|
|
|
|
||
| Unified Configuration Management | ||
| Home | CM Survival | The CM Portal | CM About Us | Email | ||
Configuration Management Tool - Evaluation Matrix |
||
|
Choosing a Unified Configuration Management tool (or combination of tools) can be complicated. Below UCMcentral provide an evaluation matrix that helps you identify and score the "primary" dimensions of such tools. The example below supports evaluation of 3 solutions at once, however it can be easily tailored to suit yourself. Note: Rating should be between 1 (poor/non-compliance) to 5 (very good/high compliance). Organisational Weighting should be between 1 (low-importance) to 5 (high-importance).
|
||
| Tool Name(s) and Version (T1) | |||||||||
| Tool Name(s) and Version (T2) | |||||||||
| Tool Name(s) and Version (T3) | |||||||||
| Analysts Name | |||||||||
| Date of Evaluation (Period) | |||||||||
| Analysis Questions | Rating 1-5 | Weight 1-5 | Score R*W | ||||||
| Core Artifact Functions | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 |
| Does
tool support File versioning |
|||||||||
| Does tool support Directory Versioning | |||||||||
| Does
tool support source and binaries
|
|||||||||
| Does
tool support baselines (tags) |
|||||||||
| Does tool support role back of object versions (files and directories) | |||||||||
| Does tool have role back features at a baseline/project level | |||||||||
| Does
tool naturally support file renaming/moving |
|||||||||
| Does
tool support user defined meta data (beyond baselines) |
|||||||||
| Does
tool have triggers (admin defined event actions eg at checkin) |
|||||||||
| Does
tool have mature command line facility |
|||||||||
| Does
tool have mature GUI |
|||||||||
| Does
tool have flexible reporting facilities (queries/script) |
|||||||||
| Does tool have Web
Interface Facilities |
|||||||||
| Does
tool manage transactions atomically (as a whole)
|
|||||||||
| Does
tool support symbolic links |
|||||||||
| Does
tool allow user to change views based on paths and baselines |
|||||||||
| Does tool allow you to identify who is working on a file | |||||||||
| Does tool allow concurrent file access | |||||||||
| Does
tool allow file locking |
|||||||||
| Parallel Engineering | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 |
| Does
tool support parallel development/engineering (branching) |
|||||||||
| Does
tool support basic merging (file, directory and hierarchy) |
|||||||||
| Does
tool have intelligent merging (conflict resolution, merge memory) |
|||||||||
| Core Activity Management | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 |
| Does tool support Change Reports | |||||||||
| Does
tool support Defect Tracking |
|||||||||
| Does
tool support Job/Work Tracking (e.g. through change sets) |
|||||||||
| Does
tool support process tailoring |
|||||||||
| Does tool (perhaps with tailoring) allow you to meet your process expectations | |||||||||
| Does
tool have life cycle tracking (relating objects to
promotion/releases) |
|||||||||
| Can
tool control process at role (user/group level)
|
|||||||||
| Can you define quality gates/process event-triggers | |||||||||
| Does tool integrate with other core change applications eg asset management, system management, deployment management tools. | |||||||||
| Architectural Factors | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 |
| Does
tool support the organisations Heterogeneous environment |
|||||||||
| Does
tool have a stable client (mature) |
|||||||||
| Is
Repository Architecture stable on server side (eg non-corruptible) |
|||||||||
| Does
tool support Multi-Site Replication |
|||||||||
| Does
tool support remote user |
|||||||||
| Is local and network Performance satisfactory | |||||||||
| Is
product scalable to meet organisations growth (scalable
architecture) |
|||||||||
| Are
tools resource needs considered acceptable (server and client) |
|||||||||
| Transparency/Tool Acceptance | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 |
| Is tool easily used from client perspective | |||||||||
| Does
product integrate with companies tools and IDE's |
|||||||||
| Can users to
work transparently (i.e. acceptable daily operations) |
|||||||||
| Does tool easily support working off-line | |||||||||
| Administrative Considerations | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 |
| Is
tool easily administered |
|||||||||
| Does
repository easily support backups |
|||||||||
| Does
tool have user login security |
|||||||||
| Does
tool support object security at user, group levels |
|||||||||
| Does
tool have integrated build facilities (eg build auditing) |
|||||||||
| Will product
support the organisations current build and deployment process. |
|||||||||
| Vendor Specific | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 |
| How
strong is Vendor support |
|||||||||
| How strong is Vendor market reputation | |||||||||
| Total Cost of Ownership | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 |
| Cost of Licensing | |||||||||
| Cost of Hardware | |||||||||
| Cost of First Year Support | |||||||||
| Cost of Future Support | |||||||||
| Cost of Training | |||||||||
| TOTAL SCORE | T1 | T2 | T3 | ||||||
|
|
|
Copyright © 2002 SnuffyBear Company (Sydney
Australia). |
 |
