Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dicomed.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!dicomed!papke From: papke@dicomed.UUCP (Kurt Papke) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc Subject: Re: PC Project Managers - Need Advice Message-ID: <616@dicomed.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 08:52:03 EDT Article-I.D.: dicomed.616 Posted: Wed Sep 25 08:52:03 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 01:10:15 EDT References: <275@aluxz.UUCP> <31300009@ISM780.UUCP> Reply-To: papke@dicomed.UUCP (Kurt Papke) Organization: DICOMED Corp., Minneapolis Lines: 113 Summary: In article <31300009@ISM780.UUCP> patrick@ISM780.UUCP writes: > >I've used the Sorcim product (should be using it now to prepare a project >plan for tomorrow, but I got distracted), and am not entirely satisfied. > >The user-interface isn't particularly easy to use; it is based on >pull-down menus, but everything seems to take 3 times as many >(non-intuitive) keystrokes as it should. With 1-2-3 you can really zip >through the command sequences once you get to know them - Supercalc The HTPM product (Harvard Total Project Manager) has a 1-2-3 style interface. The main difference being that HTPM allows non-unique first character command names, you keep typing til its unique. > >The reporting facilities are limited. The latest release (1.1) has added >some simple reports, but they really expect you to purchase "Supercalc", >(a Sorcim spreadsheet), save your data in Supercalc format, and use the >spreadsheet to produce your reports. I'm told that there are problems in >transferring dates to Supercalc (Superproject uses some bizarre internal >format which is incompatible with Supercalc) but I haven't got this far >myself. It is theoretically possible to save data in a format readable >by 1-2-3 (they provide a data-format conversion program), but I'd much >rather have more powerful built-in reporting capabilities. HTPM stores its projects in 1-2-3 ".wks" format. This implies that the project files can be read directly from 1-2-3 with no conversion. The only problem with this concept is that the files are incredibly cryptic -- its tough to come up with macros that do meaningful reports in a finite amount of time. > >must remember to "zoom out" to the higher-level project and select an >"update" option from the Command menu. If I don't do this, the changes >will not be reflected in the master project, despite the fact that the >software knows they're linked. > >Perhaps my biggest criticism is that it's difficult to construct a model HTPM automatically updates "parent" projects when the parent project is accessed. There is no need for an explicit "update" option. >in which people are shared between projects. Unless I create a pseudo- >master-project ("my work"), and define all projects as sub-projects of >this, each one headed by a pseudo-resource ("my group") who works zero >hours/day, there's no way to generate a report showing the projects Joe >Programmer is assigned to, nor for the software to warn me that I've >currently allocated 25 hours of his time each day. This is clumsy, to HTPM allows partial resources (such as people) to be allocated to any number of projects. There are reports that identify which projects require a given resource and overall resource usage. I use a similar "master project" technique to get HTPM to give me departmental manpower loading charts. This master project has each development project in my department as a concurrent subproject. Looking at the resources required by the "master" project gives me departmental loading figures. > >Conclusions: Much better than nothing. Produces nice PERT and GANTT >charts. Limited reporting capability. Clumsy user-interface. >Reasonably fast. Latest release comes bundled with "Sideways" for >printing loooooong charts. Good for simple modelling in which all >resources are allocated to a single project, but clumsy otherwise. A HTPM has a "sideways" capability built right into the report writer, although it is incredibly slow. >sound product which will probably mature into a really useful tool, but >which still shows the signs of its newness. > >There's probably something better out there. Anyone care to tell me what >it is? > >Patrick Curran > >INTERACTIVE Systems Corp. > >decvax!cca!ima!patrick >{uscvax|ucla-vax|vortex}!ism780!patrick The Software Digest (tm) Ratings Newsletter this month has an updated reviews of Project Management packages. This has a fair amount of data on the various packages. Oddly enough, the one they came up with as the "best" one is Microsoft (tm) Project, which I think is a piece of trash. I bought it a year ago with high hopes and found it was ok for "toy" projects, but useless for anything substantial. I began using the Harvard Project Manger a couple of years ago for a 2-year development project (300 tasks in the Pert chart) and it worked out well except it couldn't handle resources. I started using HTPM about 5 months ago with high hopes. It has an excellent resource tracker. The main problems with it are: o It is slow. The first program was in assembly language and was very responsive to the keyboard. The new version is in C, and is a dog. o It is full of bugs. It crashes on a regular basis. o It is hard to use. It takes a typical project manager several days to come up to speed on it. Nonetheless I thought HTPM got a raw deal in the Software Digest rating. If you look at the "versatility" breakdown (read usability on real projects!) HTPM is the only reasonably priced product that does the job. Kurt "I am in no way connected with Harvard Software. In fact I have trouble being connected to much of anything these days."