An in-house team was used. Having existing Qlik product knowledge helped make this viable. However, I am aware of other teams within our organization who have used vendor teams to great success as well.

From the initial setup until the tool is ready for production use, the process takes about one month. Longer, some may even ask for more.

There are different phases for on-premises and SaaS deployments. On-premises requires infrastructure configuration and direct installation on customer machines. 

For SaaS, it's very quick, and you can have your instance ready in five minutes. 

The first phase is installation, followed by the analysis, specification, and system requirements definition. Then, we define the initial project to develop.

We have an in-house team for implementing Qlik Sense, but we also use consultants, especially if our team is busy with other projects. We didn't face any problems with the Qlik Sense consultants.

Normally, we do deployments internally, but the Qlik consultants deployed all the Qlik infrastructure here in our area, then they built one or two dashboards, then left the rest of the dashboard building to our team.

We did most of the setup in-house.

We implemented the product with the supplier team. They usually have some tricks. That said, after following the entire process, we concluded that our internal team could have done the implementation.

They have an excellent team of suppliers that are fully committed to sharing knowledge with our team.

We implemented this solution in-house.

We implemented it via a vendor. Having the knowledge of experienced consultants doing the work is worth it and can prevent huge delays and problems.

We handled the setup in-house.

Through Qlik Services, we migrated our dashboards to Qlik SaaS

The deployment was done through a vendor, which was a problem. The vendor was ingrained into a lot of the deployment of our analysis and trying to get things off the ground from a proof of concept to production and the expertise was not shared very well with the in-house talent. We were always having to go back to them. That created a revenue stream for them, which became very expensive for us. 

Anytime somebody wanted to develop something, we were having to buy hours (paying consultancy charges), and ultimately, it was not sustainable. This model ends up being so much more expensive than deploying something that is a little bit more self-serving and can be deployed across your admin user rates.

It's not a tool that can be the one-all because the license does not cover all the services that a small business or even an enterprise needs to lean on because it requires too much from the vendor to support it.

We implemented it through the vendor. Excellent service and "aftercare".

We used an in-house team for implementation.

Our in-house team was responsible for the initial setup.

This was an in-house implementation following a vendor-support QlikView implementation. The vendor was a Qlik partner and has been excellent.

It's not complex, so it doesn't prevent anyone from starting to work with it. Just by being familiar with it, you can use it.

Two people take care of the deployment. It takes around two to three months to implement the solution. 

It is easy to control and maintain. 

We implemented with a highly expertised vendor team.

We used an in-house team, although the server architecture was planned with the Qlik architecture team.

Used mixed teams. The vendor employees are very experienced and professionals.

Vendor team. Not a good experience.

In some companies yes, we did get help and they were very capable.

We did get outside assistance and the vendor was excellent.

We implemented through a vendor, who was very knowledgeable with BI and Qlik.

We implemented ourselves, as I had previous experience doing this. Our partner, who we have used for work, is generally helpful and had a good understanding of the product.

We implemented this solution with an in-house team.

We used a combination of both. Our vendor team partners have over 20 years of experience with Qlik and specific to our industry there expertise is unparalleled. 

We used a Qlik employee to do our initial implementation. They were quite knowledgeable about the product.

Our first implementation was through a vendor, but now we are a well-educated team that still has a vendor as a support and a coach.

We performed the implementation in-house with the Qlik team. Their expertise is exceptional.

To implement, we used Qlik Consulting Services as well as in-house people, like me.

I have implemented it in-house and with a vendor team. Business needs need to be fully understood and documented. Most of the issues have always been data related. The development team and the business HAVE to get a full understanding of what the data is, where it is stored, and how it is stored. BUSINESS RULES and a DATA DICTIONARY are a must.

Vendor assistance.

We have a company that helps us with the processes with Qlik Sense. For example, the data analytics reports. A professional license allows a very simple way for users to use and modify the reports. We need an expert on Qlik Sense.

The maintenance rate and the maintenance payment that we pay to a third-party company are very low.

We used both an in-house team and received assistance from a third-party.

The first proof of concept was implemented in house, then we switched to a third-party contractor (SME). It was an excellent choice; projects move much faster and ROI improved too.

We installed it by ourselves, only viewing the vendor’s documentation to make sure we’re using the correct parameters. It is a good way to start; always see what the vendor’s site has in their documentation area.

In-house.

Qlik provided a great implementation solutions team.

We use the basic free version now. We have not implemented it yet.

We implemented in-house.

An in-house team implemented it.

We implemented with a vendor team who had a low level of expertise. 

I had a bit of mentoring early on by a now-luminary of Qlik but I am essentially self-taught; all in-house development.

A combination of a vendor team and an in-house team implemented it; mostly in-house.

The vendor was very good with implementing but we have not had great success with them through the build process.

We implemented it with the help of a vendor team. Based on the experiences and the final result, it was straightforward and (still) great support.

The implementation is very easy, we did it ourselves.

We help our clients implement and deploy the solution if they require our assistance.

We implemented with an in-house team.

A third-party consultant helped with the installation.

We implemented it in-house.

Vendor Axis. Good level of expertise.

In-house.

We deployed in-house. We required two staff members.

We implemented it in-house. We designed a set of implementation rules.

We used a vendor team for installation. Their expertise was a seven out of 10.

Vendor Team using virtual-consulting, which is not very efficient.

8

An in-house team implemented it.

An in-house team implemented it.

I work for a tech services company and I would say there are still more "in-house" implementations with our support and guidance.

We have only implemented the cloud version.