How was Training?

more

I really enjoyed the course. It was informative and eye-opening to the potential power of PEAF. - Account Manager, Sage, USA, Aug 2013

Recommend PEAF?

more

Yes - We are early in the process and still need to do a lot more analysis. It seems like a rigorous approach but will be able to know more within the next 4 months. - CEO, Adaptive, Inc, USA, Jul 2010

  Introduction   Context   Methods   Artefacts   Culture   Environment   Adoption  

Desktop

Mobile






 

<< Previous <<

>> Next >>

Since the answer to most questions posed to a Tool Vendor are likely to be "Yes", it is not a question as to whether a Tool Vendor can satisfy a requirement, it is more in terms How they can satisfy a requirement. For this reason, each Tool Vendor was asked to rate their tool against each of the Requirements using a set of categories.

Out of the Box

This is the best way a Tool Vendor can satisfy a requirement. This means that the functionality is built in and can be utilised with no changes at all. Associated costs and risks are zero because no changes are being made. Subsequent releases of the tool can be adopted with no impact.

Configuration

This is the second best way a Tool Vendor can satisfy a requirement. This means that the functionality is built in but requires some configuration to be used, usually through a specific user interface or via configuration files. Associated costs and risks are low because only simple "changes" are being made. Subsequent releases of the tool can be adopted with very little or no impact.

Customisation

This is the worst way a Tool Vendor can satisfy a requirement. This means that the functionality has to be specifically added to the tool by the Tool Vendor. Associated costs and risks are high because changes need to be designed, coded, tested and maintained. This can produce severe problems in adopting subsequent releases of the tool.


 

2008-2016 Pragmatic EA Ltd