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."