CA Application Lifecycle Conductor vs. Micro Focus Agile Manager (Discontinued)

One scenario I believe HP Agile Manager is well suited is for a team of 5 or more developers who are releasing new features or addressing defects. Another scenario where it is beneficial is for teams of QA Automation engineers, where again, the objectives are clear. A scenario where I believe it would be less appropriate is for operations-type teams where objectives are not always clear cut, and the roles must be more reactive.

Incentivized

• Agile manager is particularly good for planning out sprints in an Agile methodology
• The Task Board in AGM gives clear swim-lanes to indicate progress/status, or to gauge that of another team member.
• The Dash Board gives visibility to team members capacity and the overall team burn down.

Incentivized

• Removing stories from a Sprint results in them being difficult to find later.
• Editing story details is slightly cumbersome.
• It's somewhat unclear how capacity fills up for stories split from prior sprints.

Incentivized

HP Agile Manager is beefy enough to work for bigger teams. In this way it matches closely to what is offered with Rally. One area it comes up short when compared to Rally is the apparent lack of a test management capability, where requirements can be entered then mapped to test cases. Agile Manager has some of the agile feel offered by Trello and Waffle but the added functionality that makes it more valuable for bigger teams.

Incentivized

• It has allowed us to plan our Sprint work more effectively
• It has made it more clear how to accurately estimate certain problems
• It has given clarity over time as to the skill and work speed of team members

Incentivized