We use it move projects through the software development lifecycle.
It performs pretty well. It's nice that everybody throughout the whole process has access and is shown the relevant information to their part of the job, their part of the SDLC.
We use it move projects through the software development lifecycle.
It performs pretty well. It's nice that everybody throughout the whole process has access and is shown the relevant information to their part of the job, their part of the SDLC.
It really does help everything just flow through the cycle better; everybody just worrying about their small piece of the pie. And then the project managers can have a bigger overview of it. I like how it moves things. It moves development through the whole lifecycle.
The most useful part is how it breaks down tasks into parents and children, manageable tasks. It has a whole project as an initiative, and then it breaks it down further and further. And then you get to actual user stories and tasks that you can sit and develop. You don't have to worry about the whole big picture. It's nice how it breaks everything down into chunks.
I think the interface could be a little bit more visual and less wordy. Right now, it seems like it's just a lot of text on the page. In other ticketing systems where it's more visual, you can see more of a flow. But in this one it's more just a list of tasks. I would like to see that a little bit better, especially considering it has so many great organizational features, like child tasks, different artifacts. It would be great to see it presented more appropriately.
Very stable. I can't think of any down time we've ever had with it, to be honest.
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 don't think we've needed to use tech support. Honestly, if we did, it wouldn't have been my job in our company. We have a relationship manager that I'm sure would take care of that.
We were using Waterfall, which worked for decades, but it's definitely showing its age. I think they just wanted to switch to the Agile methodology and Rally was probably the best software to do that with.
It just came to us and all of a sudden, management said, "Hey we're going to use Agile and Rally, and good luck." So we've been trying to learn it for the last year.
I wasn't involved in the initial setup. but they put it out pretty fast, and I have seen changes in it being made fairly quickly. So I would say it's pretty straightforward.
The most important criterion when selecting a vendor is support. I know as a team lead for a developer team, I've personally worked with other third-party softwares that we integrate with. They've assigned people specifically to our account, which I'm sure happens at a lot of Fortune 200 companies working very big accounts. So the personalization is nice. We can have a weekly meeting with the same person, the same point of contact. If anything goes down, if we need assistance with anything, that person is available. Don't take the people out of IT. We work with computers so much it's easy to get out of touch, so keeping a personal touch is probably the best thing.
I would rate it a "high eight" out of 10. It's a very capable software. Like I said, I just would like to see it presented a little bit more visually. It's definitely got some power but everything's got room for improvement.
Try to put yourself in the mind a developer and try and use it and see how you think it would flow. Really, it's a whole team collaboration. I'm not in the project support aspect, but I can empathize with them and think how they'd want to see things. Just try using it. See how you can move a project through it.
It helps us find our users stories and allows us to see what everyone on our team is working on, and if we have any blocks.
It's performed pretty well.
It allows our team, and all the external teams that are waiting on us for dependencies, to see where progress is on the stuff that we're about to develop and deploy.
It integrates well with the things that we have. We're able to tie our stories in with our code repository, so that way our check-ins are tied back to our user stories.
I can't really think of any additional features that it needs. It pretty much has everything that we use it for.
It's been really stable. There have been some downtimes with it, but they're fairly short.
I'm not sure how well it scales. It's worked so far with our team.
I know a lot of our teams are using JIRA. The switch is because it has more features.
When looking to select a new vendor, our criteria are
I give it a nine out of 10, just because of the slight downtimes, which make it hard to go in and update things.
Definitely look into it, because of all of the different tools for user stories and test case management. It's been one of the best I've experienced.
The most valuable features for me as a developer are Iteration Planning and Iteration Tracking.
This is the only tool our team is using for tracking and monitoring agile projects (features, stories, tasks and use cases). It’s stable, easy to navigate and fast. It’s not overwhelming with details and fields, but provides necessary placeholders to keep all the information needed for the project and have a picture where we are and what is coming.
I would say use cases is an area with room for improvement. I found it a bit cumbersome and not so easy to grasp a global picture. Some teams prefer to track use cases through the HPE QC tool, keeping the rest in CA Agile Central.
We are using CA Agile Central since the beginning of 2016.
We had a lot of stability issues; however, all of them were solved during Summer/Fall 2016. Recently, it’s been stable and provides the necessary functionality.
We did not encounter any issues with scalability.
I haven’t dealt with technical support.
I am not aware of any previous solutions.
The setup was done for us already.
I wasn’t the one to decide which solution to adopt. However, I like CA Agile Central as the choice of our management.
Go for it. It’s a nice tool to use.
For me, it is the burn up and burn down chart, so I can measure progress easily. It shows me the progress of the team and it helps me show the progress to my business.
The charts that this tool has make it transparent. Also, the information is there for everybody to share and it supports Agile methodology. This tool makes it easier. These are the features that are valuable to us. Our team’s Agile maturity level is close to expertise.
I would like to see it more well connected with the PPM tool. We have Planview. It does connect to it but I would like it to connect more robustly. They just introduced a new milestone feature of the product. I would like it to be more user-friendly.
Stability of the product is good.
We have over a thousand employees using it and it is extremely scalable.
I personally haven't used technical support. We have a PPT tool support group which has used it. So, if we have any issues, we report to our PPT support group and they reach out to CA technical support.
When we moved to Agile, we were just using standard scrambled writings on the wall. We knew with the scale of our organization, we needed something to suit our needs and so we decided to invest in this product. It did meet our needs, especially in terms of scalability as we knew that there were going to be so many licenses we would need. We needed a more robust organization.
In addition, we needed someone who was flexible to work with us. At that time, it was Rally and they were very flexible to work with us. The most important criteria for choosing this vendor was their willingness to work with us, features, scalability and cost; also it needed to fit our organization culture.
I did not choose this tool personally, it was an enterprise decision.
I believe they looked at JIRA as well and they picked CA Agile Central.
Go for it but make sure you learn the tool and understand it. Hopefully, you have a product expert.
I would like the milestone features to be more seamless and user-friendly.
I think what’s great is the ability for teams to really plan at the team level. CA Agile Central does this very well without much overhead. This allows our teams to really focus on the work, as opposed to the administration of the tool. I think at the team level, that's the most valuable.
At the portfolio level, what’s most valuable is being able to manage the visions, the features, and the releases; it’s very easy, simple, and straightforward to do. I think there's good value, as well, by bringing together the business vision statements and what IT is thinking in terms of delivery, and what's possible in terms of capacity. The objects within the system are integrated well enough to allow for really smooth end-to-end planning.
It has improved the organization's functions by eliminating time wasted waiting for someone to have a prioritized list on their laptop or on some SharePoint site that to which we then have to get access. All of this is simplified and we're not wasting time looking for information. Everything is right in one place, correlated, and related in the right way, and at the right level that allows for planning, execution, and tracking afterwards.
We have pockets of really good Agile maturity in the company and some pockets where more maturity is still necessary. I think the bank as a whole is still maturing in terms of agility, and it's ability to adapt to change. I would describe it as just pockets at this point, but growing very, very quickly.
We use Agile for coaching as well. We try to coach to a few things. One of them is, of course, business value; to say, "hey, focus on delivering high business value first". So again, we are able to take advantage of the prioritized lists at all levels within the tool.
This applies to transparency also; making data visible at all levels and to anybody who is a stakeholder or part of the team. The information is right there, and everybody has the same exact view given the access that they are granted.
We work on predictability also. You're able to see the level of velocity that each team and each release has very quickly. You don't have to go and search for data. When talking about improvement, it's more of a process that we coach. But, enabling those types of conversations around continuous improvement based on accessible, real data from the system is invaluable.
We're focused on multiple areas. We are trying to get teams to think about the system as a whole and not just their small areas. We're trying to get end-to-end visibility of how efficient we are at doing our work. That's where we coach.
We have submitted lots of ideas to the Ideas portal, such as milestones. We would like to make sure that that's a first class citizen, if you will. Make it a little bit more robust regarding our API plans. Reporting I think is a big one too, especially at the bank.
We base a lot of decisions on real data. So if we're not able to get that real data in a very simple way and be able to slice and dice it, then we aren't as effective as we could be at making those decisions quickly. I'd like to see a reporting interface that is easy to use, based on report templates that we can take advantage of.
Lastly, the Insights module within the tool was great when it came out, yet very few people harness it's power today. I think it could be more integrated into their reporting interface, if it's possible. It would really drive true insight right into the data that we are creating around our work.
I think the CA Agile Central is pretty stable. I've used it for over 6 years and it's fairly stable. We use it on the SaaS model. The website says 90% up time, which is fantastic. No real major down times that we've seen.
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.
We have worked with technical support when we have questions of defects. They are very responsive. They approach their work with an open mind or open transparent setup, where they're sharing the latest information and where things stand in terms of questions, or defects, or enhancements, if you will. Overall, we have no complaints at all, from my perspective at least.
I don't believe there was a previous solution in place for Agile teams. Some teams were using Atlassian JIRA and then some are still using version one, but that was in parallel and not a replacement.
I was not part of the initial set up, but I have been a subscription administrator and I'm aware of what goes into it. It's not overly difficult. I think working with the CA setup team, makes it very easy.
When selecting a vendor, the ability to integrate with other internal tools is first. I also look at the stability of the brand and extensibility in being able to extend out. Of course, meeting our minimum needs is a given, such as being able to track and report on data. I want to know how robust those items are. I think most products provide those types of functions, it's just how robust they are and how high a grade they have in terms of being able to deliver that functionality. That is what differentiates vendors.
My advice to others is to start right away. Learn as much as you can. The tool itself is not going to be your impediment or your longest pole in the tent. It’s going to take a long time to figure out what your internal culture and processes are, and the tool is only there to help you reflect what you are producing. So start early.
It's mainly about test cases and automation of data. I, as a test automation architect, collect all that data and show the metrics.
We were using Quality Center, Application Lifecycle Management, from Micro Focus. That is hosted on an Oracle Database, whereas Agile Central is completely built on web services. If I have to create some metrics, I can do it via simple web services. Web services can be used to pull the metrics and this is much faster. I don't have to write SQL queries to do so. It definitely saves time, perhaps something like 30 percent.
Also, if I had to track multiple teams in Quality Center, I needed to go through different containers. With this solution, I can just add all of them and see them together.
Also, the data is more granular when it comes to tasks, iterations, sprints, and releases.
Some of the services are open so that we can plug in some other tools as well. If I need to do some metrics I can use those services and a simple "get" request from them.
Reporting is much easier and faster than Micro Focus ALM, with CA AC built on web services.
One problem I see is that if there is a dependent user story - for example, if my team is working on one thing and there is a dependent user story from another team - we can have a dependency created but we don't know if there is a change of status from the other team. That is something which is very important for Agile Central to look into so that if the other team makes any changes we will be notified as well.
As of now, we get an email alert but that's not sufficient. We can overlook it. What I'm suggesting is that they have something which populates on the team level so Team One and Team Two can communicate on dependent user stories. That would be really helpful.
In addition, reports are confined to teams. For example, I have five to six teams under me, if I have to pull a report, it will be mapped to a single team. I have to pull five teams' reports and then consolidate them to see what the metrics are. I don't have an option to actually add multiple teams to one report.
Finally, it's not capable of some things such as CI/CD. Agile Central is still not there. For CI/CD you need a separate tool and a separate repository called a GitLab. Then you need to run that through a continuous integration called Jenkins. I want to see a holistic approach when you're going with DevOps. There should be just one enterprise tool which is capable of all these things. As of now, Agile Central is just a test management tool.
The stability is good. I haven't faced any problems up until now. It has never hung. The Quality Center tool would hang. It has some client installation components but Agile Central is all on the server side. So it is much faster.
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.
I have not contacted technical support.
But there is a voting option available for customizations. If I need an additional field or something needs to be enabled, if more than 60 percent of users vote for it, the CA team will enable that. They have responded well to these types of requests so far.
We were using Quality Center, Application Lifecycle Management. The reason for the switch is a decision taken by our leadership team and I don't have any insights into it. Perhaps it was licensing cost.
If you compare Quality Center vs Agile Central, the latter is much better.
It has helped save time, especially when it comes to testing. Uploading a bulk of test cases is much faster. And if the leadership team wants to get any insight from the metrics, pulling in metrics is not so difficult. That is something which I, personally, feel is great when compared with our previous tool, Quality Center.
This solution will be of benefit to somebody who has knowledge of and understands web services, as it is built on web services - Representational State Transfer (REST).
In our organization, we have about 400-plus users of Agile Central. It is used by the development managers, QA managers, architects, delivery managers, and scrum masters. These are all stakeholders in it.
Across our organization, everyone, including the development team, is following the Agile methodology. We are yet to get into DevOps. Agile Central is the tool which even other departments, like testing, are using.
Overall, I would rate Agile Central as an eight out of ten because of its performance. It doesn't get a ten because of the dependency issue which they need to resolve. And, on the whole, the tool needs to have more of a holistic approach for everything, such as CI/CD and a test management tool. As of now, it is still confined to being only a test management tool.
These features are most valuable to me because they are useful for my job functions. I’m a software developer and I use these features more than any other features of this tool.
It helps us to track work in progress for each project and for each user story. We can also learn project details from a high level.
The search feature may need some improvements. Sometimes it is hard to pull a specific user story just by adding the user story number. It is not straightforward to search for a specific user story using its ID number.
My suggestion would be to add a search button. In this way, the user could search for a specific user story based on a given user story ID number, or on the user story description.
I don’t think that I’ve seen this option. Even if it is there already, it is not intuitive to the end user.
I have used this solution for around two and a half years.
There were no stability issues. However, I have not used this tool extensively enough to comment on this topic.
There were no scalability issues. However, I have not used this tool extensively enough to comment on this topic.
Initially, we were using an internal tool within our company.
It provides teams the ability to define, prioritize, and monitor the progress of both their operational and project work. The big win is the fact that we are using the same tool outside of IT. It’s a huge win when your internal customers are also using the same platform for defining, tracking, monitoring progress on their objectives. The non-IT departments that have teams using the tool are marketing, operations, training, and human resources.
Provides portfolio, department, and program managers the ability to define, prioritize, and monitor progress on larger initiatives being delivered by multiple teams.
Make it easier to export information outside the tool for additional data visualizations and metrics. The tool does have a REST API, but that requires us to use a developer. The tool does have CSV exports for everything, but that’s a manual step.
Make it easier to share CA Agile Central information to non-CA Agile Central users. Not everyone in our organization is a licensed CA Agile Central user. Those users who are not licensed and provide work to the users on our platform, have a hard time tracking their work requests.
Provide the ability for team members to customize their custom fields/custom workflows without needing a tool administrator to set it up for them.
Mobile friendliness: It would be nice if we had the ability to view and change the state on assigned tasks from a phone.
CA Agile Central integration is great! Currently, everyone who has an CA Agile Central license has a Flowdock license. Unfortunately, it costs a lot of money to add non-CA Agile Central users to Flowdock. And a messaging platform is useless if you can’t message all your stakeholders within the organization.
There is no ability to easily create a work intake portal where a stakeholder can enter new work, have it routed to the appropriate team, and be able to track the work status. You can buy an integration engine that syncs your ticketing system with CA Agile Central, but again, that’s more money.
I’ve used CA Agile Central for four years.
Once in a while, it has performance problems. Nothing terrible and nothing we have not seen with other SaaS vendors.
We have not had any issues with scalability.
Technical support is fine. They assign a customer success coach that we use for tools training and tips. We are pretty self-sufficient now that we do not have to lean on them very often.
We did have other tools before CA Agile Central and we currently still use other vendors for managing other types of work. The best tool for the job really depends on the type of work you do, the work management methodology the team uses to get work done, and who the team’s stakeholders are.
Setup was easy for team-level usage. It gets more complex as you try to scale up your agile practice. Scaling up only happens when teams agree to portfolio standards such as your work hierarchy and planning cadence.
It is an expensive tool. Bring in a good negotiator. The money is worth it when you are trying to do agile at scale.
We evaluated:
The nirvana for all organizations is to implement end-to-end enterprise business agility. It’s a lot easier to do that when you have a tool that allows you to capture all the data you need and systemically roll that up for your enterprise portfolio reporting. CA Agile Central is a tool that enables you to do that. BUT, in order for data to be entered consistently, you really do need an enterprise coach. If you are not implementing agile at scale, I would recommend a cheaper tool that is also mobile-friendly. CA Agile Central is a tool that solves the agile-at-scale challenge, and is still user friendly enough to handle non-IT work loads.
Thanks for the information!