PROJECT PLANNING/MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW - SECTION SUMMARY

SECTION: Collaboration

Copyright (c) 2000 Jim Salmons and Frank Castellucci
All Rights Reserved

Associated project: "Specification Writing for Web-based
		    Project Planning Software" (sXc ID: 24)

Project URL: http://sohodojo.com/techsig/project-planning-project.html

sXc Project detail: http://sourcexchange.com/ProjectDetail?projectID=24

Project coordination: SourceXchange

Sponsors: Opendesk.com and Collab.Net

Core Team: Jim Salmons and Frank Castellucci


1 Introduction

	This document aggregates the feature and underlying model analyses of
comparable products and services in the domain of the project specification
requirements. During the comparables analysis phase, nine product and service
offerings were examined.

1.1 Format and Key to Abbreviations

	Each of fourteen sections of the Comparables Analysis Data Capture
Outline has a Section Summary file such as this one. Section 1 of each data
collection form is an Introduction statement explaining the project and the
assessment. Section 16 is a reviewer profile. Since all data was produced by the
core project team members, section 16 does not have a summary section.
	
	In a Section Summary file, we aggregate the analysis data within each
subsection of the raw data collection forms. Each data point from the raw
assessment outlines is presented in the following alphabetical order and
prefixed with the following identifying abbreviations:
	
	EN - Enact Enterprise System 4.2 by Netmosphere/CriticalPath
	EP - eProject Express by eProject.com, Inc.
	FT - FastTrack Schedule 6.04 by AEC Software Inc.
	MP - ManagePro 4.0 by Performance Solutions Technology LLC
	MS - MS Project 2000 by Microsoft Corporation
	OD - Opendesk.com by HBE Software
	SF - SourceForge by SourceForge (VA Linux)
	WP - WebProject by Novient
	XC - X-Community by X Collaboration Software Corp.

	The aggregated section data in each Section Summary file is the last
section of the file. In addition to the aggregated data, each summary file has
an optional section for the capture of summary insights or comments.

1.2 Section Summary Insights and/or Comments


====== SECTION SUMMARY DATA ======


4 Collaboration

4.1 What is the interaction model? (Real-time dynamic views, publish/subscribe,
  email, user queries, etc.)

** EN **
	The Enact interactive environment provides a number of brower-based and
desktop applications that support real-time, interactive collaboration between
all Project Team Members, Contributors and other Stakeholders. The user types
and the tasks they routinely perform are performed using one or more of the
Enact components.

	Enact Customized Workspaces
	User Type	Tasks					Component
	Executive 	• Viewing key project status		ActionView
			• Viewing project details
	
	Contributors 	• Viewing assigned project tasks	ActionTask
			• Viewing project status
			• Updating task progress
			• Communicating task progress
	
	Planners 	• Creating and editing projects		ActionPlan
			• Managing resources			ActionAdmin
			• Assigning tasks to resources
			• Tracking project status
			• Reporting project status to management

** EP **
	This is a server-based, real-time system supplemented by email
notification messaging.

** FT **
	The multi-user collaboration features are generally implemented with a
'file-locking'-style interaction constraint. Since FTS supports various complex
task interdependencies, such a 'lock, change, release' model is almost
inevitable (without resorting to some even more complex 'dynamic change
conflict' resolution system.

	AEC has done an admirable job of bringing FTS into 'the Internet Age'.
By adopting the widely-used Internet collaboration protocols, such as TCP/IP,
FTS has moved from an initially single-user client application, through its
networked 'groupware' phase into its 'Internet-friendly' implementation today.
	
	While there are features that encourage 'planning collaboration' and
'dynamic progress monitoring', it should be noted that FTS intentionally stays
away from being a 'fine-grained teaming environment'.	

** MP **
	In Solo mode, everything is dynamic. In Teamware mode, shared access
users of the same database have dynamic views on the data. (ManagePro handles
all record-locking transparently.)
	
	When using its 'mobile computing' database extraction feature, the user
can have disconnected dynamic views. When the extracted database is merged for
synchronization, conflict identification and resolution manages the mobile
user's integration back into the master database.
	
	The Multi-link mode implements a creative 'distributed database' feature
which allows data to 'propagate' within and between multiple databases using a
'delegation/recipient/show-to' mechanism. In this configuration, database
'refreshes' manage the data linked across databases.
	
	In all configurations, ManagePro is email-aware and can be configured to
support a variety of common email transports. The email integration is useful
for 'teaser' notification to connect Team Members as well as for communicating
with 'disconnected' User/Stakeholders.

** MS **
	Real time dynamic views, e-mail, user queries, user defined icons for
customized fields, user defined publish/subscribe web definition.Project Object
Model access via Visual Basic, and COM development and addition to the
framework.

** OD **
	OpenDesk provides the following:
	
		1. E-mail
		
		2. Sem-threaded group discussions
		
		3. Intranet News
		
		4. Real-time updates to static views
		
		5. Calendar sharing

** SF **
	Real time views of project states (PHP with MySQL), publish and
subscribe events for various tools in the environment, mailing lists, pre-canned
parametric searches.

** WP **
	WebProject provides a plethora of collaboration facilities, including:
	
		1. E-mail
		
		2. Project Discussion boards
		
		3. Task level annotation and threaded discussions.
		
		4. Real time Chat
		
		5. Event notification via e-mail
		
		6. Reporting
		
		7. Voting
		
	In addition, each project has a Web Page space for general presentation
and limited support for content (documentation) management. Access to the
various collaboration facilities can be controlled on an individual basis by
Administrators and Leaders.

** XC **
	As a web-based service, the system is most fruitfully used interactively
on a live connection. Email notification and messaging supplements this
interactive access.


4.2 When used in project planning mode, is team communication support?

** EN **
	Each Task has a Notes field which maintains a log-like text area which
can be used for informal Team Member discussion. Users given access to Draft
ActionPlans (an Enact Project) can participate in collaborative project plan
development.
	
	While Enact is web-based, it has a bit of an 'enterprise' bias (as its
name appropriately reflects). There is a strong assumption that users will
interactively log onto the Enact Collaboration Server, through a variety of
scaled interfaces, using a Java-based browser, Java desktop application or
through 'Viewpoints' which are HTML project-status websites served by your HTTP
web server. Email is relatively peripheral to Enact. A general User can't, for
example, easily toggle an email notification or teaser for status changes or
progress updates. There are lots of times when you know a little 'email
double-up' communication greases the wheel of distributed collaboration.
	
	New to this release, a Project Manager can be designated for a Project.
This user is automatically notified by an email message when the end dates for
tasks are manually recalculated. These emails help Project Managers track
changes to project costs and dates. The Project Manager and project manager
email address is listed on the Project Manager panel of the Plan Properties
dialog box.

** EP **
	Yes. The system provides easily accessible checkboxes to allow the
project planner to send assignment and change notifications to task assignees.
Once a task is created, it is live in the system and the Task Creator and the
Task Assignee can write 'progress notes' against it. When completed, email
notification is sent as determined by the Task Creator at task creation time.
	
	There is a 'Messages' facility that works like a project-specific BBS
which facilitates communication between team members.
	
	But bottom line, this is 'ruthlessly simple' project planning. A project
is essentially a Task List with associated documents, messages and people.

** FT **
	Yes, but again, the 'team' here is more correctly thought of as 'the
planning team' rather than the overall 'project team'.
	
	FTS supports a variety of configurations which allow flexibility in
collaboration. For example, the FTS application can run in 'server mode'
allowing multiple users concurrently access or users can designate 'shared
directories' where multiple users can concurrently access a project file
(without having an initial 'primary server' running.
	
	Full networking configurations support multi-level password protection
and file locking, etc. The built-in license key management system makes it easy
to add and control licenses users.
	
	When accessing a project concurrently, a 'pen' tool is shared among the
concurrent users. When you have the 'pen' you have write access. Relinquishing
the pen unlocks the project file and lets somebody else gain write access.
	
	When used in 'sharing' mode, views are dynamically updated although the
'single-writer' rule is always in effect.

** MP **
	Not applicable in the Solo configuration, although email interaction
could be easily used as a 'collaboration channel' by the User during project
planning.
	
	In the Teamware configuration, collaboration is the norm. You can think
of a Project as a collection of related Goals within the Goal hierarchy of the
ManagePro database. This collection can be a branch of the hierarchy, or you can
associate a group of goals using a field value, such as a user-defined 'Project
Name' field. Goals, then, are the composite elements of a 'project breakdown'.
Goals can have notes, to do items and progress reports attached to them. In
Teamware mode, this makes for a fine-grained, goal-oriented team collaboration
environment.

** MS **
	Yes, communication is supported throughout the entire suite. With
extensions for e-mail, annotation, and htmp/asp pages. Collaboration at the task
level can be accomplished through defining additional attributes of the task,
and rules associated with the events that can be generated when the content
changes. The rules would/could include the ability to send as a message through
e-mail, auto-accept/deny, and so on.

** OD **
	As there is no project planning capability, this is not applicable.

** SF **
	The Task Manager model used by SourceForge allows tasks to be annotated
with comments. There is no notification capability to alert anyone to changes.

** WP **
	WebProject offers multiple ways to collaborate from the Project Planning
task perspectives, of these there are two (2) options specifically designed for
issues support: Project Pinboards and Task Discussions, and Chatter.

	Project Pinboards and Task Discussion

		The two components are presented in a single dialog box with
discussion topics presented in the top half, and the relevant messages around a
discussion shown in a threaded view in the bottom half. Because the Gannt chart
and Project Pinboard can be open at the same time, WebProject utilizes a model
view controller (MVC) metaphor and will change the Project Pinboard context as
you select different tasks in the Gantt chart.

	Chatter

		Chatter provides a virtual meeting room for real-time exchanges.
Chatter sessions can be either Chaired or not, where chairing a meeting allows
the Chairperson to determine which topics are to be discussed, and which chat
members have the floor. Topics can be taken from the Project Pinboard, or
defined at the time of chat. Discussions can be marked persistent which allows
for later retrieval for continued discussions, or viewing by other users. There
is no limit to the number of simultaneous Chatter sessions.

** XC **
	See the MS Project assessment for more on this dimension. Since the
X-Community service is tightly integrated with MS Project for its project
planning and management features, the X-Community capabilities are essentially
those of MS Project.
	
	Supplementing this MS Project feature-set, the 'Business Center >
Whiteboard > Notecard' model supports fine-grained commenting, search tagging
and simple tasking.
	
	The X-Community service CAN be used without MS Project integration. In
this case, users are limited to attaching simple Tasks to Whiteboard and
Notecard objects.


4.3 When used in project monitoring mode (more modest a target than project
  management), how is team member interaction handled?
('project-manager-centric'
  or peer interaction; is there an ad hoc issue management facility,
  etc.)

** EN **
	As stated above, Enact presents a 'total immersion' teaming environment
which is best used when all Team Members and Stakeholders have convenient and
fast connections to the Enact Collaboration Server. When everyone involved and
interested in a project has a good connection to the Collaboration Server and
appropriate client software, Enact provides a dynamic multi-project
action-oriented working environment.

** EP **
	Again, the current Express service is very basic. While the underlying
assumption is interactive browser-based access, the user has handy checkboxes
(with 'usual case' selections made) that provide team member email notification.
There is usually a choice to 'copy yourself' with email confirmations and
notifications.
	
	Tasks have a very simple 'progress report' comment thread that allows
the Task Assignee and Task Author to post messages back and forth.

** FT **
	FTS has a very extensive, though cleanly intuitive, 'planned, revised,
actual' progress tracking feature-set.
	
	Again, the granularity is oriented toward a 'project manager and team
leaders'-centric model rather than full-bore individual Member-oriented
collaboration model. But this is 'core value' design-point within FTS.
	
	The reviewers impression is that small team projects could adopt an 'all
Generals, no Soldiers' approach where Task assignments at the 'leaf-level' could
be assigned to the 'Manager' who is also the 'Doer' of the Task. On larger
project, such 'drilling down' to 'Team Member as his/her own Manager' would lead
to a 'complexity explosion'. For example, the collection of assignable Managers
is maintained as 'pop-up list item' entries rather than as 'Person/Role' records
which show up in a Task's Manager assignment field. Considering the dynamic
nature of team member assignments during the lifecycle of a project, such an
overly simplified underlying model would get out of hand if it was used in too
fine a grained approach.

** MP **
	In the Solo mode, ManagePro is appropriately 'project manager'-centric.
However, this should not imply that team communication and collaboration is not
recognized and encouraged. Just the opposite. In the Solo mode, ManagePro works
as a 'communication and coordination facilitator' for the Project Manager (the
Solo User). Email together with on-screen and printable report views help the
Project Manager plan, execute and follow-through on team communication.
	
	The Progress Report subsystem is an effective ad hoc issue management
facility.

** MS **
	There is a support bridge through MS Outlook messaging and collaboration
client which facilitates interaction for team members.

** OD **
	As there is no project planning capability, this is really not
applicable. But, there is a to-do list where you can enter personal tasks with
due dates and priority. It appears that if the task is due, a small icon blinks
in the lower corner of the screen until you delete the task, or change the date
to the future.

** SF **
	Collaborations are relevant to the tools being used in SourceForge:
	
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	| Tool            | Collaboration                                      |
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	| Forums          | Reply to message, forum can be monitored enabling  |
	|                 | e-mail notification	for new messages               |
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	| Mailing Lists   | E-mail based interchange                           |
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	| Bug Tracking    | Add comment to entry, changes made can be posted   |
	|                 | to e-mail                                          |
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	| Task Manager    | Add comments to entry                              |
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	| Support Manager | Add comment to entry, changes made can be posted   |
	|                 | to e-mail                                          |
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	| Project News    | Add news items to project page.                    |
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+

** WP **
	In addition to the e-mail and chatter facility WebProject provides two
facilities that address higher level of collaboration focus: Project Message
Boards and Web Boards.
	
	Project Message Board
	
		The Project Message board can be used to discuss higher level
issues such as project issues and risks. Like the Task Discussions, message
topics are threaded and presented in a tree view.
	
	Web Board
	
		Accessed through the documentation management facility, the Web
Board is an enterprise wide discussion, information, issues, and news facility.
The Web Board is implemented as part of the enterprise Web Page and
Documentation structure.

** XC **
	Collaborative communication is facilitated by 'message threads'
associated with the Whiteboard and Notecard objects. This association helps to
focus team communication around the 'work product'-centric model of the current
offering. While there is no explicit issue management and polling features, the
messaging associated with Whiteboards and Notecards can be effectively used to
raise, discuss and resolve (informally) issues related to a Project.


4.4 What are the 'key indicators' used to keep project team members and
  stakeholders informed of the state of the project?

** EN **
	ActionPlan is the Java-based, Gant-timeline style visual editor
component of Enact. Projects plans can be quickly built with this tool. The
default view provides graphical timeline visual queues of the state of a
project. The tabular section of the ActionPlan view shows slack, effort,
duration, key dates, percent completion. New to this release is a Critical Path
highlight feature.
	
	ActionTask is Java-based client browser/app viewer which serves as a
User-specific, customizable Task Assignment viewer to coordinate the User's
participation in whatever projects the User is participating in. Color
highlights, text attribute changes and list sorting are used to reflect
priorities and deadlines. As integrated as the Enact system is, it is surprising
that there is no convenient way to 'pop-to' an assigned task within an
ActionPlan view from the ActionTask list.
	
	One of Enact's strengths is in its easy-to-use tool for project managers
to build project-specific status-reporting websites which dynamically maintain
and present updated views on the project for Team Member, Management and Partner
(Stakeholder) users. A dynamic HTML-based project website is called an Enact
Viewpoint. The Viewpoint editor makes is easy to build web-based status reports
on a Project.
	
	ActionView is a Java-based client browser/app viewer which manages
access to a Viewpoints that the User has been given access to. A two-panel
display gives a quick global overview of all the Projects a User is monitoring.
The top view lists the Viewpoint link, a link for sending the Project Manager an
email note, last updated date, and a 'red-yellow-green' top-level status. When
one the top-panel list items is selected, the bottom panel presents a convenient
summary view which gives a project summary, narrative status report and a table
of Project Milestones listing milestone date and the milestone's current status.

** EP **
	The task list has elementary task status filters; 'All incomplete
tasks', 'All overdue tasks', 'All completed tasks', etc.
	
	When creating or editing tasks and document resources, the user is given
the opportunity to have email notifications when the task is changed or document
updated.
	
	This is a very entry level service at this time. Since the project are
currently little more than simple task lists, there is limited need for
state-aggregating 'key indicators'.

** FT **
	FTS excels at time-oriented visualizations of a project plan. Indeed,
there are those who have described FTS as a 'specialized drawing program on
steroids' that knows a lot about project planning/management dynamics rather
than describe it as a project management tool with good visualization tools.
	
	FTS is _extremely_ rich in timeline and report formatting features.
	
	One of the most intuitive and powerful 'key indicator' features of FTS
is its 'planned, revised, actual' progress monitoring subsystem. They have
refined an interface for capturing and visualizing this 'core project dynamic'
that is very impressive.
	
	NOTE: Rather than 'grow through complexifying', the AEC folks have
developed a companion product, Details, which is strong on project status
assessment and reporting. This product is on its Version 3.0 level of maturity.
Details appears to be positioned as a stand-alone product with optional,
complementary interfaces to FTS. If we have the bandwidth, the sXc24 core team
would like to assess the Details product as well.

** MP **
	The default database configuration maintains a start date and due date
for Goal/Subgoal items. The goal hierarchy can be viewed with a 'timeline' panel
that graphically reinforces the mapping of goals to 'project elements'.
ManagePro can filter and highlight Goals on 'time-context' filters such as 'past
due', 'today', 'this week'.
	
	Goals also maintain a 'Status' field which is associated with Progress
Reports. A color-coded, hierarchical 'roll-up' Goal Status view gives a useful
alternative view to the more conventional timeline view.
	
	A Priority field allows sorting and filtering that takes priority into
account along with date and status values.

	A color-coded matrix view, the People Status Board, provides effective
indicators relating People to Goals, Progress Reports, Feedback, Review,
Recognition and Commitment collaboration exchanges.

** MS **
	Top to bottom reporting, views, drill downs, triggers, visual
indicators, costs overun analysis. Project Managers can send "status requests",
with guided field definitions to team members.
Higher level stakeholders are provided with an action oriented view of project
information, clear summaries of all projecs across the enterprise, with stop
light indicators that provide real time status at a glance. Time and budget
views allow development managers to see how projects are performing.
For individuals, defined to the system as users, custom defined portfolios can
be accessed which allow dynamic filtering and grouping of project/task/resource
information.

** OD **
	1. The Group Discussion

** SF **
	There is no "indicator" as to the overall state of a SourceForge hosted
project. instead, individual areas and sub-elements have state based on the
toolset to which they belong.
	
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	| Tool            | Key Indicator                                      |
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	| Defects         | Bold typeface used if greater than 30 days         |
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	| Tasks           | Bold typeface used if task is still open beyond    |
	|                 | projected completion date                          |
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	| Support Entry   | Bold typeface used if greater than 15 days         |
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	| Project Summary | Contains instrumentation as to the open and total  |
	|                 | counts of the individual tool area.                |
	+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------+
	
** WP **
	1. Planned versus Actual hours reporting
	
	2. Availability versus Allocation reporting
	
	3. Budget versus Actual Cost reporting
	
	4. Full featured Gannt Chart (see 10.5 for details)
	
	4.5 Does the product or services concurrency features facilitate or
hinder
	  team member collaboration?
	
	WebProject appears to have addressed facilitating collaboration as a
fundamental requirement of the system, to the point that collaboration is the
focal point of most of the tools and facilities.

** XC **
	Again, the MS Project integration gives X-Community a 'two-tier' level
of use. When used with MS Project, the project management status reports and
views are those of the MS Project plug-in (using Project Central).
	
	When used 'raw' with elementary tasking associated with Whiteboards and
Notecards, Tasks maintain a percentage completion attribute.


4.5 Does the product or service's concurrency features facilitate or
  hinder team member collaboration?

** EN **
  	The Collaboration Server Workspace facilitates real-time collaboration
among project team members. The ability to build large projects from
import-linked sub-projects and the ability to grant access to all tools for any
user makes for a highly participatory project planning and management
environment.

** EP **
	Again, the simplicity of the current offering sets an overall limited
expectation. The eProject.com folks have done of good job of designing a
'balanced set' of tools/features in this initial Express release. While it is
not rocket science, the features are well thought out. For example, the Document
file sharing system provides privacy permission setting, 'opt-in' email change
notification, and helpful file descriptors and folder storage.
	
	The Task/Person model is very elementary. The features are so basic,
that 'concurrency conflicts' are of limited concern here.
	
	The Messages facility and the Documents storage system, encourage
project-based team communication.
	
	The Calendar tool/feature suffers the same weaknesses that ANY web-based
calendar has; connection speed latency, HTML rendering limits. Here the features
are so limited that the Calendar system does not do much to facilitate teaming.
It is more of a 'Project Event Notice Board' than a multi-user
calendaring/collaboration system.
	
	One clever feature for Windows-based Outlook and Outlook-compatible
address books and calendar products, the Event and Person/User displays have
graphic buttons to 'download' event and contact records into the Outlook
calendar and address book, respectively. While it is a 'bonus' feature for
Windows Outlook users, the eProject Express platform is _not_ dependent on
Outlook integration.

** FT **
	Paradoxically, it is some of both. On the one hand, you could make a
case that the 'people/team-member'-less project is an over-simplification. But
to the extent that user/adopters understand its strengths and weaknesses (more
'intentional blindspots' than weaknesses), FTS can be a 'just right' solution
which manages to get a lot of 'real world' project planning and management
features into a packages solution which is flexible and easy to use.
	
	User/adopters should NOT, however, think that the FTS collaboration
features are tuned to a 'peer team member' level. In organizations where such
'command and control' of 'project planner/manager, team leaders and minions' is
the established culture, FTS would be a good solution. In organizations with a
high degree of fine-grained teaming, there could be a bit of a 'square-peg,
round-hole' affect to consider.

** MP **
	Not applicable to the Solo configuration.
	
	In the Teamware mode, ManagePro encourages dynamic collaboration and
communication. In addition to all the status communications, file attachments
are maintained for Goal, To Do and Progress Report items which help associate
work requirements with the documents needed to perform, fulfill or communicate
with regard to the goals, tasks.
	
	Whether in Solo or Teamware modes, using mobile computing extraction and
synchronization and using the Multi-link features introduces a reasonable extra
level of user interaction complexity.

** MS **
	Fully facilitates the team member peer and management collaboration.

** OD **
	The most useable collaboration feature, Group Discussion, hinders team
collaboration. There are no sorting or display options. The feature incorporates
a hard to navigate drill down interface.

** SF **
	It is a reasonable facilitator.

** WP **
	All users are required to login to the system for access, at which point
the user profile accessibility controls are used to allow/deny access to various
aspects of the project as defined by the Administrator. In addition, the tool
implements a two phase commit model by which changes in the user space must be
committed to the server to become part of the project.

** XC **
	I'll defer any comment on the MS Project features of this offering. The
flexible Web Drive file sharing and the Whiteboard/Notecard 'work product model'
facilitate and encourage team collaboration.


4.6 Security features

** EN **
	A basic user log-in-by-password procedure protects access to the Enact
Collaboration Server through its client views. A separate Collaboration Server
Admin Console is provided to allow convenient Server admin control. The Server
admin view has full access to the User account management system as well as to a
data Backup facility and Server start-stop functions.
	
	When used in large-scale, distributed configurations, Enact seamlessly
uses a built-in or external LDAP directory service to manage User and other
resource access.

** EP **
	While the Express feature set is quite basic, the system designers have
done a good job of providing flexible security in this release. The Documents
storage system supports access permissions by Person/User.
	
	Task can be designated public or private.
	
	Events can be set with restricted access by Person/User.

** FT **
	There is a flexible, multi-level password protection scheme that gives
project planner/managers a high degree of flexibility in implementing a project
management methodology. Used in conjunction with its flexible reporting
features, the project planner/manager has 'no-access/read-only/read-write'
access control.
	
	These 'view level' controls however are very much related to a
conventional 'user access control' mechanism rather than related to a
'stakeholders/roles' nature of the underlying project model of FTS.
	
	The built-in user license control system is more about license-purchase
compliance than it is about project role-view access.

** MP **
	ManagePro maintains access control as part of the People records within
the ManagePro database. The database administrator access to access control
settings for each Person/User that determines what information the Person/User
can access of whether and whether they have change rights, etc.

** MS **
	Before users can access project data, they must have an account on the
Project Central server.
	Accounts may be setup by the project administrator or created
automatically when the project manager sens the user a TeamAssign message. The
project administrator oversees account management, adding and removing users
from projects, assigning users to groups and roles, and determining what data
will be available to each users.
	To ensure security, Project Central support both Windows NT
Authentication and its own authentication scheme, which uses username/password
pairs maintained by Project Central. Using both is the default behavior.

** OD **
	All users are required to login to the system for access, at which point
the user profile accessibility controls are used to allow/deny access to various
aspects of the intranet as defined by the Administrator.

** SF **
	All SourceForge users must log in to be allowed comment, posting,
annotations, etc. The project administrator can limit the visibility of the
tools to only those that are designated as team members. The project
administrator can limit the accessability of project objects on a per team
member basis.

** WP **
	The developers of WebProject have provided a thought out collaboration
model in relationship to project management and participation. This is a must
have minimum example for anyone considering a serious Project Management
development effort.

** XC **
	X-Community uses 128-bit SSL connections for encryption and privacy. In
addition, X-Community is an active member and supporter of Truste. Privacy and
Security are a prominent feature of the X-Community offering. For more see:
	
	http://www.x-community.com/PRIVACY/privacy_index.html
	http://www.x-community.com/Security/security_index.html


4.7 Reviewer Comments

** EN **
	The recent addition of the optional email notifications to the
designated Project Manager is a good addition to the Enact system. Enact would
benefit from a generalization of this feature into a per-User personalization
feature.

** EP **
	For a simple offering, it is well-thought out. Document sharing is
strong. The Calendar and Task List features are currently of limited utility.
But given this 'kick-off' release, eProject.com is one to watch in this
marketplace.

** FT **
	None

** MP **
	None

** MS **
	Microsoft has provided a very flexible and powerful framework for
cusomtization to extend the collaboration functionality to any direction the
enterprise desires. This is the theme throughout the Project 2000 and Project
Central system.

** OD **
	There is a way to go before the collaboration features of OpenDesk can
be considered really useful beyond simple communications. The author has a
running dialog with the developers for feature enhancements and additions in
this regard. OpenDesk will benefit from the resulting RFP for this project.

** SF **
	The current implementation suffers from a lack of continuity between the
project, tools, and the stakeholders. The Task Manager seems the likely place
for more collaborative tools, but sadly lacks any. Functionality is being added
to "patch" some of these problems but lack the "feel" of coherinse throughout
the project.

** WP **
	The developers of WebProject have provided a thought out collaboration
model in relationship to project management and participation. This is a must
have minimum example for anyone considering a serious Project Management
development effort.

** XC **
	None


DOCUMENT HISTORY

Version 0.9 - Draft
Version 1.0 - Final
 
### end of sxc24-02sect-comparables.txt (Version 1.0) ###