For different functional areas in your org, is the answer partitions or se

[Anon Anon]

All,  When you determined a strategy for all of your enterprise, or a number of different groups/divisions/etc, to use Clarity, how did you decide between using partitions or a separate instance?  Jim  

[Deactivated User]

One of the things to consider is data sensitivity. Partitions are not security. If there is such data that under any circumstances access should be only to authorized personnel including authorized admins only then that data has to be in a separate instance.  After having listened to a presentation about parititions my conclusion of the message was: Partitions - why not, if there is no other way to do it.  Martti K.

[Anon Anon]

Martti,  Thanks for the reply. Sounds like the reason to go with a separate instance is because of compliance or security. The reason to partition would be that it simplifies governance across different functional areas (each area can maintain their own way of doing things).  Jim  

[Deactivated User]

That is similar to my thinking: partitions are about how the data is presented to different groups of users.  Martti K.

[Deactivated User]

This from the old forum a couple of years back.    784.   Changing Project Partition - crfanc
      We are implementing a partition model to represent our many divisions. Has anyone had experience with changing a project from one partition to another? We have a need to originate projects and / or ideas in one partition and then when they have progressed to a certain point change them to the partition representing the centralized IT group. Has anyone had experience with this, perhaps entertained other ideas on how to solution this? I would appreciate any thoughts you may have. Thank you.

926.   New Partitions on existing projects - croscn
      Has anyone found a way to change an existing projects partition? We initally created Clarity without partions, but we are in a situation where we need to create one and probable more as we grow. I would love to make use of the partitions ability to show different veiws based upon which partition a project falls in. However, we already have our projects built out. The only way I have found to change the partition for an existing project is to go to the DB and change it directly there. Is that the only way?

1296.   RE: New Partitions on existing projects - dasilva
      Added Partition Model (with Hierarchy) but when trying to configure custom attribute for Project Object, I only get the "System" partition option in the drop-down. Why or How can I get all of my active partitions to show in the partition drop-down for custom attribute?

      Thank you.

1298.   RE: New Partitions on existing projects - croscn
      I did have to go to the DB. It is under the ODB_CA tables. You can change these without it affecting the project. Just make sure that you put in the correct partition ID.
1829.   RE: New Partitions on existing projects - chasegl
      Depends on how many projects you have and how much effort your expecting.

      Here in VF we did it manually for over a thousand ongoing projects. Worked in the end though.

      contact me at chasexxxxxxcom for more info.
      croscn wrote:
      -------------------------------
      Has anyone found a way to change an existing projects partition? We initally created Clarity without partions, but we are in a situation where we need to create one and probable more as we grow. I would love to make use of the partitions ability to show different veiws based upon which partition a project falls in. However, we already have our projects built out. The only way I have found to change the partition for an existing project is to go to the DB and change it directly there. Is that the only way?

1929.   RE: View/Edit permissons on fields - Sangeet
      It all depends on implementation. If the user is already uses partitions and have custom partition model in place then they can go partition way.

      For those who are not using partitions should explore Subpage route first as Partition thing needs planning and strategy.

      Partition thing has got advantage that you can have those 'secure' fields in Create View as well and you can also make them 'required' for that particular group. Whereas in Subpage approach you can't make those fields mandatory, if you needed them like that. On navigation front you will save some clicks if using Partition thing.

      - Sangeet

2742.   RE: New Partitions on existing projects - a02302
      Did you ever find out the answer to this?? We're having the same problem and I have a CA consultant here as well.

      Date: 09/06/2006 01:11:47 PM

2743. RE: New Partitions on existing projects - Sangeet
      If you are talking about "Only system option in dropdown" then probably it is because Logged in user is not part of other partitions of which you want values in drop down. Assign logged user to other partitions, Logout/Login again.

      - Sangeet

2745.   RE: New Partitions on existing projects - a02302
      I've assigned admin to be part of two partitions, logged out and in again and still do not get the option.
      Are you on 7.5.2 or 7.5.3? I've assigned the user all rights as well just to see if it's a security issue.

2753.   RE: New Partitions on existing projects - CrosCN
      The best way to do it is through the Projects menu item. Configure the page to include the Partion field. Then go into edit mode. There is a bug in 7.5.2 that will not allow you bring the field forward, but that bug was fixed in fix pack one.

      - Curt
      Date: 09/07/2006 05:15:39 AM

2754. RE: New Partitions on existing projects - a02302
      Thanks for the response. We cannot even get to that point yet because we're trying to configure the attributes right now in one of the objects.
      Basically when creating a new attribute we're not getting any other partition option except for system.

      -Virginia

      Date: 09/07/2006 06:07:53 AM

2755. RE: New Partitions on existing projects - Sangeet
      Did you attach Partition model to object in which you are creating the attributes... ? If that too doesn't work then try to refresh the application cache or restart app.

      - Sangeet

2798.   RE: New Partitions on existing projects - a02302
      Thanks! Refreshing the cache and restarting the app did the trick!    2887.   Partition or not to Partition - martink6
      Any opinions on Partition or not to Partition?

      I am thinking on having production and test on the same server.
      That would allow to have the same configuration and settings for both.
      Using partitions would keep the data separated.

      Does it keep it confidential enough for regular users?

      If you create junk data (by mistake) which you no longer want to see, can you move them from prdouction to the other?

      Do partitions work that way?
      What are the main things to consider when deciding whether or not you want to use partitions if it not a question of rights, but question of having different set of data?

      Martti K.

2894.   RE: Partition or not to Partition - Sangeet
      So far I haven't seen a way to move data between Clarity Partitions. Logically it sounds good to have Prod & Test Partitions, but practically Partition thing is quite complex from inside.

      Even if we succeed if moving data between Partitions, but Objects/Attributes/Lookup Values once created for Testing can't be removed. Secondly Testing also involves Stress/Load Testing and trying out all those silly/weired things, but as it is same Production box, there is risk of Prod thing going down/slow.

      It's advisable to have Test box as separate box, though it may not be of same configuration of Prod box, but Functional/Logical Testing can be done. For stress/load testing, if required, you can take say half or full day downtime of Prod server, take it off the network (or change App port in NSA) & have db backup before you start load testing on it. Once done, restore from the DB backup, if required, and connect the Prod box to network for general users.

      Partitions we generally use to have some attibutes/Lookup which are specific to a group of people and are shown to them only. So we can have one object, attach it to a partition model and then decide which attribute will be shown to which partition. Users/Groups are then assigned to partitions which can see only those attributes in Create/Edit page which they are supposed to. Partitions can also be used in Processes to differently for different partitions and so on ...

      For attributes hiding/security, Sub-page also provides such facility & can be driven by Rights but it comes in separate link and that attribute is saved separately. It is has got it's own pros & cons..

      - Sangeet

2900.   RE: Partition or not to Partition - martink6
      Thanks Sangeet,

      Yes it appears that you only link users directly to partitions.
      Are OBS's partititon specific? (for projects and resources)

      "Secondly Testing also involves Stress/Load Testing" would not be an issue because this type of testing would be just for "trying out all those silly/weired things" which would not have to removed. When found usable they would be re-created or XOGed to the production.

      Your answer indicates that this would be feasible to development environment only and from the next Test environment on it should be "single".

      One of the thoughts was also if you coud have something between full back up and XOG/manua transfer when moving only the good stuff from one environment to another.

      Does the same apply to Training & Production on the same server?

      Do you need a Studio license if you use partitions?

      Martti K.  3887.   Time Reporting Periods - cainc
      Good afternoon all,

      We are running a single instance of 7.5.3 with partitions enabled.

      My question is, can each partition have different time reporting periods, or is this a global item?

      We would like to be able to have 1 time reporting period be based on a Saturday - Friday work week, and the others be a Monday - Sunday work week.

      Any information would be much appreciated!

3925.   RE: Time Reporting Periods - martink6
      If you look at the Entity Relationship Diagram for Partitions in Technical Reference, ODF_OBJECTS table as well as the the objects in the Admin Tool Studio Time Reporting Periods do not seem to be such that they can be assioated with partitions.

      IMHO So if you had separate instances the scheduling of the XOG job is easy compared to converting the XML from one instance to another.
      Looking at the write example the time sheets have ID's (which cannot exist if new entries are written) and the entries are under them and further under projects, tasks and assignments. These of course must exist in the target system.
      First you do a simple search an replace for the start and finish of the time period.
      Then you take the daily actuals which are at the lowest level of the XML hieracrhical structure and move the ones which are not under correct timeperiod start and finish to the correct one.
      Maybe you can leave assignment ETC and pending estimates as they are since they reflect future after the last timeentry. A challenge, but can be done.

      Creating new reporting to use data from both systems sounds simpler and even more so if you make automated copies of the relevant tables form one instance to the other into copy-tables.

      Daily timeperiods sound like seven times the pain to get the users to fill in and submit their timesheet without errors and in time not to say anything about adjustment timesheets.

      Martti K.

5119.   RE: Changing Project Partition - rmacias
      Hi crfanc,

      Do you know how we can have information (projects, ideas, resources, etc.) divided into partitions? We have 2 divisions that share the some Clarity installation and we want each division to only have access to its information.

      Can you help us?

5137.   RE: Changing Project Partition - martink6
      I've done a little of that after XOG writing without any partition connection.

      When there is no other partition related information linked log in with an userID in the correct partition and adequate rights.
      Modify the list view to include partition and go to edit mode. Then you should have your partion available in the dropdown list.
      Save when you are done.

      Martti K.

5777.   Different attribute defaults for partitiions? - pjohnson
      Hi, we have two partitions set up in our environment (in addition to the System partition). We would like to have an attribute of the Task Object have a different default value for each partition. Does anyone know if this is possible?

      Basically we would like tasks to be open for time entry by default for one partition, and closed for time entry by default in the other partition. Since the Open for Time Entry attribute seems to belong to the System partition, whatever we set for the default gets inherited by both partitions. Any help would be greatly apprciated. Thanks!

6015.   Switching Partitions not working properly for Proj - gsteudle
      I created a second Partition. When I go to the actions drop down in the Projects List View and select my new partition, my configured view stays in the original partition. In addittion, the projects list view does not change to the Projects in the new partition. I had to add the Partition attribute in the Project filter as a work around. What did I do wrong?  

[Anon Anon]

Martti,  Thanks for bringing the old repository  alive.....  i have not used partition intensively just for testing i have done.can you tell me if partition is used intensively in an organisation say for different business units across countries themain thing that  hit my head is reporting.Can i have reports too based on partition.Say 1 job / report is created only for an particular Partition (say particular business unit).is thisachievable.How clarity handles partition in reports?.  Cheers,sundar

[Anon Anon]

Sundar if you are asking if you can deploy only specific reports to a specific partition(s) then no you cannot. To retierate the above, partiions are no security. I have used partitions for many years (my former employers) and I am a big fan of them. They are used to control the data views. for reporting, you still go by assiging the appropriate security access to those reports.When you start thinking of differnet instances, keep in mind the maintenance as well as reporting. Meaning, what if you need a roll up of some sort of all the groups? What if 60% of your attritubtes are shard across all organizational groups? If you change an attribute in one instance, you will need to be sure that it is changed (or even created) in the other. Partitioning is meant for that (SYstem level for those common attributes) and specific partitions for those only needing to see their specific data elements.  Hope that makes some sense...

[Anon Anon]

Hi,     Thanks for clarifying.so we need to restrict Reports / Jobs only via access rights.     Cheers,  Sundar

[Deactivated User]

I agree with the report area. It is not possible and it is not necessary. The number of reprots is typically one tenth or one hundredth of the number of projects, resources or users. Normally you have reporting standards within an organization. In such a case you would use standard reports for all. If the needs are not the same for the data areas to be reported and the design/layout and aggregates the number is relatively small. I argue not to have hundreds of reports - can you then really concentrate on key things. With access rights you already control what data user can see and it should be less work to define which reports they can see and run.    Once you enter into partitions any instance of an object you use with partitions   has to be tied to a partitio. Some of them are associated with defaul partition (Niku). Additionally every view for that object is associated with a partition. To utilize the users must be in the right partition. That is mainly a problem for the users who are associated with more than one partition. In general the administration is more complicated than the actual usage.  I found creating parititioned location - department structure with XOG particularly challenging.  vtleogal : could you please share your experience where is paritioning particularly good and where were your challenges, any areas where they don't fit at all, how much amore dmin work do they give, did you ever have to unpartition, is that feasible and how much work would that be, how much owkr is to move objects from one partition to another, etc.  Martti K.    

[Anon Anon]

I would also like to see the pros and cons of using partitions. Here is what I'm thinking... if you're a company who is deploying Clarity over the entire enterprise, or to a number of different groups over the enterprise, and you have a single PMO , you might not need partitioning at all.  If you have the above conditions but with no PMO, or you have multiple PMOs that have their own unique domain language and practices, partitioning is a good feature to enable. Can it be that simple or are there caveats?

[Anon Anon]

[This is MY opinion, not necessarily that of CA or shared by peers]  I tend to favour partitions as a means to facilitate 'other possibilities' which do arise from time to time. I consider it a form of insurance really.  I also favour them because our (CA) content packs can 'disturb' the root partition and therefore having your own partition model insulates you from this (but not completely, for instance if you wanted at some stage to introduce our PRINCE2 pack, the sub-objects of that pack would 'appear' I think, and would need sub-page conditions to be introduced).  On the downside:Ø             Partitions do complicate migrations somewhat - to mitigate this I suggest you keep any partition model as simple as possible (and as 'flat' as possible too)Ø             Some XOG operations, especially those of tasks/assignments, are complicated by partitioning but this can be overcome  Should you decide for partitions please keep in mind that you do not have to partition everything, typically the Idea and Project, maybe Resource, would be partitioned. Other objects on a case by case basis. A partition model can be introduced later, and as indicated should only apply to objects where it is really needed.  Functional objectives need to be considered IF one of the major aims is to eradicate divisional differences and to standardize, then providing the ability to differ may be at variance to that goal. Of course you might simply introduce a partition model without making the offer to differ, but through the existence of partitioning opening that possibility at some latter point. The inverse may be true: That is, the ability to respond to small differences can be a ‘bonus’ when introducing change into an organization.  Keep in mind that you cannot delete a partition model (but can de-activate them) so planning the model is quite important. The related point here is the naming convention to apply â€" e.g. non-significant codes, with meaningful names, to avoid the desire to alter partitions for each and every re-org. I favour using partitions along “functional linesâ€? and not mimicking organization structure. This aim isn’t always feasible â€" if there are compelling reasons for Division A to be different to Division B then it would make sense to partition along those lines â€" but maybe under a top-level functional identity.  L1: PPM
L2: PPM\div-a | PPM\div-b  This would permit (for example) the adoption of ‘Risks and Control Management’ (RCM) without disturbing PPM at all
L1: PPM | RCM
L2: PPM\div-a | PPM\div-b  If partitioning is adopted guard against individual users being members of multiple partitions - this complicates the creation of partitioned object instances. (Admins may need multiple partition access.)  Studio users should (in my view) have different logins for different partitions - this helps ensure they configure the right things in the right partition (and don't *****-up someone else's work).  If you de-activate a model the views belonging to that model cannot be accessed by the way, but will be available again if that model is re-activated.  I believe these to be the pros/cons.

[Anon Anon]

vtleogal,  So partitioning strategy is about the detail data elements that must be seen by each organization (partitioned by org). One of the reasons that we are needed to use partitioning is having a field required or not. The other organization that we share Clarity with has very few fields that are required. We require quite a few fields, mainly because they are critical for reporting.  One question I still have though is whether a project in one partition can have a team member from another partition in its project. I'm thinking that the answer is yes because partitioning is about the view of the data and not limiting access to it. Is this the case?

[Anon Anon]

In short: Yes  Whoever the teambuilder has security access to can be placed into the team. Partitions are not part of security (at all).  That user will 'see' the project through their partition (i.e. might be slightly different to them, but it's still the same project)If that person is a member of only one partition then they won't even know that others 'see' it differently (and vice-versa).  If a user is member of 2+ partitions they can set their default preference and change to partitions via the account settings page. (it's better if most users are in 1 partition only.)  Cheers,  

[Anon Anon]

Just curious which companies are using partitioning. I get asked this by upper management. Understandable. They don't want to use a feature that is going to increase the amount of risk in management of the portfolio.

[Anon Anon]

Also ask your local CA office for help here? Reason for this suggestion is that not all clients are active here (well I don't think they are).

Also some contributors might not wish to reveal their company names in open as endorsing or denying something - could they use private message to you if this is the case?

[Anon Anon]

Yes. If anyone would like to contact me by phone, I can be reached at [phone]. They can also e-mail me at [e-mail]. I'm curious as to which companies are using partitioning and why.

[Anon Anon]

I am new to partitions,  and I want to have separate views of the same data, including field names, layouts, etc. Our current installation has a partition model with a Level 1 partition. All of our views are configured into that partition.  I want to add a second partition that will inherit all views, field names, etc. from the L1 partition, adding its own views into this L2 partition. I configured L2 so that it's parent is L1, and defined some project views into L2. I then logged in as a user who is in L2, but continued to see the old views.  Does L2 have to be a peer of L2 rather than a descendant? If so, do I need to move all the L1 views into L2?