Clarity

Hello everyone  

In my division CA PPM was implemented a few months ago in 4 out of 5 departments. 

The 5th department requires special adaptations such as adding extra attributes to the project object, showing different values in 2-3 existing attributes and launching different Gantt templates. 

Except those few differences, all other objects, process, roles and OBS are similar to all other departments.

We are not sure if these differences are enough to just for partitioning the system instead of using the OBS of the department to apply its changes. What are the pros and cons for partitioning and is it better than the alternative in this scenario? 

I would be grateful for your advice and ideas about this issue. 

Many thanks to you all!

You can still go with OBS (instead of partitions) - you can create secure sub-page, with view ability to the special OBS

NJ

Not knowing the details:

•   Look at CA PPM 15.3 before doing anything – it depends more on the new “Blueprint” capability than partitions – try not to set new things up using a technology that appears to be heading toward sunset

•   We have used partitions based on project process type – an IT project is very different from a manufacturing product launch project, and these are both different from a process improvement project or a research project.  But today, I would look at “Blueprinting” before continuing this approach

•   Can have different Gantt templates without partitions.

•   Have used suggestion from navzjoshi00 regarding secured subpages via OBS – does work, we’ve used this, as a projects using the same process may have additional fields vs. another region, say, based on region (e.g. EU vs. NA).

Dale

My thinking is partitions why not if you cannot do without them.

It is possible to have only some of the CA PPM objects partitions. However, once an object is partitioned all instances have to be partitioned and firstly there has to be a partition model created.

Templates can be associated with OBS units (departments) and OBS view rights  will determine who can see which.

If you do not have partitions all instances of and object will have all the attributes, but you can set different views depending on the object or resource association to an OBS unit (or group membership). In addition to securing the views with different attributes you can use display conditions.

"showing different values in 2-3 existing attributes" is not clear. Typically each instance can have a different value for any attribute, though in some case the value can be the same. Like default layout, scheduler format etc.

To me those things only do not sound like enough justification for the overhead and administration of partitions.

Hello,

we are also thinking about the pros and cons of adding a partition in order to add special customized fields, special views and subpages as well as a customized status report.

What are the 'overheads' of maintaining additional partitions you are referring to?
What are roughly the efforts of creating and configuring one?

BR David 

The effort to create partitions is not significant.

More effort is required to configure the views for the partitions and to configure the users ie determine which users can see which partitions and in which partitions they are seen.

Where is starts getting cumbersome is when you have associated one or more objects to a specific partition model. Then you have to define how that data is displayed in each partition and if users can see one or more partitions.

Thank you all for your prompt and helpful answers!