We try to use Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management combined with Unifier. Unifier is a cost control tool.

It is mostly used in oil and gas, mining, and construction industries, but predominantly in oil and gas and mining.

It is beneficial to have the schedule updated so you can have control of the cost. When you have a change in the schedule, you can also make a change in the cost. For us, it is mostly important to control dates and to be on time, but also to know the cash flow.

With both of our clients, they use Power BI extensively. Though it may not be the best solution, they have all the tools connected to Power BI, which they primarily use for reporting.

The integration with Unifier, which is also an Oracle tool, ensures that the data is correct and timely. The connection between Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management and Unifier is not difficult to establish, and the information obtained is really reliable.

Because we use mostly P6 and we do not use OPC, which is the new cloud version that is visually easier to use, I would rate it as an eight.

I have about two years of experience with Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management. I used to have more experience in ERP systems.

I used to work at Oracle, but I have experience with ERPs and cost control tools.

I am currently implementing more than using the solution.

We work with Unifier and Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management for scheduling, primarily using P6.

While Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management has scoring capabilities, we usually only use the scheduling features such as Gantt charts. We also use the risk management features, but not the scoring component.

For us in LATAM, the pricing is extremely high. That is why I only work with oil and gas and mining industries because they have substantial budgets. It becomes really challenging to work with other industries because the solution is not affordable.

The overall rating for Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management is 8 out of 10.

Our primary use case for Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management was during a period when we deployed it for five or six years. We were actively using it without any other tools. It was mainly for managing projects, specifically in the construction and installation phases of instrumentation and controls.

Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management helped in tracking costs effectively. The cost breakdown structure and work breakdown structures were integrated into their system, making it easier to track costs. This structure allowed me to maintain oversight over budgets while engineers managed tasks and milestones.

The most valuable features were the cost breakdown structure and work breakdown structure. Additionally, it was considered easy to integrate and secure, and it seemed more suitable for large-scale projects compared to Microsoft Project. It provided me with better control over tracking costs and ensured that tasks and milestones were properly managed by engineers.

There is a need for improvement in the interfacing and possibly better integration with other programs. The software could benefit from enhancements that make it more user-friendly for various tasks.

I am not sure if we are using it right now, but we had used it around ten years ago.

The usage in our environment was limited, as each engineer managed their own projects, making decisions on whether to use Microsoft Project or Primavera.

Oracle's customer service was good. They supported us during the implementation phase, and whatever integrations we required at the time were well-handled.

Positive

We had three systems: Maximo, Primavera, and SAP. I would rate them in order of preference as Maximo, Primavera, then SAP. SAP was more challenging to integrate, often requiring custom programming.

During the setup, my role was to instruct the team to establish a computer maintenance management system. They had the option to choose what they felt comfortable with. In terms of software choice, Primavera was selected for project tracking.

The team members to answer the question of implementation would be better suited as it wasn't directly my task.

In terms of return on investment, Primavera was more intuitive for large-scale projects compared to alternatives like Microsoft Project.

Primavera appears to be more expensive than Microsoft Project but potentially less than Maximo. Pricing details from ten years ago are not committed to memory, and I would have to refer back to documentation.

Other solutions we evaluated or used included Microsoft Project and SAP.

Overall, I would rate Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management as an eight out of ten.

I am an end user of Primavera, not a developer. I am a project planner, and Primavera is a tool I use as a project planner. We use it for specific major projects where the client specifies that they need Primavera.

It helps in planning for large projects. It is very, very good in planning for large projects.

I use many features, including baseline, which I use regularly. It is used to analyze the impact of changes in the project. Delay analysis and extension of time claims are some of the key features.

It can be integrated for four-dimensional modeling, which is already happening with another company. Right now, it is produced as an independent product and does not have any three-dimensional interface. There is scope for development in integrating with some AI products.

I have been using Primavera for more than ten years now.

Primavera is pretty stable, I would say. I have no complaints.

Primavera is very scalable. I would rate it eight out of ten.

I am not the person who is setting it up. It is done by the IT department.

The company I work for is trying to cut down on cost on software, so they are not going to increase the number of users because we use it for specific major projects.

You need to have a good understanding of project management before you build programs using P6. Learning the tool takes time, so you should spend hands-on time with it while developing your project management skills. It's a mix of hands-on work and project management skills.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I work for an engineering and construction company that uses Primavera for project planning and management. We use it in specific projects when clients request it. 

Primavera helps us track project progress and results. 

I like Primavera's planning capabilities. 

Primavera could be better integrated with other products, and it needs more cost management features. 

We have used Primavera for more than 10 years. 

Primavera is stable. 

The on-prem version we are using is scalable enough, but we're planning to upgrade to the cloud for greater scalability. 

We don't use Oracle technical support because we have experienced users. 

I rate Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management nine out of 10. I recommend using the cloud version. 

We are infrastructure companies that manage all critical projects and their capital expenditures using Primavera Portfolio Management. Our main advantage is that we have the authority to sign off on projects because we have the budget and CapEx information in the system. This allows us to streamline the flow of signatures with our contractors.

The ability to streamline the process of obtaining signatures from our contractors is valuable.

When using Primavera Portfolio Management, we need to have resources on the ground who are familiar with the system. However, there is a shortage of such resources in the market. This is one of the biggest challenges we face. It is not easy to find qualified candidates, even if we post a job on a platform like LinkedIn. I am looking for techno-functional or even techno resources, but there are only a few in the market. This is a big challenge. 

Oracle does not provide enterprise-level asset management with IBM Maximo. This means that we need to integrate the two systems, which is a costly and time-consuming process. Integration with non-Oracle systems, such as IBM Maximo, is also challenging and expensive. As a result, the only viable option is to integrate the systems at the database level, which is not ideal. 

The scalability has room for improvement.

I would like to see the cost of integration reduced.

I would like to receive Oracle's integration requirements so that I do not have to purchase separate modules from them.

I have been using Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management for five years.

Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management is stable.

Scalability depends on how the database is configured. A database that can be configured and scaled can come at a price, as it requires affordable hardware. The perspective of scalability also depends on the specific use case. For example, Oracle cannot be used to host asset management. My team recently migrated from IBM Maximo to Oracle, but we reached a point where we could not go beyond a certain number of assets. This is because Oracle has a weakness in its query performance when dealing with large amounts of data.

The quality of technical support varies by case. Some issues are resolved quickly, while others have taken up to two months.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward, but it becomes more complex when we factor in actual business requirements.

We implemented the solution in-house.

The solution itself is cost-effective. The expense comes with the integration. For example, the cost of opening the API in Oracle is the same as the cost of Oracle licenses. This is why we did not start integration on our database when we started the evaluation. However, we need the API for everything to run smoothly. Another example is the masking module over our CapEx values. We need this module if we want management to see the figures. It costs $100,000 per year.

I give Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management an eight out of ten.

We have around 600 total users.

We have two administrators that maintain the solution.

We definitely plan to increase our usage of Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management as the company grows. However, there is a concern about how to continue. One option is to purchase the full stack from Oracle, but this is not a cheap option. It is a challenge, but we may be able to afford it if we are willing to pay an additional fee. We would need to run the database and our application in a separate environment because it cannot run on the CC. This is a challenge. In order to get the most out of Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management, we need to stick to Oracle's offer. However, this is not a cheap option. For the current situation, with around 600 users to 100 users internally, it will cost us at least $200,000 per year, not including the license.

For organizations with a single standalone box, it is easy to implement Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management. However, for enterprise organizations with multiple stacks running asset management and another stack running financials, the integration will take time and cost money. To be transparent with management, we need a full overview. To achieve this goal, we need to make our OpEx and CapEx transparent in advance.