My company took a look at multiple tools because one of the clients already had ServiceNow implemented, so adding a PPM entailed a lot of costs, so that was one consideration. The team also considered Micro Focus PPM, but it was lagging in terms of features, so we decided not to use it, plus it wasn't highly customizable. Planview was considered as well, but it was not as customizable as Broadcom Clarity PPM in terms of processes and integration, so we didn't choose Planview.

We looked at CA and we also looked at Planview and HPE.

In my previous job, I was doing a side-by-side pilot with PPM and a competitor. There were pros and cons to both. Nobody is perfect in the space. Some of the downfalls and frustrations are when, coming into a new organization, it has been over-customized or they have over-engineered things. So, keeping us safe from ourselves, while still giving us flexibility, would be a great way to do that.

We have different tools that we use at where I am at, so we use different PPM tools, but the goal is eventually to move us all to CA PPM. It is just because we are using that as more of a global tool. Some of our other areas of our company use different tools, and we are just trying to get them off of that and really focus on using the PPM tool.

There were some other tools we tried. I was not at that startup. I think it we looked into Accolade because I think that's being used by the Aero Engineering Group. We do have JIRA. We've tried moving to JIRA and I don't think JIRA had all the flexibility and the robustness that CA PPM does. To me, why even go there?

The HPE solution and the CA solution are really the only two options at this level. In general, we decide primarily on a vendor based on price and features. Our organization undertook a couple of different times to look at who makes these kinds of products, what they offer, and for how much (the per seat cost). We believe that we arrived at the right solution in terms of the amount of features for the cost.

Only CA PPM.

Broadcom Clarity is a popular solution. A lot of third-party research organizations give it a high rating. It is always on the top in Gartner. In our region, Gartner has a big say in the choice of products. Other similar products have some limitations.

The most important solutions here in Mexico are BMC, ServiceNow, and Broadcom. Five years ago, Broadcom was one of the most important solutions in Mexico, but now we made a transition from CA Technologies to Broadcom. They lost many customers here because they were not able to renew their licensing. Maybe Broadcom lost a lot of customers because of the service.

The main differences, pros and cons, between Clarity PPM, and ServiceNow are that Broadcom Clarity PPM is easier to use and easier to manage. Clarity PPM has a more composite structure. That means that displaying, making changes, and performing customizations are more difficult for the end users. The consultants can deal with that, but sometimes the customers are not able to identify some components and to identify some configurations that you can perform in Clarity Service Management. Whereas in ServiceNow, you can do that with only a button. That's the difference.

We considered several of the top vendors in that space that would be ranked in Gartner or Forrester. I won't mention what those are because they still have some relationship with us. All top tier, which spoke well for CA that they, from our perspective, came out on top.

We haven't explored that yet.

I have not looked at the competitors lately, but it seems to me that CA has made some significant advances. They were already sort of in the top tier in the industry anyway. So, it is good to see the investment that they have put in the last couple years. It seems to be just accelerating the feature sets.

We had a few solutions on our shortlist. One was the Microsoft Project Server solution.

We chose CA because it was simplified with the SaaS and the company we hired for integration, it just made better sense.

From my perspective, usability, you get exactly what you put into it. With that comes issues, but the functionality and being able to display holistically to our executives and our department leaders, I think, was the key feature of why we chose CA.

There are three things that are important when dealing with any vendor: support, support, support. There are lots of products out there that have similar features and functionality and wonderful interfaces, but if a software vendor is going to throw a bunch of CDs at you and leave you alone now that they’ve got your money, it’s no good. It’s how they support the product after you buy it.

I’ve evaluated the other PPM tools and competitors and found that CA PPM is heads and shoulders above the rest. The functionality is robust because of the partnership – CA partners with their user community to support the product.

I evaluated Planisware, but Clarity PPM is more scalable, its focus is built across resource management, project management, and time sheets, and it can be integrated with Microsoft Project.

We did not consider any other vendors.

I look at usability. As a resource, I want to do the least amount of clicks and streamline processes. I have looked at other products, however, CA PPM is the only solution that will keep a managed service provider plan in sync with timesheets when a Project Manager deletes a task that has actuals on it. This was the best feature and a huge selling point for me.

Oracle Primavera was on the shortlist as was Attask. But CA PPM is a more comprehensive enterprise type of solution.

It was based on our enterprise manager's recommendation from another system that we had talked to. I do not really know all of the background that went behind that, but I know this came to us. This was really one of the only products we had looked at.

It was just the next step where we as an organization needed to go. We were very impressed. It was really getting our organization to buy into the process more than the product. The product, having all of the features which are available, is the reason that we wanted to go that route.

I was not a part of that evaluation. I'm going to say "yes", we evaluated other solutions, but I don't know who they were.

No other options have been evaluated as the management decision was to apply EA principle of recycling already owned tool deployed in 2 independent installations.

I wasn't around for the vendor selection. I know we looked at a Microsoft product and then there was one other one. I think what it came down to was this: Microsoft was cheaper because of the deal we have with them, but CA PPM fit more of what we're looking to do in terms of our long-term vision. It was going to fit a little bit more. It was more aligned with what our company was looking to do.

I would have to look at Primavera all over again, because I know they're changing and evolving.

We started evaluated some tools related to PPM. CA PPM accomplished our necessities, especially for Latin America.

We looked at HPE PPM. I can't remember why we did not chose them though.

I was not part of the evaluation process in this organization.

We did some analysis on HP PPM. Found Clarity PPM better.

We evaluate if the solution is the right one for us once a year, therefore we are compare different alternatives.

On our short list, there was CA which is the product that we have now. Additionally, we evaluated Microsoft Project. From a functionality perspective, both were very similar, but we already used CA products for several years. We decided to stay with CA because the integration effort would otherwise be high.

They brought me in to comment on it's Agile functionality and they said, "We have this Rally product." And I said, "Does that integrate?" They said, "It could." I said, "Don't worry about it."

I use Trello today, I used JIRA, I used Team Foundation Server. I talked to some people here at the CA World conference and I said, "Are any of those tools worse or better than Rally?" They seemed to like those tools more. I haven't used Rally to tell you the truth.

We evaluated Primavera Unifier and some other portfolio management systems. We went with CA because it's so easy. Everything is easy to do.

Spreadsheets were not efficient. It was a real pain. We did not really consider any other vendors. We knew that CA PPM product was the right product for us.

The alternatives all fall short in some areas. CA PPM has a very robust portfolio management capability, for example. I have not seen another product with anything quite as robust as what CA PPM provides. Resource management is another area that CA PPM excels in, but other products just come up short.

We know CA. We’re closely associated with CA. We understand a lot about CA that maybe someone else wouldn’t if they were just coming in blind.

I think the Gartner Group information that’s provided, their magic quadrant report, and so on, is really helpful for understanding why you would go with CA for a product like CA PPM. CA PPM just outshines all other products in the Project Portfolio Management space in terms of capabilities, what it can do, and how it works. It’s really a good product.

We evaluated four distinct solutions, and in the requirements/commercial negotiation, my company choose CA PPM.

We did have five other vendors on our shortlist. We did take an exhaustive look at all five of them. In the end, it really came down to CA PPM’s flexibility and the ability for it to basically configure itself to meet the needs of our organization and its ability to be a SaaS solution rather than an on-premise solution. Certainly, we're looking to have a unified solution that we can essentially standardize the company but still configure it so that it's specific to our needs, and yet, obviously, have it hosted at an external site, where we don’t have to necessarily spend the time and energy to make it happen.

Previously, we just had too many spreadsheets and one-off processes.

We considered HPE, CA, and I can't remember the other one.

The most important factors when we decide on a vendor are: the quality of support, the functionality, and whether it is customizable to suit our business needs. It must be extendable.

Workfront was one of the vendors. We went with the CA solutions because headquarters was going with CA PPM, so we decided to move in that direction.

CA, Oracle, and one or two others that I don't recall.

We looked at staying with our current solution, which was Project Server, and seeing how we could leverage it. We also looked at Innotas, then CA. So, those were really the three. Innotas had a great portfolio functionality, but its project management was very basic. Its resource management was kind of non-existent. So, CA had the full package. It really had everything that we wanted.

This product was in place when I joined the organization.

Personally, I have not evaluated other options. I come from a different area, and we have other ways of doing things that are not as streamlined.

I have a finance background so when I am selecting a vendor, I definitely want someone reliable, someone who is affordable, can answer all of our questions, who can bend and flow with the organization's growth. Or, if we sell pieces of the organization, we need to be able to flex, so I'm looking for a partner that will be able to do that.

As an individual, I never got an opportunity to evaluate the product before choosing CA PPM, but what I heard was that this product has scalability and usability that always attracts customers.

Changepoint. It pretty much came down to Changepoint and CA.

From the other ones that we looked at, this was the obvious choice for us after doing a PoC.

I have used some of the other products on the market before, and some of those are a little bit more user-friendly, but again that may be solved with the newer version.

Yes. Planview, Daptiv, MS Project, Changepoint.

I was not a part of the decision-making process.

We evaluated CA PPM vs Micro Focus PPM.

As per the focused areas like Project management, Financial Management, etc., the organizations should weigh all suitable products in market w.r.t. time and cost involved (e.g., HP PPM, Planview, etc.).

The objective should be a benefit in medium to long term, as some solutions may save money in short term but can turn out to be expensive later. I would suggest to go through the comparison reports, blogs, and demonstrations of the products before making the final call.

We also considered HPE. PTC was on our list early on. They had a newer version, and that just didn't do it. There were a handful, but it was six or seven years ago.

The most important factor in choosing PPM was the usability of the tool. CA was good about helping us getting it set up initially with some of the earlier requirements. We had to redo a bunch of that due to shifting business needs; but their assistance was a big factor.

We evaluated the HP solution, but the CA solution was more complete and integrated better with Service Desk Manager (SDM).

We didn't look at any other solution.

For a limited time, I tried out the Project Objects - Progressive Project Management Approach (PPMA) solution. It was also useful and user-friendly with a graphical environment that helps the user not be bored.

We were looking for a solution that had good testing space and SOA, and compared it to Microsoft Project.

We did not evaluate any other options.

We evaluated other options, but I was not involved in that stage.

There were two others. They fell short in a few things that were absolute must-haves. Although, they were working on getting those features available, they were not there, and we just could not move forward with them.

We also looked at SAP PPM.

We did not evaluate other options.