Project Portfolio Management Tools

(1)

28 February 2003 METAspectrum 29.0 Application Delivery Strategies, Integration & Development Strategies Melinda-Carol Ballou

Project Portfolio Management Tools

METAspectrum

SM

_Evaluation

28 February 2003

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80 Pe

rforma

nc

e

Presence

FOLLOWER

CHALLENGER

Artemis Artemis

LEADER

Niku Niku PlanView PlanView Primavera Primavera Microsoft Microsoft Pacific Edge Pacific Edge PeopleSoft PeopleSoft Business Engine Business Engine Changepoint Changepoint Evolve

(2)

Market Overview

208 Harbor Drive • Stamford, CT 06912-0061 • (203) 973-6700 • Fax (203) 359-8066 • metagroup.com Market Definition

This market includes products that coordinate, manage, and enable prioritization of project and program portfolios and related resources, linking them in a single repository with appropriate views to categorize, assess the value/risk of, and score current and future projects in the context of business imperatives (financials, resources, competitive position, etc.). In addition to features encompassing portfolio analysis (ability to view, categorize, and rank initiatives) and project management (scheduling, planning, and management functionality), products should include a basic level of management and/or analysis for people (resource management), programs (enterprise program management — project interrelationships to deliver on programs), and process (methodology or templates for project portfolio assessment).

This METAspectrum focuses on coordination across these five main functional areas — project, program, resource, portfolio, and process management — to enable cogent decision making with regard to project portfolios. In contrast, the Enterprise Portfolio Analysis Tools METAspectrum drills down explicitly into standalone enterprise portfolio management capabilities across projects and assets. Global 2000 decision makers should consult either or both of these evaluations, depending on their context. A third complementary METAspectrum, covering asset portfolio management tools, is planned for future release. Market Forecast

Already, product introductions in this immature arena span vendors across a variety of market segments. These include products from enterprise project management (EPM), enterprise resource planning (ERP), and professional services

automation (PSA) vendors, as well as previously standalone portfolio analysis vendor solutions that have extended functionality beyond portfolio analysis. This benefits users in the short term, enabling choice from among a range of alternatives with varying strengths and weaknesses (e.g., in resource management versus project management). Longer term, market maturation will result in consolidation of the smaller players and in better coordinated and more functional portfolio analysis suite

alternatives. This will enable stronger integration across the five key functional areas, ultimately encompassing asset views as well. We expect additional ERP players (Oracle, SAP, et al.) to enter this market, as well as smaller/niche players with strong demand management capabilities (e.g., Kintana), to support key user requirements. In addition, life-cycle suite vendors such as IBM/Rational, Borland, and Microsoft will incorporate (currently lacking) project portfolio management capabilities to support growing user demand for coordination and prioritization of scarce resources for IT projects across the application

development life cycle. The short-term vendor impact will result in the creation of a densely populated and highly competitive market. Longer term, we expect the ERP and EPM players to lead this market, with an amalgamation of smaller vendors. Key Findings

The project portfolio management (PPfM) market is a dynamic but fairly young market, evolving primarily out of the mature, project management arena. During 4Q02 and into 2003, early entrants have appeared from other market spaces (ERP, PSA). Given the difficult economy and paucity of resources during the past 12-18 months, Global 2000 businesses have focused on managing and coordinating project portfolios with particular intensity. Indeed, maximizing business benefits in the context of value versus risk, schedule (time to complete), and resource availability has become critical and visible. The ability to assess priorities and cull the project portfolio enables organizations to redirect funding appropriately across the portfolio. This includes initiatives that fall into the non-discretionary (“run the business”) category as well as discretionary (“grow the business” and “transform the business”) investments. Many organizations are also burdened with significant project redundancies. Reconciling these alone can provide additional capital for non-discretionary expenditures.

Currently, market success depends more on performance (technology, services, etc.) than on presence, because numerous vendors are just shipping their offerings and do not yet have a well-established presence. Therefore, we have given a 70% weight to performance and 30% to presence. Over time, as PPfM products mature and key vendors secure a hold in the market, the split between presence and performance will become more even (2005/06). We are already beginning to see significant PPfM interest on the part of players with strong presence in the overall, general market that presages this shift. For instance, Microsoft and PeopleSoft are strong in the presence category and weaker on performance specific to PPfM. As entrants to this market in 2H02, they are poised to create product improvements and establish stronger performance during 2003-05, and their strong presence gives them an effective point from which to launch into the market.

To achieve excellence in this METAspectrum, vendors must score well in the key areas of technology and services (together making up 55% of the performance weight), as well as vision/strategy and channels/partners (constituting 50% of the presence weight). The criteria and subcriteria weightings throughout the METAspectrum are based on real-world buying factors of

(3)

Market Overview

208 Harbor Drive • Stamford, CT 06912-0061 • (203) 973-6700 • Fax (203) 359-8066 • metagroup.com META Group customers. Our research shows these areas are most critical for users making purchase decisions. Rich functional capabilities across the core five functional categories are vital for organizations seeking to establish governance and control over project portfolios enterprisewide. Yet, without cogent service offerings to supplement internal organizational IT staff, implementation of these complex systems is arduous.

The challenge for vendors in this space is to enable deep portfolio analysis capabilities that are well integrated with other core functionality, yet are intuitive enough to be adopted by executives and other appropriate business and IT users. We expect this market to become more demanding, as additional competitors enter and pressure vendors to hone their capabilities. Users should focus on key functions in the context of their requirements. For instance, some organizations place higher priority on excellent project management, with strong resource management and portfolio analysis, while others require excellent financial and resource management, combined with “good enough” project management and analysis capabilities. Based on the business and competitive model for the organization and current differences in PPfM product capability, users must prioritize their functional needs, evaluate service support to appropriately execute, and determine vendor viability to sustain business efforts over the longer haul.

Leaders

Leaders in this market have strong and coordinated capabilities across the core five functional areas, enabling users to more effectively evaluate and analyze their project portfolios. In addition, they maintain highly reliable and current data about resources, projects, and programs (as a view on projects), and are supported by effective processes. Even the current leaders — Primavera, Niku, and PlanView — are low on the curve with regard to maturity, because product capabilities are evolving along with the process and organizational maturity of users (and functionality to enable cogent ROI and risk analysis is nascent from all vendors, for instance). We therefore expect additional vendors join the leaders area within 12 months, as products mature and new competitors enter the space.

Challengers

Challengers in this group hail from various market areas such as ERP (Lawson, building on its Account4 acquisition, as well as PeopleSoft) and also include maturing solutions from vendors that typically appear in the standalone portfolio analysis arena (Pacific Edge and Artemis, though Artemis also has a strong EPM product). Business Engine is an eclectic vendor coming from both the PSA and EPM spaces. These are vendors that have strength in one or more of the key functional areas (e.g., resource management/financials or portfolio analysis) and are seeking to build capability across the core five areas with recent product releases. Challengers should be evaluated based on the key requirements of the user, and the ability of the vendor to effectively implement these complex products. Microsoft, with Project 2002, is also a key challenger, due to its ubiquity in the market and lower price points. However, its portfolio analysis capabilities remain basic. PeopleSoft is also well positioned, with strong overall presence and an evolving product that shipped immediately prior to the release of this study (December 2002), but remains weak in certain functional areas (e.g., project management).

Followers

Currently, there are no followers in this young market, because the range of product capabilities on both extremes remains limited. Those closest to the follower category are the most recent entrants to this space from the professional services automation (PSA) market — Changepoint and Evolve. These vendors have less experience in this area, as well as less presence than other recent entrants (e.g., Microsoft, Lawson, PeopleSoft). However, they do have strong to excellent capabilities for resource management/planning and opportunity management, and have recently added basic portfolio analysis and project management capabilities. These two vendors are alternatives for users seeking to manage project portfolios with a focus on opportunity and resource/financial management. Evolve also incorporates strong analytical capabilities from partner Actuate. We have seen the evolution of PSA vendors from targeting professional services to focusing more on internal IT departments, and the recent entry of these vendors into this space underscores that change. As internal IT departments face competition from external outsourcers and must increasingly become their own outsourcer, PPfM capabilities enable them to compete more effectively.

(4)

Market Overview

208 Harbor Drive • Stamford, CT 06912-0061 • (203) 973-6700 • Fax (203) 359-8066 • metagroup.com Bottom Line

Users should leverage maturing offerings to improve the management and prioritization of project portfolios. We expect the evolution of stronger process capabilities and portfolio analysis templates to jump-start the creation and analysis of the project portfolio (2003/04) along with products that integrate with the overall IT life cycle (2004/05). As this occurs, the market will consolidate. Mature Global 2000 organizations with complex requirements for project portfolio analysis should leverage rich functionality now from niche players in a leadership position. Organizations with more targeted needs in the context of portfolio management (for opportunity or resource/financial management) and less need for high-end project management capabilities should evaluate market challengers with appropriate functional and services strengths.

Business Impact: The varied and rich product alternatives evolving in the project portfolio management space enable G2000 users to utilize financial return metrics to cull the project portfolio, prioritize resources to maximize growth, and facilitate competitive opportunities and business value, while minimizing inappropriate risks. Achieving these goals requires high levels of process and organizational maturity, as well as support from executive management and governance bodies. Although the depth

(5)

Project Portfolio Management Tools

Presence

Evaluation

208 Harbor Drive • Stamford, CT 06912-0061 • (203) 973-6700 • Fax (203) 359-8066 • metagroup.com

Our market presence evaluation includes a review of each vendor’s product and service attributes — representing vendors’ ability to deliver value to customers. The following eight criteria areas provide a summary of our presence analysis. For complete details on how vendors fared with each criterion in our evaluation, visit metagroup.com.

Vision/Strategy

Niku Good/Very Good

PlanView Good/Very Good

Primavera Good/Very Good

PeopleSoft Good/Very Good

Microsoft Good/Very Good

Artemis Good Lawson Good

Pacific Edge Good

Business Engine Good

Changepoint Good Evolve Good What We Evaluated

Messaging — External, visible communication to the market about vision, views, expectations, priorities, and value.

Track Record — Demonstrated, tangible ability to explain and execute plans defining technical and/or solution direction, emphasis, and development that best meet customer requirements.

Market Leadership — Perceived and actual position within the market as a trendsetter, definer of direction, and catalyst of market direction and change.

Analyst Commentary

Strength of vision and strategy is of vital importance in an emerging market such as this. Indeed, appropriately targeting key functionality and articulating product capabilities as they map to user needs is a complex task, because of the range of capabilities supported. Users and channel partners (to assist in implementation) will gravitate toward vendors that are able to implement and articulate the value of key functions. Vendors that create strong vision and product capabilities earlier than their

competitors will succeed. Over time, as vendors establish positions and products mature, vision/strategy will diminish in importance, though market leadership and “trend setting” will remain key to creating new product capabilities in the face of evolving user demands.

Channels/Partners

Artemis Good/Very Good

PlanView Good Primavera Good

Evolve Good Lawson Good Changepoint Fair/Good What We Evaluated

Business Impact — The degree, vitality, revenue, growth, coverage, and profit value of active channels and partners. Programs — Formally defined offerings, tiers,

requirements, and incentives, as well as their distinct value. Quality Assessment Methods — Defined methods to ensure the quality, consistency, and value delivered by individual partners.

Strong channels and partners are key to success in a complex market where direct sales channels are insufficient, particularly for smaller/niche players. In addition, supplementary technologies and relationships extend functional capabilities and provide support for integration initiatives, process/organizational strategies, and training. Microsoft and PeopleSoft are clearly well

positioned in this criteria area, but must focus more specifically on partnerships that will improve their PPfM capabilities. The more established enterprise portfolio management players such as Niku (combined PSA/EPM), Primavera, and PlanView have the broadest range of partnerships related to PPfM thus far. Additional

partnerships enable stronger technology offerings and help extend the reach of smaller/niche players, while offering training and support to facilitate successful

implementations. Process templates for project portfolio management will also mean greater success for users, and we expect these to be available from both third-party partners and the vendors themselves by 4Q03/1Q04. This criteria area will continue to be important for the

(6)

Project Portfolio Management Tools

Presence

Evaluation

Awareness/Reputation

Microsoft Very Good

PeopleSoft Very Good

Artemis Good Niku Good PlanView Good

Changepoint Good Evolve Good Lawson Good What We Evaluated

Programs — Publicity, sales, marketing, service, and development activities that build positive perception in the market and extend visibility above and beyond the

organization’s size and/or share.

Coverage Levels — The measured achievement of visibility as demonstrated by direct and indirect activities, including publications, press engagement/coverage, and analyst/key influencer visibility.

Customer Perception — Measured, relative awareness on the part of existing and potential customers about

capabilities, offerings, vision, and focus.

This category carries less weight than vision/strategy and channels/partners. The customer perception subcriteria is weighted at 35%, because organizations’ ability to

communicate to their existing base about current and emerging capabilities is a key source for revenue. Programs is also weighted at 35%, because outreach to prospects drives new sales, and an ability to seed the market creates long-term leadership potential. Of secondary (but still relatively high) importance to this category is coverage levels (at 30%), including the degree of awareness in the analyst and press communities about specific offerings. We expect this criteria area to remain important moving forward, and customer perception to increase in weight as the volume of implementations increases.

Geographic Coverage

Microsoft Excellent PeopleSoft Excellent

Niku Good PlanView Good Lawson Good Business Engine Fair/Good

Changepoint Fair/Good Evolve Fair

Pacific Edge Fair

What We Evaluated

Partners/Subsidiaries — Extension of business reach, availability, and delivery via directly controlled entities or partnerships.

Operational Efficiency — Consistency, repeatability, integration, and effectiveness of the distributed organization to function efficiently.

Leverage — Ability to generate growth, profitability, and new customers from non-headquarters regions.

Geographic coverage is of lesser importance in this emerging market, in which focus is primarily on building a domestic presence in North America with initial

implementations. We expect this category to increase in weight and relevance during the next 6 to 18 months, as buying habits evolve, user implementations mature, and businesses with international operations mature and seek to coordinate and manage their project portfolios across widely dispersed geographic locations. Vendors with existing product functionality (supporting multiple languages and financial requirements across geographic boundaries) and more scalable architectures will be positioned to address those needs as Global 2000 organizations evolve.

(7)

Project Portfolio Management Tools

Presence

Evaluation

Business Drivers

PlanView Very Good

Primavera Very Good

Pacific Edge Good/Very Good

PeopleSoft Good

Lawson Good Changepoint Good Evolve Good What We Evaluated

Core Competencies — Underlying people-, process-, or technology-based business capabilities that are defensible, unique, and sustainable.

Intellectual Property — Owned and protected patents, trademarks, copyrights, licenses, or trade secrets that reflect unique ideas, methods, technologies, and processes, and that offer tangible competitive advantage.

Culture — Internal processes, communication methods, leader-sponsored philosophies, or other dynamics that enable better client centricity, speed, responsiveness, efficiency, or market effectiveness.

This criteria area is currently of greater importance than geographic coverage. Core competencies — including vendor experience in various market categories (ERP, EPM, PSA) — are differentiators in this space and received the highest weighting of the subcriteria. Intellectual property, while important, received the least weight in this criteria area, because patents and technology alone are not as vital to success. Culture, on the other hand, directly impacts product evolution and vendor adaptability to customer requests, and was weighted accordingly. We expect this criteria area to continue playing a steady role for PPfM market evolution.

Industry Focus

Pacific Edge Good/Very Good

Artemis Good Microsoft Good

PeopleSoft Fair/Good Lawson Fair/Good Changepoint Fair/Good Evolve Fair/Good What We Evaluated

Agreements — Relationships with vertical market trade organizations, standards bodies, or other vendors that enable deeper understanding and customization of technology and services to the particular needs of a market segment.

Vertical Coverage — The scope, depth, and relative strength within a given market as demonstrated by market share, expertise, tailored technology/services, sales coverage, and marketing activities.

Depth of Expertise — Measured, demonstrable tools, techniques, methods, certifications, primary research, tailored approaches, or other analysis and delivery attributes that highlight the relevant skills and expertise brought to a particular market.

In a young market such as this, vertical industry focus plays a less important role than it will once the market matures. This category is therefore not weighted heavily. Although we do see greater client maturity in certain vertical segments (e.g., banking/finance, insurance, pharmaceuticals), it has not yet reached critical mass in the user community to justify verticalization, though we expect it to play a much larger role during the next 18-24 months.

(8)

Project Portfolio Management Tools

Presence

Evaluation

Investments

Business Engine Good/Very Good

Niku Good PlanView Good

Changepoint Good Evolve Good Lawson Good What We Evaluated

Complementary Businesses — Ownership, investments, or relationships tied to business areas that are horizontally or vertically complementary to the core market business. Targeted Growth Areas — Planned and active investment areas tied to business growth.

Degree of Control — Ownership level of investments that determine direction, priorities, and integration with core business activities.

Investments in areas related to project portfolio management are of lesser importance than those with direct impact on the user community. This area has therefore been accorded little weight in the evaluation. It is likely to increase in importance as the user community matures and as savvy Global 2000 organizations seek to coordinate project portfolio management with related areas such as application life-cycle management suite functionality, to gain greater control over and coordination among IT projects.

Share

Artemis Good Microsoft Good

Pacific Edge Fair/Good

Business Engine Fair/Good

Lawson Fair Changepoint Poor/Fair Evolve Poor/Fair PeopleSoft Poor/Fair What We Evaluated

Market Share — Share of market relative to competitors. Mind Share — Relative market awareness versus

competitors.

Wallet Share — Percentage of IT budget relative to competitors and alternative technologies.

Market share is rated as significant in importance, due to its impact on vendor viability and stability, with an important caveat — several vendors evaluated in this METAspectrum have only just begun shipping product within the last two to three months (e.g., Changepoint, Evolve, Lawson, PeopleSoft). There has therefore been little or no opportunity for these vendors to establish share in this arena. We expect share to increase significantly in importance over the course of the next 12-24 months as the market matures and consolidates.

(9)

Project Portfolio Management Tools

Performance

Evaluation

208 Harbor Drive • Stamford, CT 06912-0061 • (203) 973-6700 • Fax (203) 359-8066 • metagroup.com Our market performance evaluation includes a review of each vendor’s product and service attributes — representing vendors’ ability to provide value to customers. The following seven criteria areas provide a summary of our performance analysis. For complete details on how vendors fared with each criterion in our evaluation, visit metagroup.com.

Technology

Niku Very Good

Microsoft Good Evolve Fair/Good Lawson Fair/Good PeopleSoft Fair/Good Changepoint Fair/Good What We Evaluated

Performance — Cost versus speed, ability to function as desired, and value relative to alternatives.

Scalability — Ability to grow with dynamically changing business requirements and scale to support very large numbers of users.

Project Management — A project is a time-bounded endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or service or to modify or retire an existing asset, product, or service. “Time-bounded” indicates a fixed beginning and fixed end. Functionality should include project scheduling/planning, scope/change management, and value optimization.

Program Management — The ability to define and manage the interdependencies among projects, technology assets, people, and business processes dedicated to a specific mission (e.g., CRM, supply chain). Functionality includes: 1) tracking budget, timing, risk, value, resources, and requirements to achieve program success and to support portfolio analysis; and 2) viewing capabilities to understand the interrelationships across projects, resources, and assets to provide a higher level of abstraction and relevant business information. As single projects become multiple projects that are then grouped into programs, complexities inherent in coordinating and managing them together grow astronomically. This functionality is useful to manage ongoing program support and evolve the business forward. While there are other “views” across the portfolio, the program view is significant enough to be called out separately.

Portfolio Management — The intuitive categorization, valuation, and assessment of project and asset portfolios (and views) to optimize business impact. Functionality

includes: 1) risk, timing, and reward valuation techniques; 2) budget control/impact; 3) resource forecasting; 4) multiple user-definable views that highlight key comparisons (e.g., cross-portfolio interdependencies); and 5) data import into a repository from relevant sources. Key is the ability to develop and compare scenarios (e.g., what-ifs) that enable selection of appropriate changes.

Resource Management — How the use, prioritization, and management of people impacts the selection, initiation, and ultimate delivery of the overall IT portfolio within the organization. This includes managing

demographics, skills, proficiencies, work experience, location, career paths, succession, resumes, roles, project work, time/expense entry, etc.

Process Management — The ability to create and manage an inventory of best-practice methodologies or approaches to ensure the execution of a consistent, targeted outcome that is in line with business imperatives. Examples include processes for portfolio assessment or life-cycle management, COBIT, etc. Core functionality includes procedural and event-based workflow, intuitive editors, nested workflow, auto-escalation, conditionals, versioning, etc. Organizations should leverage methodologies to model future initiatives against past successes.

Technology is ranked higher than any other criteria area in this METAspectrum, because functional capabilities are vital to user success in the project portfolio management arena. Leaders have the strongest capabilities across all major functional areas, with more comprehensive offerings to manage and analyze the project portfolio. Challengers are weaker in one or more functional categories — project, portfolio, resource, or process management. It is important to again note that new entrants to this arena (e.g.,

Changepoint, Evolve, Lawson, Microsoft, PeopleSoft) are rated low in terms of scalability because they do not yet have user references that have scaled significantly with their products. This does not necessarily mean their architecture will not support scalability, but that it has not yet been demonstrated using the new PPfM functionality. We expect stronger support to emerge across these functional areas, with improvements in integration and particularly in portfolio management capabilities. (Criteria for the assessment of portfolio management functionality are taken from the Enterprise Portfolio Analysis Tools METAspectrum.)

(10)

Project Portfolio Management Tools

Performance

Evaluation

Services

Artemis Good

Evolve Good Lawson Good PlanView Good

Changepoint Good

Quality — Service-level performance as measured by key service-area metrics.

Breadth — Portfolio elements that demonstrate adequate coverage of market requirements.

Customization — Ability to tailor, in an efficient and repeatable manner, offerings to the specific needs of market segments or individual customers.

Strength across services enables thriving PPfM

implementations. Specifically, quality (accounting for 50% of this criteria area) is vital for successful execution of complex PPfM technology and also to support key changes in organizational governance structures and processes. Technology adoption alone will not ensure success, and customization, in that context, also plays a key role (rated at 30%) to target the PPfM products for specific customer environments. Breadth of services in general is less important than targeted support for PPfM, yet remains important (at 20%) because PPfM itself is complex and requires broad service capabilities across multiple functional categories.

Pricing

PlanView Good

Changepoint Good Lawson Good Artemis Fair/Good Niku Fair/Good Primavera Fair/Good PeopleSoft Fair/Good Evolve Fair/Good What We Evaluated

Methods — Alternative price models provided to customers that enable flexibility in the purchase and/or use of products and services.

Value — Demonstrated methods that enable customers to see breakeven points, return on investment, or other important value metrics that help justify expected and actual costs.

Policies — Terms and conditions that surround how products and services are priced, invoiced, and obtained. Analyst Commentary

Pricing is less important as a category at this point in the market’s evolution, because organizations that are mature enough to be ready for PPfM are willing for pay for it and understand the cost savings and value that will accrue once they can make better decisions about the project portfolio. We expect price to play a greater role in 24-36 months, as the market for PPfM amalgamates and adoption broadens beyond early, high-end adopters to incorporate additional users who will buy only at lower price points.

(11)

Project Portfolio Management Tools

Performance

Evaluation

Execution PlanView Good Evolve Good Primavera Good PeopleSoft Good Changepoint Good Lawson Good Microsoft Fair/Good Artemis Fair/Good Niku Fair/Good

Pacific Edge Fair/Good

Business Engine Fair/Good

Systems — Internal infrastructure, networks, applications, and devices that enable rapid, consistent, repeatable, and scalable engagement with customers and the delivery of technology and services.

Processes — Formal and informal methods, techniques, and communication vehicles that enable rapid, timely, scalable, and consistent delivery of technology and services.

Speed — Result of all impact areas regarding how quickly execution is conceptualized, planned, acted on, and completed for development, marketing, sales, and operations.

Execution is an important subsidiary criteria area in this emerging market. Effective systems to support product evolution are weighted at 35%, and cogent processes to feed product development (based on market analysis and customer feedback) are weighted at 40%, due to the importance of consistency in feeding a stable approach to product implementations in a rapidly growing market. Speed in shipping product is also important as the PPfM market becomes increasingly competitive, but is weighted somewhat less at 25%. However, we expect it to

increase in weight to 50% within this criteria area during the next six months.

Agility

PlanView Good

Changepoint Good Evolve Good Lawson Good Artemis Good Niku Fair/Good Primavera Fair/Good PeopleSoft Fair/Good Microsoft Fair What We Evaluated

Responsiveness — Reactive capabilities to identify, harness, and capitalize on changing market and customer dynamics.

Development Process — Internal methods to develop new technology and services, and to test and offer them to the market as measured in months.

Flexibility — Capabilities to take existing technology, services, systems, personnel, pricing, and other performance attributes and modify them to specific opportunities, threats, needs, and markets.

This criteria area — weighted equally to execution — incorporates responsiveness (35% weighting),

development process (30%), and flexibility (35%). Effective execution must be accompanied by appropriate levels of agility in a dynamic market such as PPfM. Without strong capabilities to respond to user and prospect demands, cogent development processes to deliver stable code with consistent quality, and the ability to flexibly incorporate additional functionality, it is challenging to gain or retain a leadership position. This category will retain a similar level of importance for the foreseeable future.

(12)

Project Portfolio Management Tools

Performance

Evaluation

Personnel

Evolve Good PlanView Good

Microsoft Good PeopleSoft Good Changepoint Good Lawson Good

Experience — Practical time- and situation-based expertise gained from work in related businesses with similar customers.

Skills — Training, certification, and knowledge about specific technologies, verticals, services, processes, and methods that are transferred into higher-value

technologies and solutions, with improved results for the customer.

Expertise — Depth of understanding about particular topics relevant to the technology/services offered and the needs of customers.

Personnel is an important companion category to agility and execution, because the experience (30%), skills (35%), and expertise (35%) of internal staff are key resources for users implementing this complex technology. We expect experience to grow in significance as a subcriteria as the market matures and more experienced personnel become available. The capabilities and qualities of personnel will remain important as the market matures.

Financials

Microsoft Very Good/Excellent

PeopleSoft Very Good/Excellent

Lawson Good/Very Good

PlanView Good Primavera Good Changepoint Good

Artemis Fair/Good Business Engine Fair/Good

Evolve Fair/Good

Niku Fair

Access to Capital — Sources of funding for growth, operations, or investments.

Profitability — Track record of business results as measured by EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes). Growth Rate — Comparative rate of business growth versus overall market and key competitors.

Although financial viability significantly impacts vendor longevity, niche vendors with strong functionality in an emerging market such as this may not have achieved profitability yet (or may be challenged financially), but may still have strong product offerings (e.g., Business Engine, Niku) and be appropriate options. It is therefore vital to review vendors’ access to capital (25%) and profitability (35%) in the context of their growth rate (40%). For vendors that are not yet profitable, access to capital will cushion their position until profitability is attained. In this eclectic PPfM market, where vendors have widely varying degrees of financial viability, financial performance is tempered by a weighting that is equal to execution, agility, and personnel (each accounting for 10% of the performance score), with a much stronger weighting toward technology and services across the performance category as a whole. As the PPfM market matures during the next 18-24 months, financial performance will become more heavily weighted for determining overall performance ratings. Moreover, we expect smaller players with strong niche functionality to be acquired by larger entrants in this space during that time frame.

(13)

About METAspectrumSM

METAspectrumSM evaluations from META Group (Nasdaq: METG) provide IT professionals with a view into critical market success factors and vendor positioning. METAspectrum, in combination with META Group’s SPEX modules — which provide detailed technical analysis of product features and capabilities — delivers comprehensive evaluations of both technology markets and vendor product offerings. METAspectrum evaluations are a standard component of a META Group retainer service subscription and are updated periodically, depending on the characteristics of individual markets. To view completed market evaluations, or learn more about the METAspectrum methodology, visit metagroup.com/metaspectrum. For more information on META Group’s SPEX offerings, visit metagroup.com/spex.

About META Group

META Group is a leading research and consulting firm, focusing on information technology and business transformation strategies. Delivering objective, consistent, and actionable guidance, META Group enables organizations to innovate more rapidly and effectively. Our unique collaborative models help clients succeed by building speed, agility, and value into their IT and business systems and processes. Connect with metagroup.com for more details.

in any form without prior written approval is prohibited. METAspectrum is META Group’s independent evaluation of a technology market, representing marketplace characteristics at a given time, and is subject to change without notice. META Group’s permission to reproduce this evaluation should not be deemed

an endorsement of any company or product. META Group research is intended to be one of many information sources; decision makers should not rely solely on the METAspectrum evaluation for making

solution choices. META Group expressly disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to fitness of this research for a particular purpose or merchantability.