RTCz / RTC EE evolutions version-by-version

October 3, 2013

Following the citation “One does not really know a science until one knows its history“, I’ve decided to provide such information for my area of interest: RTC Enterprise Extensions.

The story started in 2009 and I felt like providing such a recap could help both customers (and potentially business partners/colleagues from the field) when questioning a particular features “introduced at some point of time…. but when actually ?

It shall be noted that the following information borrows a lot to a previous blog post from Robin Yehle Bobbitt. Robin covered versions to 3.0.1. I’m extending to versions starting from 4.0 up to 4.0.4 versions.


The following picture is somewhat interactive: you could click any circle in it, consult a specific version and then click back on your browser, etc. Hope you enjoy it !

RTC z evolution line


Follow this link to discover the new feature in the version 3.0 Follow this link to discover the new feature in the version 3.0.1 Follow this link to discover the new feature in the version 3.0.1 Follow this link to discover the new feature in the version 4.0 Follow this link to discover the new feature in the version 4.0.1 Follow this link to discover the new feature in the version 4.0.3 Follow this link to discover the new feature in the version 4.0.4

Version (Q4 2009)

  • z/OS file agent : made it possible to extract files from the SCM to PDS/Es.
  • The mass import tool allowed you to import existing source from data sets into the SCM.
  • Rational Build Agent allowed you to create build definitions that call out to existing host build facilities, or submit JCL.
  • New build type, Antz build, provided full capabilities to build any z/OS related artifacts (via Apache Ant extensions for the z/OS environment).
  • Support for RDz remote projects.
  • Collaborative debugging with RDz and the IBM Debug Tool.
  • Jazz Gateway for System z (now called REST Gateway) to simplify integration with existing host based SCMs.  Allows simple REXX programs or any other exit to programmatically extract information, such as work item status, from the Jazz repository.

(more details) / Back to the “evolution path”

Version 3.0 (Q4 2010)

  • RTCz : not a a separate product anymore. Instead, a “Developer for IBM Enterprise Platforms” license was required for full access to the z and Power capabilities.
  • New “Team Area > Enterprise Extensions” node.
  • ISPF client for “green screen” access to common SCM and build functions.
  • Dependency build capability (for only building programs as necessary, i.e. based on change).
  • Component promotion to move source and build outputs together through the development hierarchy (e.g. Dev->Test->QA->Prod).
  • Shiplist-based packaging and deployment to gather your build outputs and deploy them to another runtime location.

(more details) / Back to the “evolution path”

Version 3.0.1 (Q2 2011)

  • Work-item based promotion, packaging and deployment.
  • Preview capabilities for dependency build and promotion.
  • HFS file system support in the ISPF client.

(more details) / Back to the “evolution path”

Version 4.0 (Q2 2012)

  • Sparse loading in ISPF client.
  • Enhanced view, compare and conflict resolution in ISPF client.
  • IBM i: dependency builds and work-item / component-based promotion and packaging.
  • Dependency build report.
  • More features around packages.
  • Personal deployment.

(more details 1) / Back to the “evolution path”

(more details 2) / Back to the “evolution path”

Version 4.0.1 (Q4 2012)

  • Build management in ISPF client.
  • Builds and source control: patterns to control the naming of translator outputs.

(more details) / Back to the “evolution path”

(more details 2) / Back to the “evolution path”

Version 4.0.3 (Q2 2013)

  • Work-item dissociation in the ISPF client.
  • View/compare file content in the ISPF client.
  • Build subsets configuration and settings.
  • Dependency build automatically rebuilds main programs (when one or more statically linked subprograms are updated).
  • Dependency build tuning and improved performance.

(more details) / Back to the “evolution path”

Version 4.0.4

  • ISPF client: pending changes view.
  • Dependency build and promotion: usability and simulation.

(more details) / Back to the “evolution path”


  • Good summary of enterprise features can be found here on jazz.net.
  • Citation reference “One does not really know a science ….” (and background information) can be found here

Credit / Acknowledgment

Thanks for Robin Y. Bobbitt for letting me reuse some information contained in her previous blog post.

CLM,RTC,RQM,RRC/RDNG: recommendations and “educated guesses” for limitations

September 5, 2013

As part of the Jumpstart team, I help our customers in their CLM adoption and deployments. Customers raise questions on the sizing of their CLM environment, the topologies to adopt, etc. The questions I hear most often are:

  • How many users (total or concurrent) can my CLM environment support ?
  • RTC rollout at our company is close to reach a second milestone (additional teams will use the tool). What planning (HW/SW) should we have wrt. these modifications?
  • We have this huge number of CLM (RTC/RQM/RRC-RDNG) artefacts. Will my CLM environment still handle this without any performance degradation as we continue adding artefacts into our repository ?
  • What are the intrinsic CLM product limitations and – if one is concerning me – what approach should I adopt to keep on working smoothly with my CLM ?
  • etc.

First of all, depending on the CLM version you’re running, central places to check are the CLM 2011 Sizing Guide and the CLM 2012 Sizing Guide which include an “Artifact Sizing Guidelines” section summarizing “the recommendations on artifact sizing that will ensure optimal performance of the repository when the data sizes increase significantly“.

Foreword to the reader:

  • This post follows the “cheat sheet/how to” format I’ve used in earlier posts for CLM Reporting or OSLC-related topics. As a consequence, if you’re already familiar with this post (and know exactly what you’re looking for), you may want to navigate directly to the tables: JTS tableRTC tableRQM tableRRC/RDNG table.
  • If you’re interested by a similar content for Enterprise Modernization products (i.e. RTC EE, RDz, RD&T, RAA, etc.)  by IBM Rational, check this dedicated blog post.

Now back to the core of this post:


Tables are provided. OK. But what do we call a Limit and an Alert zone ?

  • Quantified data: the (maximum) number of….
  • Limit: a hard limit of the product. Meaning that you cannot go beyond this value.
  • Alert zone: based on experiences with customers, internal tests and development teams, it’s around these values that we start seeing performance issues. If you’re approaching these values, we’d suggest you monitor your system closely to detect any performance degradation before it becomes critical. WARNING: while provided figures are educated guesses and practical rules of thumbs, you could still find that your environment functions perfectly beyond these limits  (e.g. if your environment is particularly fine-tuned). In a similar way,  some intense CLM usage could show that these recommended values are too optimistic…

As a consequence, it’s important to understand this post is NOT an attempt for replacing existing resources (see the References section) that provide extensive views on CLM performance and tuning topics. We encourage administrators and project managers to read them as they both include finer-grain information and insist on the key aspect of not loosing the “bigger picture”.

What’s the use of the following tables then ?

Answer: they’re here to HELP YOU quickly figure out if you’ve reached some known CLM limitation or if you’re getting close to a threshold  (again: on the basis of a typical/average environment) requiring due monitoring of your environment.  To this regard, these tables are COMPLEMENTARY with existing resources and concentrate information ALREADY available but yet disseminated on multiple medias/sites/forum posts/etc.

What if… you can’t find what you’re looking for in the following tables ?

Answer: in such case, there MAY not be soft/hard limit on it. You should check the References section at the bottom of this post and check for the latest information (esp. from the CLM sizing guides).


Quantified data Limit Alert zone Reference(s)
Concurrent user sessions  – 400-2000+ Purple Book
Jazz user id length  – 250 bytes Jazz.net forum


Quantified data Limit Alert zone Reference(s)
Concurrent user sessions  –  300-500+ (per CCM instance) Purple Book
   Example: “CLM Sizing Strategy” (v4.0.6 – April 2014)  –   – 100-600 concurrent users. See report/environment details.
   Example: “Performance Report” (v5.0 – June 2014) 1200 concurrent users. See report/environment details.
Planning – Work-items
   WIs in a plan (<= v2.0) 2048 Jazz.net article
   WIs in a plan (>=v2.0.0.1)  –  250-500+ (impacts plan display time + questions ability from user to grasp several 100s of WIs in one plan) Jazz.net forumJazz.net forumPurple Book, RTC 4.0.3 Plan performance improvement
   WIs in a project area/repository  – Jazz.net forum, Jazz.net article
   WI attachment size  50 MB  If increasing this value or systematically using large attachments: be aware of the possible impact on DB growth and CLM performance in general. See how to change this value in TechNote, Jazz.net forum
   WI “Estimate” attribute  1 year  – Jazz.net forum. A  presentation-enforced limit.
   WI custom attribute length > Small String (*) 250 bytes Jazz.net article (RTC v4.0)
   WI custom attribute length > Medium String (*) 1000 bytes Jazz.net article (RTC v4.0)
   WI custom attribute length > Large String (*) 32768 bytes Jazz.net article (RTC v4.0), Enhancement 160469
   WI custom attribute length > Medium HTML (*) 1000 bytes Jazz.net article (RTC v4.0)
   WI custom attribute length > Large HTML (*) 32768 bytes Jazz.net article (RTC v4.0)
   Query results
 1000 results Jazz.net forum. Note: this default value could be increased but be aware of the possible negative impact on usability / server performance.
Planning – Timelines
   Timelines  2048  (see recommended approach in the forum post’s answer) Jazz.net forum
   Files/folders in a single component (CLM 2011)  50K (split into multiple components if required) Jazz.net forumJazz.net article
   Files/folders in a single component (CLM 2012, RTC 5.0)  100K (split into multiple components if required) Jazz.net forumJazz.net article, Jazz.net forum,
   Suspended change-sets by individual user  300 (for not slowing down operations) Jazz.net article
   Components in workspaces and streams  500 (as tested by IBM) Jazz.net article , Task 176441 (in progress)
  Build definitions associated to a build engine ( < v4.0.3) 2048 TechNote
   oslc_cm.pageSize parameter (when querying work-items) 100 Jazz.net RFEJazz.net forum

(*): text-based


Quantified data Limit Recommendation Reference(s)
Concurrent user sessions  –  100-150+ (per QM instance) Purple Book
   Example: “CLM Sizing Strategy” (v4.0.6 – April 2014)  – 350-500 concurrent users. See report/environment details.
   Example: “Performance Report” (v5.0 – June 2014) 1000 concurrent users. See report/environment details.
TER (Test Execution Record) name length  250  – Jazz.net forum
TCERs bulk generated from test plan wizard  500 Work-around article, RQM defect, WAS maxParamPerRequest
TCERs bulk changed/removed at once tbd  tbd Jazz.net forum, Jazz.net forum, WAS maxParamPerRequest
Records in a datapool / test data 2000  – Jazz.net enhancement
Character limit: Description field of a Lab Resource 250 Jazz.net enhancement
Number of categories defined on an artifact type 50 RQM defect, RQM defect
Feed entries per page ( < 4.0.4)  512  – Jazz.net forum, RQM defect
“Large Record Count” (SQL query result set generated by OOTB BIRT reports) ( >= 4.0.5)  –  10K TechNote, Jazz.net defect
Attachment size using UI Jazz.net enhancement
Attachment size using CLI ( Command-Line Interface) ( >= 4.0)  50 Mo Jazz.net article (for how to change this default value, see the Comments section). Note: if increased, be aware of the possible negative impact on usability / server performance.
TCERs runnable off-line and at once (>=4.0) 50 4.0 InfoCenter


Quantified data Limit Recommendation Reference(s)
Concurrent user sessions (< v4.0.1)  200+ Purple Book
 (>= v4.0.1)  400+ Purple Book
   Example: “CLM Sizing Strategy” (v4.0.6 – April 2014) 300-400 concurrent users. See report/environment details.
   Example:  “Performance Report” (v5.0 – June 2014) 400 concurrent users. See report/environment details.
Coexistence with DM (Design Manager) on the same box (in v.4.x and v5.0.x)  Incompatible  – Jazz.net forum (related to the converter component)
Instances of RM application per JTS (<= v4.0.6) 1 4.0.3 InfoCenter, Jazz.net article, Plan Item
RM Projects per RM application / JTS  200+ Jazz.net article
Number of undos in edit mode  20 TechNote
Number of displayable links (>= v4.0.1)
  • 60 (IE7)
  • 100 (other browsers)
Jazz.net forum
Number of artifacts selectable in the Artifact view 50 Enhancement 71080, Jazz.net forum
Using ReqIF
   Imports to DNG from DOORS (>= v4.0.1)
  • 5000 modules
  • 200K objects (total)
Jazz.net article, Jazz.net forum
   max depth supported for import 3 Jazz.net forum


  1. CLM 2012 Sizing Report

  2. CLM 2011 Sizing Guide
  3. Rational Team Concert (RTC) 2.0 sizing guide
  4. Rational Team Concert 4.x sizing report for z/OS

  5. The Deployment wiki
  6. Jazz Performance: A Guide to Better Performance” by D. Toczala (Feb 2013). A.k.a the “Purple Book
  7. Sizing and tuning guide for RDNG (Rational DOORS Next Generation) 5.0

Acknowledment/Credit: thanks to the authors of the cited documents above and more generally to the Jazz community who collaboratively provides accurate information through library articles, forums questions & answer, etc..

Jazz/CLM ETLs performances: a view on release-to-release comparisons

August 1, 2013

Recently, I’ve had a deeper look at ETLs performances. This topic is sensible to our customer as full ETL load could last up to several days !

Based on work-items tracking activity and interactions with our development, support team and performance teams, I came up with a personal summary. I found it interesting to be shared with Jazz/CLM Administrators to get up to speed on performance of such ETLs.

Firstly, let’s start with the existing and customer-oriented information:

ETLs performance comparison between CLM versions and 4.0.

Available in article “Rational solution for CLM 4.0 “Extract, Transform, and Load” Performance Report“.

It’s considering the “D1” topology (note: the article is little bit misleading as the provided URL link points directly… to the “E1” / Enterprise topology. I have notified the authors already).

A simplified summary (which should not prevent you from reading the full outcome of the ETL comparison) follows:

  • RTC ETLs: stable performance
  • RQM ETLs: 20% performance degradation (expected by dev team)
  • RM DM ETLs: significant improvement
  • Star ETL: no major issue

Secondly, let’s continue with the information provided for advanced readers

ETLs performance comparison between CLM versions 4.0.2 and 4.0.3

Available in [Plan Item 248546] “Ensure no ETL performance regressions are found when comparing CLM 2012 Mod 3 ETLs to 4.0.2“.

It’s again considering the “D1” topology.

Status (as for Aug. 1st, 2013) is “Done”. Navigating to the latest comments of the Discussion tab will show you available Excel spreadsheets (Java ETLs for RRDI, DM ETLs for Insight)  .

Finally, mentioning the plans for improving subsequent ETLs performance comparisons:

ETLs performance comparisons for forthcoming 4.x versions

Performance team have plans (be aware that plans are subject to change) to:

  • publish some automated ETL tests for later minor version of CLM 4.x
  • improve the analysis of performance data from the ETLs.

The related WIs are listed below:

Also citing some material of interest (but to a lesser extent from a customer perspective as these resources are part of the Jazz development wiki) as well:

Note: be aware the previous resources are subject to the following statement: “Any performance data contained herein was determined in a controlled environment. Therefore, the results obtained in other operating environments may vary significantly“.

Finally, mentioning some related information (captured in the Deployment wiki)

…. and recalling a basic statement

If you’re concerned that the ETLs performances may have degraded after a particular CLM upgrade, you would need to keep in mind the amount of RTC WIs, RQM test cases, RRC artefacts, etc. has certainly increased since you last run a full ETLs load. This remark for avoiding comparing apples and oranges…

A RQM usage anti-pattern: multiplying test scripts associated to a test case

May 22, 2013

During discussions with customers who start using Rational Quality Manager,  I sometimes get the following questions:

I’ve associated MULTIPLE test scripts to my test cases. Now when I execute them, the LAST execution status returned when selecting a specific test script OVERRIDES previous execution status (with a different test script associated).

Seems like RQM is “loosing” previous execution status each time !  This is a bug, right ?

Actually no, this behavior is NOT weird. You need to get the logic of the RQM tool wrt the semantic of the relationship between test cases and test scripts.


Let’s recap it here :

  • A Test Case answers the question : “what am I going to test ?” It defines the things you need to validate to ensure the system is working correctly and is written to be environment-agnostic.
  • As sketched in the model above, you could have AS MANY test scripts associated to a test case than desired…

BUT there are some best practices associated to this model. You can have multiple test scripts associated to a test case provided each test script tests the SAME functionality. This would typically be the case for:

  • Running a test case in different test environments (thus implying non identical steps).
  • When you have a manual test script and a robotic test script (e.g. RPT, RFT, Selenium, etc.)

Once this basis is stated, customer figure out they have followed a RQM anti-pattern which needs to be fixed.

While the solution to adopt is very dependent on the customer context, a possible remediation includes a refactoring work through the splitting of the test case content into several test cases, the merging of the multiple test scripts into a single test script (provided this doesn’t create an ugly monolithic test piece), etc.

Question: for running a test case in different test environments (not an anti-pattern), where shall the choice of the test script be done ?



  • As an example, above snapshot presents the TCER section of the test case TC01.
  • It includes 2 TCERs (which were generated for 2 different test environments: TC01_Chrome… and TC01_Firefox…). Test script Script for Chrome addresses TC01_Chrome… environment and Test script Script for Firefox addresses TC01_Firefox… environment.

CLM Reporting: a landing page for RRDI or Insight

May 6, 2013

As part of Jumpstart team, I found myself answering customer questions about the reporting capabilities in CLM. As a result of this, last year, I’ve consolidated and shared information/guidance on the subject through a MindMap (see blog post: “Get things clear about the CLM 2012 reporting capabilities“). Some of our customers provided me with great feedback (which is still welcome BTW !).

As an assiduous reader of Jazz.net forum, I see that questions like the following are common:

I want to create a RTC/RRC/RTC/CLM report with this information plus this other information….  how should I proceed ?“.

Say 90% of the time, a pragmatical 1st answer advise users to check the existing/OOTB reports available in CLM. Then, say in half of the cases, directions for creating custom reports are provided. Just like if it was a pattern…


It’s important to note that pretty much ALL the information exists ALREADY (in the CLM InfoCenter, the Jazz.net/DevWorks articles and wikis, etc.). The kind of gap this blog post aims at filling is a landing page providing a useful answer to the pattern described above. It shall present key information for both:

with the following characteristics:

  • Content shall indifferently cover release versions: CLM 2012, CLM 2011.
  • Format may be not a (Mind)Map. As some users revealed to me they could be reluctant to this format. Not to change my mind on this… Just adopting people’s preferred communication channels. I’ve chosen a table format this time.

Let’s go for now…

1) List the Out-of-the-box reports

All reports [Wiki] OOTB Reports (also incl. BIRT/RRDG-based reports)
Reports by domain
(in progress) CLM InfoCenter CLM 2012/4.0 InfoCenter CLM 2011/3.0.1 InfoCenter
RRC/RM (*) RRC/RM (*) RRC/RM (*)

(*): see “Table 2” in the referenced page.

2) Author your own reports

Data models [Wiki] CLM Framework Manager Data Model Details
(in progress) CLM InfoCenter CLM 2012/4.0 InfoCenter CLM 2011/3.0.1 InfoCenter
RTC dictionary RTC dictionary RTC dictionary
RQM dictionary RQM dictionary RQM dictionary
RRC dictionary RRC dictionary RRC dictionary
Data warehouse metrics
(in progress) CLM InfoCenter CLM 2012/4.0 InfoCenter
Data warehouse metrics populated by CLM application data Data warehouse metrics populated by CLM application data
 “How To”s
[CLM 4.0 InfoCenter]
Tutorial: “Creating reports with Query Studio
Deploying new report resources
Custom reporting using work item relationship links” by M. Prout (April 2013)
[Jazz.net forum / Article]
“Display reports from Report Studio in the RTC dashboard
How to make RRDI Reports work like RTC widgets?
How can I get a custom BIRT report to show on a dashboard?
Way to export reports in report studio so they can be uploaded to another server?
How to install missing (i.e. not deployed by default) reports in RTC
Dozens of useful videos in “RRDI Playlist” by Rational User Education. Covers installation aspects, new features, introductions, building reports, etc.

What if some complementary information is required ?

  • For “hands-on”-oriented guidance, I’d advise to read and complete the Reporting Workshop.
  • For a selection of key resources on a broader scope  (e.g. reporting for CLM in general including document generation (RRDG, RPE), installation procedures, troubleshooting tips, etc.), have a read at this blog post (and MindMap) “Get things clear about the CLM 2012 reporting capabilities” (note: it’s updated on a regularly basis – last update as for today: May 1st, 2013).
Last updated: July 18th, 2013 (added links to Jazz.net “in progress” InfoCenter)

Failover recovery and high-availability strategies in the Rational Solution for Collaborative Lifecyle Management (CLM)

June 27, 2012

Recently customers asked me about best practices for disaster/failover recovery and high-availability (HA) implementation for their CLM deployments.
This topic resonates particularly as the Rational Solution for Collaborative Lifecyle Management 2012 provides a new clustering feature. As you feel certainly curious and interested about it, I suggest you have a read at the end of this post for references.

In enterprise organizations, Business Impact Analysis is usually performed, critical functions/activities are identified and requirements in terms of :

are set as well.

But how to make sure your CLM deployment will comply with these “control points” ?
What are the solutions in terms of deployment architecture that could be used ?

To help you along that path, I’ve gathered some considerations and technical aspects you should be aware of :

A backup strategy first !
The need for putting a backup strategy in place shall always be kept in mind.
It’s basically the starting point of any disaster/failover recovery strategy.
As a result, check for the best online backup capability of your enterprise database vendor to produce frequent backups.
Drop the idea of using repotool -import/export commands for backup purpose :

  • they’re not ideal as server must be taken offline (which is not very handy for regularly scheduled backups) and Generally the off-line backup and restore facilities provided by an enterprise database
  • they were not designed for this purpose but instead for database vendor migration scenarios (and more rarely for upgrade scenarios e.g. when upgrading from CLM 2.x to CLM 2011).

The safe path here is to parse CLM 2012 InfoCenter and check for backup techniques : Backing up and restoring other supported databases

I also advise this article from Ralph Schoon: Backup the Rational solution for CLM. It provides valuable insights on what exactly to backup up and which ordering sequence should be respected.

You said high-availability ? Here’s a simple requirement
WebSphere Application Server must be used for any HA configurations, both for manual or automatic failover.

A CLM history : from manual failover to CLM 2012 Clustering…

Act I : in the v2.x times…

A manual failover strategy was available for RTC exclusively. The approach is depicted in Deploying RTC 2.0 on WAS for HA using idle standby :

  • backup server is running but isn’t connected to the database.
  • a couple other tweaks are required to ensure a safe failover.

Act II : in CLM 2011

Manual failover strategy is generalized to all CLM applications. Scott Rich’s article High availability and disaster recovery for Rational’s CALM products details both the cold and idle/hot standby solutions. Unless you really have aggressive RTO, the cold standby :

  • where the backup server is started but
  • where the Jazz applications (JTS/CCM/RM/QM) are stopped

appears as a simpler/safer solution than the hot/idle standby. Because :

  • the backup server needs fewer configuration tweaks and
  • the chances of a request accidentally activating the backup server is reduced

Note that the backup server installation is not intended to be run for extended periods in place of the primary server (which should be put back on-line asap).

For InfoCenter references, check :

Check also this guide for additional failure scenarios (and guidance) associated to virtualization, disk storage and network:

Act III : the clustering feature in CLM 2012

This new feature guarantees a server operating with no manual intervention in case of hardware/software failure on any of the server nodes. In other words, as long as one node is alive, the application is responding.

High Availability with Rational solution for Collaborative Lifecycle Management 2012 Clustering gives an overall picture of the technical implications of adopting the clustering solution.

It shall be noted that this new feature :

  • requires additional key from Rational Support.
  • provides horizontal scalability but primary focus is on high-availability only. In other words, performance scalability is out of its scope. From a practical point of view,  expect a 3 nodes configuration to get similar performances than with a non HA-enabled solution.

(CLM 2012 System Requirements for clustering) Related Information:

Get things clear about the CLM 2012 reporting capabilities

September 21, 2011

(Last update – for CLM 2012 – on May 1st 2013)

Customers regularly asks me the following questions regarding the reporting capabilities in CLM 2012/2011:

  • “Shall we use Insight which has more capabilities than RRDI ?”
  • “Better if we use RRDG or… RPE ?”
  • “RRDG stands for…  what exactly ?”

After discussing a few minutes the details, we generally… touch base and go back to more common questions :

  • “What kind of reports your company would like to generate ?”
  • “What’s the difference between all these products ?”
  • “Do you know what’s is Development Intelligence ?”
  • “Do you want me to explain you the basics around the reporting architecture in CLM 2012/2011?”
  • etc…

As a result of this, I’ve summarized the reporting capabilities in CLM 2012/2011 (with convenient links on sample templates, etc.). You just need to CLICK here (or on the following map image) (note: be patient, it could take up to 10s to load this page… all depending on your network)clm2012reporting

After consulting it, I hope you could:

  • Have a clear idea of where each product stands in the reporting area.
  • Share with colleagues about reporting with more confidence.
  • Speak about the “double bubble chart”.
  • Find quickly the piece of information you were looking for

If helpful, feel free to Report that to me  !

%d bloggers like this: