and I was part of that.

It was not straightforward. It was complex because we pretty much upgraded from our old version. We could have done a lot more out-of-the-box functionality, but we chose not to.

It was hard. Even the lessons learned from CA were like, "Wow," this was a lot bigger than we thought it would be.

I was involved a little bit towards the tail-end of the installation. I was definitely involved in delivering training to our users because we had different business groups.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup, but as a support team, my team will do a lot of the testing in the different phases of upgrades. We test it from an administrative standpoint, but also as a user, as a PM, different rights permissions. We'll swap those out to make sure that everything is fluid.

The updates are straightforward. We have a development team that helps to make sure that we're migrating properly.

It was fairly difficult to get going. We had to try it a couple times. We had signed up initially for a program that was supposed to get it up and running in 30 days, but it didn't explain enough or train us enough about this very complicated product; so it actually took us a couple of years before it was right.

The configuration process for Broadcom Clarity PPM can be challenging initially. The complexity and duration of the setup may vary depending on the unique needs and services of large corporations. Despite being a standardized procedure, it can still pose difficulty.

It is pretty much cool. And I would say the setup and the upgrade capabilities from CA, the way they have it implemented and prepared the end script is pretty much cool.

I was not involved in the initial setup, I think I joined a couple of months after the initial set up. But I've been there all throughout since then, including upgrades. The upgrades used to be complex. But now, I think it depends on upgrade planning. How often do you upgrade? If you upgrade once in three years, then it can be complex. But if you keep on upgrading as and when CA releases their upgraded version, I think it would be smooth.

Initial set up, user adoption was a little rough in the beginning, especially with the technology at the time. It was new, we were coming from a homegrown, "I have exactly what I want", to trying to use out of the box technologies.

The initial setup of Broadcom Clarity PPM is complex.

We recently upgraded to 14.2, and that was smooth and issue-less.

I think our decision was the right one. We went with the minimum configuration. We wanted to use it out of the box as much as possible. A CA consultant came and I think we had him for about three months. They came and gathered the requirements and configured it a little bit to suit our requirements and I did some additional fields here and there, but mostly out of the box. He was very knowledgeable, he helped us in setting up easily. 

Right now we're in the adoption mode, and our timesheet compliance is around 92%. We're just about three months into it, and I really like it. We have still yet to use all the other features that come with CA PPM.   

We are focusing for now on project management, and generating reports, out of that: status reports, timesheets, reporting on actuals. We want to get to the next phase where resource utilization capacity is accurately defined in CA PPM as well. Financial planning, it was initially out of the scope, but I think as soon as they started seeing actual costs in the system, everybody wanted to see, "Okay, what's the budget every month? What was the planned cost?" and things like that. So we're trying to put that data in, and set up processes for keeping it up to date and things like that. So far, so good.

The initial setup was straightforward. Using the tool, you can navigate it, tell it what to do or what not to do.

We can deploy the solution on the cloud and on-premises.

The initial setup is easy, but it could be better. It could be more intuitive because there are a lot of configurations that must be done manually, such as environment variables. If there could be a wizard for the users to use it would make it easier for the users and administrators.

The initial installation is kind of simple, following the research, but the complexity begins when we need to customize part of the structure. For example, when we need to create a new field on the system we have to stop services and that's not possible in a protected environment. In a quality assurance environment, we need to open a change request ticket just to create one field within the database. That should be easier to manage and to handle. We haven't been able to create one internal field effecting the services.

We have performed deployments that take from two months to six months. It depends on the customer size, because we have customers with many customizations, so we have to change some things within Service Management. This is because out of the box, it's not possible to cover all the customer's demands.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

Initial setup was straightforward; just using the tool, navigating it, what to do, what not to do. That sort of thing.

I became involved mid-stream. The initial setup was already underway and I followed that through initial implementation into the growth and maturity stages of the processes, to align them within our organization.

It was a straightforward process. There was a degree of complexity because it was a different type process. Out of the box, it has a set procedure you need to follow. There are steps A, B, and C, and you're locked into that. With configuration, comes a degree of complexity. You have to be disciplined enough to build your processes first and then work on utilizing the tool, which is the right process to follow. It was a different method from what we had worked with in the past.

I wasn't involved with the initial setup. I wasn't responsible for the product until just before it was implemented in production. I've been supporting it since then.

From what I’ve heard, initial setup was pretty straightforward. We had some issues with resource management APIs, but I don’t think that's any different from others. It was data related.

I came in after it was already set up.

We just had to learn it. It is straightforward once you figure it out. It was not anything too tedious.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

From a user perspective, user experience, when we first put CA PPM in place, we found it very difficult, not very intuitive, a very uncomfortable user experience. Moving towards the next version, which is now 51 – which we're just utilizing now, we just started about two months ago – the end user experience is much better, facilitating adoption.

I wasn’t involved in the setup. From what I gather, it wasn't that complex because it was pretty base. It was all hosted and it was relatively turn-key.

Out-of-the-box, it is straightforward, but every time you implement a new instance you want to change and configure it to meet the needs of your audience. It’s a strength of the tool that it can be configured that way – you don’t have to do things the way the developers want you to do it. You can design your own workflows and processes which makes it much more effective to use.

The initial setup is very simple, and Broadcom provides you with an installation guide.

The initial set-up and configuration was very time-consuming and complex. Over a year after the initial install we are still fighting through some issues. Building the user database can be very daunting, but the worst is getting the projects migrated over from our old system. There was a lot of heartburn from that process, even though CA system architects promised us a smooth migration. Setting up Work Breakdown Structures (WBS) and Organizational Business Structures (OBS) are also very complex and sometimes confusing tasks. Cross-over from divisions within the organization can be very difficult.

I was not involved in the initial setup, but I think it was fairly complex. We'd never done anything like that before. There was another team that did the initial setup. It is just that through attrition, we lost them all; so I became the technical support.

I was involved in one aspect of the setup, but not the entire deployment. I think it was fairly complex, but what I did was more on the business side, not the technical side.

We are using software service, so it's been pretty straightforward.

It seemed pretty straightforward.

Complex.

We probably should have bitten off a little bit less of the sandwich to begin with. Our implementer was more of a solutions expert and a consultant than they were a trainer. I think we were looking for more of a trainer than somebody to just tell us how we need to set it up. It was less collaborative than I would've liked.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup. I came to the company after it had already been set up.

Business requirements specification and evaluation took four months, followed by almost six months of the design review. The tool itself was not to be blamed, as the organisation was not willing to adjust any of the complex workflows it was using with the previous solutions.

I was involved in the initial setup. Just setting up the system was very easy, because they did it all and it's on demand. Trying to make it work in our world had it's moments. For many projects, we had to get the old data from the old system into our new system. That posed some interesting and unique challenges.

I don't know as it was set up a long time ago.

I was involved with the installation of the last version. Our last upgrade was pretty straightforward, largely because we didn't customize the tool to a point to where upgrading was complex.

Initial setup was fairly straightforward.

I wasn't involved in the original setup, but the upgrade was much more simplistic than the first round. From a business perspective, it wasn't difficult.

Not install, but I was involved in configuration of the limitations. It is a little complicated. A lot of fills. 

I wasn't involved on the technical side of setup, but as far as assisting my clients with getting service base, making sure we had all of their organizational structure ready to go into the system, I was involved.

We're the consulting arm, so if it was complex or straightforward, we're either doing good or we're doing bad on our end. So I'd like to say it's good feedback. Straightforward.

We are on SaaS and the initial setup was pretty straightforward.

I wasn't involved in the original set up. I think it's pretty simple because we're on SaaS.

It was a long process. It took an awful lot of requirements, and I think the tendency of our company was to make it exactly what we wanted instead of looking to best practices.

Yes, the installation/upgrade is complex. You will need many mock runs in non-prod environments before we try the new version in PROD. Each version upgrade can come with new issues and challenges. But from the latest v14.x versions, this has been simplified a lot.

I was not involved in the initial setup or implementation.

Initial setup is a little complex, to be honest with you. Again, it’s improved significantly over what it used to be, so they’re continuously improving that whole process and the product itself.

The implementation was simple and straightforward, even though we implemented it as a service. We had a six month project before the go-live. In this time, we configured some processes and learned to understand the mechanisms of the tool and trained end-users.

It is complex because of our company, as we are asking the tool to do some things that it shouldn’t, but we made it work.

I was involved with PPM setup from scratch. It's not straightforward but it's not complex either, if you know the product.

We actually employed an implementation partner. With PPM, there are a lot of consulting firms that specialize in PPM implementations. We actually picked an implementation partner who helped us through the various questions and considerations to evaluate before we went live.

Certainly, doing it ourselves would have been a little intimidating, but with the help and assistance of CA services and the implementation partner, actually, the migration from our legacy solutions to now a PPM-based solution has been relatively painless.

I was not involved in the initial setup. It happened before I joined the company.

I was not involved but I think it was pretty straightforward.

Getting agreement on how to use the process is complex, because there are a lot of people involved. The tool is highly flexible, so it does take some effort to choose how to use it as well.

As with any fairly complex tool, there were a lot of things that you can't solve for. You can't write a 100% of the requirements and expect to roll it out. So, we ended up with some gaps. One of the areas that we would improve upon is not necessarily with the tool, but having more tips/tricks on adoption. How to get people outside of the PMO to use the tool and get the information.

The product itself is easy to set up and configure. Whether that is complex or not, depends on how complex the organization is.

If there are a lot of business rules that need to be incorporated, then those need to be accommodated and it will take more time.

In some cases, the real implementation timeline is around managing the change to a new system internally, and not in preparing the system itself.

I actually don't have a lot of experience with the initial setup; however, we are right now just beginning to upgrade. It seems to be that it's going to be fairly easy. We're going to be able to get it upgraded in less than six months; 3-6 months.

As time passes by and new versions are released, setup is getting easier and easier. Organizations just need to understand their use case and set up the product accordingly.

It was already in place when I joined the company.

All the complications came from our side with our users as opposed to CA.

I was involved in the initial setup. It was not difficult for me. The documentation is good. I followed it and was able to set it up myself. It was pretty straightforward; no drawbacks.

Initial setup is fairly straightforward.

I'm end-to-end with Project and Portfolio Management software. I eat, breathe, and drink PPM.

I'm actually leading adoption efforts and was part of the team that reviewed and implemented the tool. Adoption is always difficult. Change is hard and it's never really a technology-type thing. It's more of a human behavior-type exercise. We were challenged. We were absolutely challenged. We found our champions early. We set some minimum baselines and adoption. We reported on adoption and quality of data to motivate people to clean their stuff up. We let people innovate and go farther ahead and as they they pioneered some of the functionality. That's the hardest part of the whole thing, is getting people to adopt.

The implementation is not complete and it is expected to take between four and eight months.

So far it's straightforward, but we haven't really done a lot of customization. We just try to use what is out of the box. 

The initial set up was handled by a couple of their engineers but someone came from WinMill and did a training with us and a bunch of our engineers. That was really helpful to get introduced to the system: This is what we can do. This is what we can't do.

I wasn't involved in the setup but I keep hearing the term "configured", like we did some of our own configurations, not customizations, but certainly the platform seems very configurable to suit our needs, and that was very helpful for us.

CA directed us to a systems integrator who may not have been completely skilled in the product, or maybe our timelines were too tight. Our product knowledge is still incomplete in some of the areas.

I wasn’t involved in the setup.

The initial setup was complex.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

We started with the default use of the solution with some parameters, then we were increasing automations, control points, and other more technical issues.

I was involved in the setup. I came from a background of not knowing the product, so it was complex at the time. We've grown to understand it since.

Although I wasn't involved in the initial setup, I understand that it was not straightforward, very complex. We were told by our headquarters that this is the solution we're going to use. "Here you go. Here, figure it out."

Internally, it would have been easier if our headquarters had used it in the way it was intended, and then, shared that knowledge with us. I don't believe that happened. So, we did go outside and hire a consultant to bring knowledge in-house. It helped us better understand how to use the tool.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup, but I have been involved in upgrades. They were pretty straightforward. CA took care of everything, we just did the testing.

I was not around during the initial setup.

Initial setup is not complex. It sometimes gets ugly and complex after customization.

Initial setup varies on the organizations requirement.

If less customization is required, it can be setup within few weeks and is simple. However to meet the requirement, larger customizations are not provided by the tool or require integrations and data flows with other vendors, and this could take months to do. Hence, many organizations prefer to go in phases.

Once an initial setup is made and the tool is ready to use, other major functionalities are added with time.

It's been set up for over 10 years now. It's evolved from there, but I think the initial setup was over 10 years ago.

I was involved in the initial setup and it was quite complex. We're still in the initial setup.

I've been there from day one. The initial setup was pretty easy. I was kind of surprised that just getting the app installed, up and running, was pretty simple. The complexities usually came with stakeholder requirements. That's where things got a little nuts; but just getting it up and running wasn't bad.

I was not involved in the initial setup. While not involved with upgrades at this organization, I did do upgrades with previous organizations.

The very first upgrade we did was quite complex, because we were moving from 7.51. I have been working with the solution for a long time, since 2006. We were moving from 7.51 up to 8. That was a big jump. It was a lot more complex than we initially thought it was going to be.

The initial setup was quite complex, especially in the financial area. But the solution can be usable after one hour of setup by an expert.

If you're a basic user, the initial setup can be straightforward. But if you're exploiting it to the max, setup is complex -- and unwise. It would be like driving an expensive sports car and not knowing how to drive it.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It was already in production when I joined.

The initial setup after installation is fairly straightforward. It depends on the functionality the organization wants to use, but I don't think I have seen the sequence elsewhere than the user community forum. The documentation covers installation walkthroughs, but after that, there are optional paths for proceeding.

The installs never go smoothly. You can have all your system requirements met and all your ducks in a row. The CA XMLs won’t work.

We recently did an upgrade which took over two weeks to get up and running, which was an incremental update.

The install packages are the worst I’ve ever seen.

The solution is not straightforward. It's complex. On top of that, the usability is bad, which makes the entire process even harder than it has to be. It requires a lot of knowledge.

With one client, with all the implementation and configurations needed, the deployment process took about a year.

I'm not sure how many employees were needed for deployment or maintenance.

I wasn't involved in the setup.

Initial setup needs expertise level for some functionalities or modules. For some of these modules, you need previous knowledge of how the solution works, and there’s no clear step-by-step guide.

I didn't attend the initial setup, but I heard that it was difficult.

Complex. There was a lot of customization that was required to adapt PPM for our needs.

Nothing is straightforward, especially when it is company-wide. There is a lot of organizational change management that goes with it. There is a lot of, "Who moved my cheese-type of discussions?" that you have to have, but I think none of that is unexpected.

I would say there were not any unknowns that really came our way. I think the organizational change management takes the cake in that.

Initial setup was totally straightforward.

Initial setup is easy as the solution can be implemented in an agile way. Different modules can be implemented independently and with different complexity.