Feedback Resource Management support
by Patrik Kjellin
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