(Mostly) success story
September 14, 2017
(Mostly) success story
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Overall Satisfaction with Workfront
- Centralize projects in one solution
- Centralized work hubs amongst transfunctionnal teams: teams that did not use to work together now are, bringing more transparency on tasks.
- Support adoption of a more agile way of product development: sprints, backlog and team artifacts are managed through Workfront.
- Program project management for a 6 millions program: from the start we have used Workfront as the program management tool and the many functions to manage the delivery cycle, [including] scope, timeline, bugs, tasks, etc.
- Support adoption of a more agile way of product development: sprints, backlog and team artifacts are managed through Workfront.
- Program project management for a 6 millions program: from the start we have used Workfront as the program management tool and the many functions to manage the delivery cycle, [including] scope, timeline, bugs, tasks, etc.
Pros
- Provide transparency on work being done.
- Encourage communications in development teams.
- Documenting past decisions.
- Adding community Q&A is really helpful, because most of us go though the same issues or questions.
Cons
- Reporting. Most reports are configured by trial and error, details on fields would be appreciated.
- Popup-like function so when a user is blocked, they are given tips on why they could be blocked. Less intervention by admin.
- Workfront is intimidating to new users, there could be an easier way for them to adopt the product.
- Efficiency: more adapatable to change.
- Efficiency: standard product development process.
- Efficiency: provide value over cost-time-quality constraints.
Project Insight: straight project planner, no collaboration
Rally: too expensive for what we needed
JIRA: too many modules to integrate
Daptiv & Innotas: more of a portfolio management tool than a program/project, and more expensive
Workfront was the only one that checked all the requirements, plus ease of use from a user point of view.
Rally: too expensive for what we needed
JIRA: too many modules to integrate
Daptiv & Innotas: more of a portfolio management tool than a program/project, and more expensive
Workfront was the only one that checked all the requirements, plus ease of use from a user point of view.
More internal than external but yes, plenty. We aren't using it externally because we are very cautious of what we give access to. But internally, the hole project cycle can be built in collaboration between architects, BA's, dev & QA. Usually the architect and BA work for a scope to be set. When the scope is set, the BA builds a preliminary backlog as a project. Then tasks are detailed by everyone, included in sprints and information is added along the way in the updates tab. Then QA, with collaboration from all the teams, can insure that everything expect is there in line with past system design decision (sometimes looking at old WF tasks).
We used professional services twice. Once when we bought Workfront and another time when we were looking to add quality insurance process to our program. A consultant was on site 1 week at a time and helped us understand Workfront first, them implemented some basic functions for us. We were satisfied, but I think we could've gotten Workfront to work in the long term without him, but a lot less quickly for sure.
Comments
Please log in to join the conversation