Broadcom Clarity Reviews

We were doing projections. I happen to work in an IT organization for the past couple of assignments, however, at the end of the day, my background is in finance, internal controls, and business operations. We were also using the tool for forward-looking projections, to kind of get our head around where we think spending is going to be at the project level, and where there might be holes, either financially or in the need of certain kinds of human resources type kinds of things, just classic project missions.

Sometimes you get applications where there might only be one user, or five users, or a very, very small group. Maybe we could migrate them from a little-used application to something that we could bring to the attention that might be better suited for them. There was a variety of things, why we gathered information and collected it inside Clarity. The more important and heavier use of the tool was program management.

There was a need to keep better track of hours spent by employee type and how their times were allocated to given projects, or if not on a project, if it was just like a general administrative type kind of thing, how were we using our time. Of course, at the employee level, they would have their profiles. There were a variety of data fields that were made use of in order to identify the person by name, their skill sets, their charge-out rate, whether they were assigned full-time, or part-time, or not at all to a particular project or projects, plural. It was, of course, like a lot of things in life, it could be as simple or as complex as you want.

One of the things that we found out very quickly was when we went from kind of dabbling in program management and using Clarity, where management at the highest levels of our IT community, it was decided that this right here is our tool of choice. We're not going to be making use of any other tools. Everyone needs to make use of this project management. What they did is, they swung one way and then went to the other extreme. It was everybody who had to log their time. This was done at the highest level. Whether you were a contract employee, whether you were a full-time badged employee, whether you were part of supervisory, or management, or even a member of our senior leadership team, our executive management team, everyone had to account for their time.

There was tremendous pushback in doing this. The counterargument was, well, there's a lot of companies, high tech, defense industry, et cetera, et cetera, they always do this. This is nothing new. If we're a "high-tech" company, we should follow suit and get on board with doing this. This is actually fairly common practice. Inside of the tool, there were performance metrics, things that could be tracked, graphed, and what have you. I began distributing to my internal customers at the management level where we were relative to other family groups if you will, or sub-organizations within the IT community. Where we were relative to entering our time sheets on a weekly basis on time.

We could follow what was the quality of the input, et cetera. There were probably about five or six metrics that we used. As a result, the groups that I supported were consistently ranked at the absolute top of the organization, as we were leveraging these built-in tools for tracking.

There were some groups that were laggards or not performing very well at all. It almost became some kind of internal competition. Whether it was program management, or just metrics and entering data, or keeping records up to date, because people would go out of the organization, there were tools that were inherent or built into Clarity that we leveraged.

I'm just an analyst at heart, I can take data from disparate systems. I can correlate them and provide management with what they need in order to make decisions and affect change in the organization or what have you. I did not have any issues with the system. The whole interface would fit on the inside of the screen of a laptop computer. I wouldn't say at 100%. Let's say the screen was brought down to like 80 or 90%, the entire interface would fit on the screen. At the top of being where the true interface was, where you were able to do your filter selections, things like that, that's where you were able to, an individual, depending on their access that they've been granted. I was actually given almost administrator access, where you could see all the options that you could drill down into.

I did create custom reports. Some people had great difficulty with that. To me, it was, what data fields do you need, and dragged them into the report that you want to create and save it. That, to me, was always a very simple thing. Some people have to be spoon-fed. Other people are naturally curious or inquisitive and will look at second-level, third-level options for a given application interface. That's what I did.

Whenever that second instance of Clarity came about, it was overwhelming even to people who were accustomed to working with program management tools. There were so many data fields that could potentially be leveraged, so many kinds of internal metrics. They actually brought in an outside consulting team.

I can't recall the name of the team, and where they were from. I remember they were from down South. They were actually on-premises for a week or so. Then, they came back periodically just to fine-tune things. I interacted with them on some occasions, as they wanted to pick my brain on how I was leveraging it to track applications and to run high level reporting for management on just basic metrics and also initially on just program management.

Overall, I found the tool to be fairly straightforward. That said, for people who did want to create their own reports, whatever instance we had, a lot of people found it difficult, and what they typically ended up doing is getting training.

They're very, very smart, certainly smarter than me, where they would come to me as a resource and say, "Hey, you seem to have a knack for this tool. Can you create a report that kind of sort of does this?" I would say, "Sure." Then, I would knock it out and they would say, "Great." Then, they would have a customized report that met their needs, where they could kind of fire at will and run the report whenever they wanted it to. However, many people didn't find it as easy as I did.

Many roles that I've had was the role of a financial analyst. There's been a number of sales organizations, sales organizations that I've supported over time. These are organizations that'll have anywhere from a couple hundred to as many as almost several thousand salespeople, the people who support them, et cetera. One of the organizations that I supported was the main sales force. These are like your rank and file sales representatives who go out and just sell equipment, that sells services, et cetera. It's everything from your entry-level sales reps, all the way to your highest-performing sales reps, all the supervisory management, and all the industry VPs and sales VPs, et cetera, right up to the highest levels of the sales organization for the United States. They had a variety of almost competing tools that were used to consolidate their prospects, and with their pipelines, et cetera. Salesforce had already been installed in Europe with great success.

There, you have, obviously, different languages, you have different management styles, organizational structures, et cetera, and yet they were able to install and make use of, Salesforce quite successfully. They actually did it fairly quickly. For us, Europe included Eastern Europe, Russia, all of North Africa, and the Middle East - they all installed Salesforce and did so fairly quickly and successfully. However, there was great resistance in North America. The primary reason was that Salesforce was a cloud-based technology. There was tremendous resistance in both the Canadian and the US communities to have anything other than something that was internal inside of our firewall.

The Salesforce people were saying, "We work with governments. We work with everything from defense contractors, to military organizations, to intelligence organizations. There's nothing to fear. This is the future." Yet there was tremendous resistance. It wasn't until someone at the highest levels of the corporation said, "We’ve got Europe covered. We got developing markets covered. North America, get together and get on board with Salesforce. That way, we have unified technology worldwide." Meanwhile, I was actually taking these two competing systems, where the sales reps focused on equipment and then secondarily services, as opposed to another sales organization that would focus on services and then would periodically think about selling equipment.

There were competing philosophies and their prospects resided in two different systems. What I would do is developed a knack for taking these two data sets, exporting them out of the two systems, smashing them together, removing the overlapping or duplicate records, then being able to present to management, "You have anywhere between an $8 to $9 billion pipeline for the next nine months. Assuming that you close 20% to 25% of your deals, this is what this might be. You're in striking distance of achieving these types kinds of services, signings, or equipment signings." Management got really, really excited about this. Then, what I did after that was that became the basis, the underlying data, that smashed together data, became the data that we ultimately fed into Salesforce.

The reason why I'm giving this background is one of the things that Salesforce did that was very, very clever, is allowed just four people to take data and create a shell. What they did is they said, when they were doing the introduction to our team, they said, "There are literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of data fields that are used by our clients all over the globe, but what we're going to do, based upon the data set that you have in the present, we're only going to create this shell or this instance of Salesforce, and we're only going to use 75 data fields." That, to me, was very, very powerful. Even if they were data fields that were using different nomenclature, it was considered a standard naming convention that Salesforce was familiar with. As time went by, we began expanding, making use of a greater and greater quantity of data fields, and being able to slice and dice, if you will, data in greater levels of detail and complexity. It was easier for rank and file, whether you were finance, or information technology people, or salespeople, sales reps, management, whatever, everybody was able to get their heads around a tool that was becoming more and more sophisticated as the months went by as opposed to starting off with saying, "There are 300 possible data fields, and metrics, and calculations, or whatever, but we're only going to use 35 of them, or 50 of them, or whatever." The fact that everybody can see them is very, very intimidating. That was one of the reasons for the pushback in our organization when Clarity was rolled out. People could see all these data fields. Either the implementation wasn't good or the consultants that we were dealing with weren't very thoughtful. However, when people saw all the possible data fields that they had, it was overwhelming.

That was consistent feedback that I heard through a variety of channels and there was resistance due to that. If there's any feedback that I would give is that it's one thing to say, "Here are all the possibilities." However, then, when the salespeople marry up with the folks who are going to do the implementation, they need to be able to say, "So what are your immediate needs? Maybe we'll throw some additional data fields in there to kind of spice things up." Then, as time goes by, reveal additional data entry options, either for people who are making the actual entries or what have you. That's something that I observed firsthand.

I have seen interfaces that are much hipper, and much more intuitive. The layouts might have a more modern or current touch and feel. With the instance that we had, it seemed like it was just a little outdated. When you were clicking on hypertext links, as opposed to a button. Now, these are nuanced differences, however, having a menu where you'd see a header, underneath the header, you would see a blue font that was a hypertext link. Then, depending on whether you wanted to look at application data, whether you wanted to enter your time, or you wanted to look up specific projects and dig into those projects, into the sub-elements that make up all the different views within a given project, or you wanted to get to a data export function, or whatever, it was all a function of finding your overall category and then find underneath that the appropriate link.

I don't know how old that interface was. Maybe it's still like that now, or a bit more modern, however, from my experience, a more modern interface would be a bonus. 

I was using Clarity, I would say, from August 2018 or 2019. I was using it right up until January 2022. I would say I used it solidly for three years.

At my organization, in my last couple of assignments, I worked inside IT. It's the global IT organization. Inside of that organization, there, of course, are subgroups. One of which was our program management office. There were also areas within the IT organization that tracked things other than projects. They tracked applications. For example, on a worldwide basis, we had about 1,500 applications worldwide approximately.

At its peak, I don't believe it exceeded 500 users. I don't know what the actual licensure arrangement or agreement or contract was with Broadcom CA, but what I do know is that as time went by, the number of users declined. There were trade-offs, and decisions were made. Some of the biggest complainers about doing the data entry were the most senior managers.

In time, the more like mid-level managers would say, "Well, if our bosses don't have to make their time entries, why should we? All we really care about are the worker bees." Eventually, things became more diluted.

Getting back to our ability to track applications within the corporation, to this day, it is still the official source of record for tracking the number of applications. There's a constant need to simplify our business and start making greater and greater use of better technology, et cetera. I know from that standpoint, the tool is still being used for that. They're still using it for program management, to understand and track project management costs, et cetera. That said, right now, I just don't know how many people are actually logging into the tool.

There were rumors that they were going to stop requiring people to enter their time into the tool. Unless of course, you are actually working on a project. If you're a resource that's assigned to project management, then you're obligated to track your time. For people who have nothing to do with project management, and you're just pure overhead, that's where things began kind of winding down, especially towards year-end last year. I know it's come down substantially since its peak of 500.

I personally don't recall dealing with technical support. Very, very early on, I did, as there were questions that weren't answered internally, so I actually had to call support. I was able to get things resolved. There was some kind of a quirk, I can't recall what it was, however, it was beyond our understanding of the application. I did have to call a support number. My recollection was, that whatever it was, I was able to get it resolved.

It's incumbent upon the information technology group to be aware of those systems, to help maintain them, to keep track of them. Then, in addition to that, to the extent that they can be eliminated, in other words, consolidated, so that we have ultimately fewer applications where more people can make use of them, it just helps simplify the business, et cetera, cut costs. We used Clarity as a tool to keep track of all the applications worldwide. There used to be a tool that was used, some other tool. I don't know if it was homegrown. It could have been a Microsoft access database for all I know. I just don't recall what it was, however, I know that it was problematic. Trying to scale up and it was problematic. They actually created a sub-element within Clarity to help the corporation keep track of all of its applications. I was actually a very heavy user of that particular element within Clarity. One of the problems was that a lot of folks didn't know just how many applications there were within the corporation. By using a variety of technology, sending out surveys, et cetera, we were able to find out that we didn't have 1,000 applications. We didn't have 1,200 applications. We actually had 1,500 applications. The reason is obvious why we would need to know whether they are maintaining internal standards or generally accepted standards relative to the IT community.

I did not directly deal with technical support.

I know that our company, worldwide, does business with about 300 vendors for its information technology needs, whether it's manpower, equipment, or services. Inside that list of 300 vendors, I know for a fact that Broadcom is one of the top vendors relative to our company worldwide. We're not just a customer. If you look at it from a dollar standpoint, there are some vendors that maybe we spend $20,000 a year or $100,000 a year, and not $1 million a year.

For companies where we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, or multiple millions of dollars a year, Broadcom, in general, has a more elevated status on the list of vendors. It's probably in the top 30, or top 50, vendors, which, for me qualifies it as a partner.

It meets the definition of being enterprise-wide. I don't know if it was on a company server or if it was some kind of a cloud-based service that we were ascribing to. What I do know is there was an initial instance where I know for a fact it was installed on a company server somewhere and that there was a transition, maybe to a newer version, or a newer instance, which may have changed the deployment. I never really had a need to know that. All I know is can I access it and get the data that I need.

I'd recommend the solution. I didn't find any reasons why I would not want to use it. If somebody were to say, "Are you familiar with this tool in technology?" I would say, "Yes." I don't know what version or instance of it was of what I made use of, however, I would say, based on my use of the tool, my ability to look at data in the interface itself, or to get data out of it, export data to do additional manipulations and digging, or what have you, I would say, "To me, it was not difficult to use. It was straightforward. It was logical." I wouldn't have anything negative to say about it.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Broadcom Clarity PPM has multiple use cases, and with one of the clients that had implemented it recently, the tool was used for capital budgeting purposes. The client is one of the giants in the U.S. that had a PPM tool for managing all the project portfolios, but that tool was developed in-house. It was a homegrown solution, but there were a lot of limitations because some specific expertise was required. The tool was outdated and was difficult to scale, so my company replaced it with Broadcom Clarity PPM as it is an enterprise-level solution with high scalability and could be moved to the cloud.

The main business case was for capital budgeting, more like investment management, where there are multiple units and the client proposed some ideas. My company prioritized those ideas and did budgeting accordingly. For example, there are four different business objectives. One is lights on, the second is compliance, the third is business growth, and the fourth is running the business. My company tries to allocate a certain amount or certain funds towards the four business objectives for a particular financial year. My company then considers all the ideas from different stakeholders then tries to prioritize those ideas within Broadcom Clarity PPM.

The most useful feature for me as an implementer of Broadcom Clarity PPM is its extensibility. The tool is pretty extensible, and I haven't had any issues with it in terms of it getting used for multiple scenarios and for multiple clients where there's a need for high customization. Broadcom Clarity PPM is a very, very customizable tool, so you can pretty much implement any business process on it with no issues.

One of the major pain points for me when it comes to Broadcom Clarity PPM is the new UI. The new UI is very good in terms of functionality and the drag and draw features, but it's not very responsive. When I say that it's not very responsive, what I mean is that sometimes, the tool is not very user-friendly. For example, a user saves a value on the form, but the tool doesn't give any indication to the user that the value has been saved. Some users are moving from the classic UI to the new UI, and end up getting confused because on the classic UI, when you click "Save", it'll save the information and you'll get an indication that it was saved. With the new UI, it auto saves the information, but it doesn't give an indication in the form of a popup box that "this form has been saved", or any type of message indicating that the information was successfully saved. It's been confusing for users who move to the new UI because of that. The users don't understand when the values are being saved or not being saved, even if there's an auto-save feature in the new UI.

What I'd like to see in the next release of Broadcom Clarity PPM is fine-grained security control on the new UI, because currently there's free level security, but it's based on the group, and I would like to have access to the individual phase and the users to lock a specific phase. For that type of security, higher level security is required, which is available on the classic UI, but not available on the new UI. The new UI interface should also be a little bit more responsive. Currently, it's responsive and it's fast, but whenever it saves information, it doesn't show any notification, and that can be very confusing for users.

I've been working with Broadcom Clarity PPM for a few years now. I'm an implementer of the tool, and I've implemented it across multiple clients throughout my career, mainly for three different companies. I do have hands-on experience with Broadcom Clarity PPM. Currently, I'm using version 15.9.3.

Broadcom Clarity PPM is a pretty stable tool. I haven't seen many issues, but it's a little bit sensitive towards JVM memory settings and how it is architected. My company had a lot of applications towards implementation and had some performance issues on the database side, so there was a need to adjust some of the parameters and those parameters were not documented anywhere, but once you open a support case with Broadcom, the team will tell you to try certain parameters and changes. The scenario my company experienced isn't exclusively documented, but Broadcom was aware of it and told my company that it was on a case-to-case basis, but Broadcom Clarity PPM is pretty stable.

The Broadcom Clarity PPM technical support team was very helpful, though it would depend on the engineer handling the case. Most of the time, I found the support useful. I'm rating support four out of five.

My company went with Broadcom Clarity PPM because of complex business processes and implementation, and we particularly chose the tool because it was highly customizable. Because of complex and secure business requirements, there was so much focus on security that it was very complicated compared to regular implementation, so my company decided to go with Broadcom Clarity PPM.

Broadcom Clarity PPM is also a leader in the PPM space in the Gartner Quadrant, so my company picked up the top five to six tools and compared those tools, but as Broadcom Clarity PPM was highly customizable, we picked it over the other tools.

How easy or complex the initial setup for Broadcom Clarity PPM depends on the client, as my company worked with three different clients. For one client, the setup took two months and that included business processes, but it was a little bit on the simpler side. With heavy implementation, for example, the most recent project my company implemented took one year, but it was not because of Broadcom Clarity PPM. It was because of the client's business processes, security implementations, and a lot of other things that were highly custom. If it's an out-of-the-box setup, it would be completed within one week or so, and people can get started with using the tool.

Licensing for Broadcom Clarity PPM is a bit complicated. I'm not aware of the exact costs because the tool was for everybody's use. There are different license structures for different organizations and Broadcom doesn't discuss licensing right away. You have to reach out to Broadcom and the team will customize licensing for each client.

My company took a look at multiple tools because one of the clients already had ServiceNow implemented, so adding a PPM entailed a lot of costs, so that was one consideration. The team also considered Micro Focus PPM, but it was lagging in terms of features, so we decided not to use it, plus it wasn't highly customizable. Planview was considered as well, but it was not as customizable as Broadcom Clarity PPM in terms of processes and integration, so we didn't choose Planview.

I would definitely recommend Broadcom Clarity PPM to others because it's a time-tested solution, and I've been hearing it for the last fifteen to twenty years. Broadcom is also adding a lot of new features to the tool. The new UI is also very efficient, and though it's still not in its fully mature state, it's pretty usable. I'm advising others to avoid customizing Broadcom Clarity PPM as much as possible and use it the way it was designed, but I would definitely recommend it as it's a good tool, and the new UI is also very efficient. Broadcom Clarity PPM also has an agile model which is a plus, so you don't need separate JIRA or any other integration. The out-of-the-box agile model is pretty efficient to take care of all the agile requirements, so Broadcom Clarity PPM is the only tool that provides that kind of capability to agile as waterfall project management.

My rating for Broadcom Clarity PPM is eight out of ten, and the reason behind this score is that it's a very expensive tool. Cost-wise, the tool is very expensive and some tools might be able to cater to 80% of the functionality provided by Broadcom Clarity PPM but are not as expensive.

The tool has a new UI and that is good, but it has a lot of limitations. For example, you cannot access sub-pages on the second level or third level of sub-objects. There are also some technical limitations overall, so on a scale of one to ten, I deducted two points and rated Broadcom Clarity PPM an eight, rather than a ten.

On the plus side, the solution is highly customizable, and I haven't seen any other tools which are as customizable as Broadcom Clarity PPM.

My company is a partner of Broadcom Clarity PPM.

I basicually use it for program management at financial services clients.

We primarily use it as a standalone program management tool.

Value streams, investment cases, road mapping, and fast destinations. These are the ones we use to manage stuff.

The risk management capability is good. It has a decent way of raising risk issues, connecting them to tasks or projects, and notifying users based on the access level.

I would like to see probably a little more features in terms of agile project delivery. It's mainly used as a program and project management tool, but it's not that great for agile projects.

Another major concern I see is usability. Many users I've worked with, including myself, feel that the application could improve in terms of user-friendliness.

I have been using it for three years. 

Stability is fine. The major concern I see is usability. Many users I've worked with, including myself, feel that the application could improve in terms of user-friendliness.

It is a scalable solution. Scalability is not an issue. I have seen it in an environment with around 20,000 users for one of my clients. 

ROI is good only when you're using it at a large scale. If you have a few users, it's not that good in terms of ROI.

We had to pay for licensing. It's costly. That's the main concern.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. It's been designed well and is very compliant with regulatory requirements. Security aspects are good in Clarity.

Clarity is pretty good for program management.

We use the solution to manage projects and provide reports for management.

You can find the statistics of the products, share reports, and open boxes. Additionally, its ease of use helps with project management.

The solution could improve the experience for the simple user by converging the comments and dashboards.

The stability is very good.

I rate the solution's scalability a six out of ten.

Support is complicated. You should probably try contacting Broadcom Clarity if you're seeking the best experience for end-users within your company. They have the expertise and resources necessary to address any issues promptly and effectively.

Positive

The initial setup is easy. It's an easy platform but primarily used by the IT team. The engineers usually use Primavera.

The solution is not more expensive.

A long time ago, I worked as an engineer and administrator for a device company. However, I worked there only briefly, handling importation for my company. I suppose it's because I lacked experience. The package had various tools available. We decided to try using it for our engineers and IT staff in the Philippines. However, it wasn't suitable, so we decided to buy Primavera for the engineers.

The company offers low-cost support and service. We don't need to change anything because the box code and tools are good. We have a code for configuration for our users. If they understand the new system, it's easy to request changes. They can modify the dashboard and configuration for specific data.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Broadcom Clarity PPM for business. We have many types of business cases which have to be approved, then once approved, we move them from idea to business case to project. We use the platform for different projects.

Broadcom Clarity PPM is a high-value product. It's amazing, and it helps us become productive. It's a nice product. It's helpful, and we can do a lot of things faster through Broadcom Clarity PPM.

We also love that the platform is scalable and very stable. We have trust in it, even from a self management perspective.

Easy to enhancements for any requirements In Clarity PPM environment VS other platforms.

Broadcom Clarity PPM has some areas for improvement, particularly its dashboard, because it's too slow. The look and feel of the platform need to be enhanced. The UX or user experience of Broadcom Clarity PPM also needs to be improved, e.g. sometimes when you need to do something on it, you need to click three or four times for the action to go through, instead of clicking just once.

An additional feature we'd like to see in the next release of Broadcom Clarity PPM is being able to communicate through the dashboard. If the dashboard enables us to communicate and shoot the message there, that would be amazing.

I've been using Broadcom Clarity PPM for 10 years, and I'm still using it, as I'm a technical person.

Broadcom Clarity PPM is very stable.

Broadcom Clarity PPM is a scalable platform.

The Broadcom Clarity PPM technical support is good. They always reply back to us. Support for the platform is amazing.

Broadcom Clarity PPM was really smoothly to install. There were no challenges with its initial setup. The deployment took three days. The installation of the software only took a little time, e.g. three days, but we spent two to three years with the configuration.

We used an external team for the implementation of Broadcom Clarity PPM, particularly just for them to give their inputs. We used Ignite as the third party.

Broadcom Clarity PPM costs us $500K, and that's only for the installation and kick off within the first year. For each succeeding year, it'll cost you $200K.

I have experience with Broadcom Clarity PPM only. I have no experience with Jira.

We have 800 users of Broadcom Clarity PPM within the organization.

We have one guy: a business analyst, and he's in charge of handling and maintaining the project and Broadcom Clarity PPM itself.

Everyone in the organization is using Broadcom Clarity PPM now, so there's no need to increase usage, e.g. all our departments including top management, even the CEO, uses the platform. We can approve, reject, and do things on the platform. We monitor each project and dashboard through Broadcom Clarity PPM, e.g. every PM on the CapEx project has access to the platform.

The advice I'd give to others who are looking into implementing Broadcom Clarity PPM is that they need to be agile. They need to be flexible.

I'm giving Broadcom Clarity PPM a rating of nine out of ten.

Broadcom Clarity PPM is used in retail, oil, accounting, and industrial companies.

In strategy management, transparency, real time to analyse results and act quickly. Alignment through all the company.

The most valuable features of Broadcom Clarity PPM are demand, project, and product management.

Setup could be made easier.

I have been using Broadcom Clarity PPM for approximately 12 years.

Broadcom Clarity PPM is a stable solution. However, if the solution is not deployed correctly there can be some issues.

The scalability of the solution can be done by adding more features. We work with customers to meet their scalability needs.

We have approximately 100 to 9,000 people using the solution depending on the company.

The configuration process for Broadcom Clarity PPM can be challenging initially. The complexity and duration of the setup may vary depending on the unique needs and services of large corporations. Despite being a standardized procedure, it can still pose difficulty.

We deploy the solution to others and we use it for the deployment.

The amount of people for the deployment depends on the environment. For example, 10,000 people there need to be approximately 10 people for the deployment.

The price of Broadcom Clarity PPM is reasonable. My customers pay a license to use this solution on an annual basis.

The solution is good but I would recommend a team from Broadcom to do the implementation. If a poor implementor does the work there could be problems.

I rate Broadcom Clarity PPM a nine out of ten.

Broadcom Clarity PPM's most valuable feature is the plenty of modules, such as portfolio, project, resource, and time.

Broadcom Clarity PPM could improve by adding advanced reporting in the tool. There are a lot of out-of-the-box reports, but I would like to see more advanced reporting.

I have been using Broadcom Clarity PPM for a few years.

Broadcom Clarity PPM has high availability.

The scalability of Broadcom Clarity PPM is very good.

Broadcom Clarity PPM's support has a very large team, larger than Planisware when it comes to technical support.

I have used other solutions other than Broadcom Clarity PPM, such as Planisware. Broadcom Clarity PPM is better than Planisware because they have the multi-road mapping feature. This feature gives clients very good visibility on what needs to be done and what will happen in let's say two or three years.

Broadcom Clarity PPM takes a couple of days to implement.

The price point of Broadcom Clarity PPM is less than Planisware. If a customer comes to me, and the cost is the main parameter for the selection of a tool, then I'll recommend Broadcom because cost-wise, they are less than other solutions.

If you have to train a consultant, certification costs around 3000 euros and Broadcom Clarity is only $250. There is a substantial difference.

I would recommend Broadcom Clarity PPM to others.

I rate Broadcom Clarity PPM a nine out of ten.

Clarity PPM's strongest features are project and resource management.

Clarity PPM would be improved by developing better support for the Agile framework.

I've been working with Clarity PPM for around seventeen years.

Clarity PPM is very stable across different purposes.

Clarity PPM scales very well.

Broadcom's technical support is good - you raise a ticket with the support team, and they immediately assign a consultant to you.

The initial setup is very simple, and Broadcom provides you with an installation guide.

I evaluated Planisware, but Clarity PPM is more scalable, its focus is built across resource management, project management, and time sheets, and it can be integrated with Microsoft Project.

Clarity PPM is an open design tool that you can design the way you want. I would give Clarity PPM a rating of nine out of ten.