3.2 out of 5 (5 Ratings)

5 Verified Reviews


It's not about the tool, planning/best practices are needed for successful implementation.

Performance and navigation in the early versions were very slow and not intuitive. The ability to perform what-if scenarios was limited. While the product has evolved, because we did not change our own internal processes when new features became available, we, unfortunately, are not maximizing our utilization of the application. Originally we had tried to link our project schedules to resource tasks, but the level of granularity and the back and forth between tasks and the schedule was too cumbersome so we ended up separating the two processes and left the Changepoint tasks at a higher level. This decision prevents us from being able to leverage more of the resource forecasting and what-if capabilities.


Daptiv - a cautionary tale.

Daptiv has proven to be a solid repository for keeping information contained, but it does not play well with MS Project and the difficulty in working with other technologies in use makes it siloed in its use. Project managers are forced to create artificial items or even duplicative items for time tracking, and resource management is an entire boondoggle. Managers are frustrated by the lack of user-friendly interface and understanding, as well as the restrictive use and lack of transparency across the agency. Some of this pertains to how the agency chose to implement, as well as lack of core adoption and understanding how to leverage. The largest complaint is the issue in working with MS Project. Transit is not the fix for all issues, particularly when dealing with very large, very complex schedules. We also track SPI and CPI and Daptiv is not useful when not implemented appropriately with the agency. Again, this could have been addressed with full-scale adoption by the agency, but the toe in, toe out approach has been our biggest issue. External stakeholders want to see the detail in schedules, and these simply cannot be managed in Daptiv or even transited into Daptiv because of the limitations by user and potential for file corruption.



Daptiv ChangePoint strong for traditional project management

Daptiv lags behind the competition and industry.The user interface for the system has not kept up with the industry. The user experience has been stagnant requiring many mouse clicks to get it functional. This is one of the main reasons that we've only utilized a small number of available features (time reporting and project/program status reporting). Lastly, this tool is not flexible to run agile projects or agile portfolios.


Customer centric implementation and vendor relationship.

The implementation was great. Daptiv really focused on ensuring that we had proper processes in place prior to implementing the tool, and implemented to the tool with us (rather than for us) with those processes in mind. The system is highly configurable, and enabled it to fit our business processes rather than the other way around. The process of implementation Daptiv uses also really focuses on teaching the customer how to use and administer the system so you ultimately become less dependent on them and more autonomous in the use of the system. I see this as a very customer-centric strategy and really appreciate the vendor relationship because of this approach.


Had great support during implementation

Great to work with.