MS Project Server vs Individual copies of Project: Cost/benefit analysis
Posted on 2007-12-03
We are a very small company (9 people total) and in need of project management software and we are trying to figure out how to get the most value for our limited monies.
I am virtually completely unfamiliar with Project, so I am relying on your feedback to help me make this decision. (I am not wedded to MS Project 2003, but we have already purchased a copy of the software for one computer.)
1) We have 2 "superusers" who will need to input/update the data (one schedule), but we expect to add a third person in the near future. These people often work remotely, through our VPN.
2) We have 3 "management" people for whom I'd like to provide a very robust view of the projects we have (allow them to see the details, but we don't need them to make any changes).
3) We have 4 "support" people for whom I'd like to provide basic scheduling information, but we don't need them to make any changes.
We have a server.
So. As I see it, I have a few options:
1) Go ahead and purchase a second copy of Project 2003 to install on the second superuser's computer, share the Project file manually on the server (only one person can open it at a time) and manually print reports for management and support folks (is there a cheap and easy way to share the data? Web interface?)
2) Purchase a server copy of Project 2003 with 5 licenses. Give the 2 superusers and 3 management users access to the server copy, lock down management's permissions to modify the data, print reports for the support folks.
3) Purchase 10 licenses of Project 2003. Same situation as above, but the support folks can also now view the data. (This strikes me as a waste of $$, but I'm very much in favor of providing everyone with all the information that they need to get their work done--having only a few people being able to see the data on demand sets up the potential for bottlenecks.