Feedback Resource Management support

1. Set up process

2. LARGER Companies

2.1. Price

2.1.1. Easy

2.1.2. Worth the time to sell

2.1.3. Competitive

2.2. Offering possibilities (PPSA)

2.3. Integrations

2.4. Default Template Module Solution

2.5. SWOT

2.5.1. Strengths

2.5.2. Weaknesses

2.5.3. Opportunities

2.5.4. Threats

3. SMALLER Companies

3.1. Price

3.2. Offering Possibilities (PPSA)

3.3. Integrations

3.4. Default Template Module Solution

3.5. SWOT

3.5.1. Strengths

3.5.2. Weaknesses

3.5.3. Opportunities

3.5.4. Threats

4. Assignments

4.1. Status: Gather Feedback ...

4.2. SWOT

4.2.1. Strengths

4.2.2. Weaknesses

4.2.3. Opportunities

4.2.4. Threats

5. Consultancies?

6. Strategic Project Planning Needs

7. Line Managers Needs

8. Project Managers Needs

9. Idea

10. Concept

11. Solution

11.1. See Master Plan Q1

12. Customer support process

13. FEEDBACK (unsorted)

13.1. Name? (PK)

13.1.1. Resource Pool PK

13.2. More data about the project from PP to BA (Arjan E, Markus K, Maurice J)

13.3. Approved resoucers automatic in Projectplace (PK)

13.4. The resource's utilization in Projectplace (PK)

13.5. Button to Edit resource allocation in PP Activity tool (PK)

13.6. Time reported in Projectplace is not migrated to Actuals in Blue Ant (Ranstad)

13.7. Different versions of the MODULE (Ingmar E). EG: one striped down, one full-version....

13.8. Be able to handle assignments as well (SSAB, Holmen, Advent)

13.9. Automatic resources from BA WHO is approved to resources in PP (Posten NO)

13.10. A light Module (PK)

13.11. The migration of all CU is a problem when users in PP are more or less (SuperUser group)

13.12. To comprehensiv as the first glance (Structon rail)

13.13. Volvo, Vinnova, Skava, Coor Management wants to be MORE users in Blue Ant than i Projectplace

13.14. Good with requesting on Project level: Posten NO, Coor, Vinnova, TDC, Swedwood, Skava, Sony, Structon Rail, Reitan

13.15. Not good for PM with two separate systems (Ranstad)

13.16. Sony: Old fashion GUI and lack of integration. Should be good if Gabriel could collect input on what type of Integration that they were lacking.

14. FEEDBACK (Users)

14.1. SKAVA

14.1.1. Request on project level

14.2. Coor Management

14.2.1. Request on project level

14.2.2. Good that it's two seperate GUI:s

14.2.3. Smoothly tool

14.2.4. Good with separate services

15. Sales process (Focus H3 and H4, 2011, H1 2012)