| Abstract | Unutar rada je obrađeno 9 odabranih alata za upravljanje projektima: Asana, Jira, MesiterTask, Monday.com, OpenProject, Project Plan 365, ProofHub, Trello i Wrike. U prvom dijelu rada je napravljena teorijska podloga te su razjašnjeni osnovni pojmovi vezani uz sam projekt, projektni menadžment, životni ciklus projekta, informacijski sustav projektnog menadžmenta te su u okviru istog dijela iznesene i osnovne informacije vezane uz softvere i tvrtke koje stoje iza njih, kao i mišljenje stručnjaka u vezi svakog pojedinog alata. U drugom dijelu rada napravljena je analiza svih alata prema 6 kriterija (kolaboracija, upravljanje resursima, projektni menadžment, mogućnost rada na daljinu, pomoć i podrška te cijena) koja je rađena na način da je autor se prijavljivao na svaki softver zasebno te analizirao ga s obzirom na kriterije koji su bitni prilikom odluke želimo li određeni softver kupiti ili ne. Treći dio rada obuhvaća razjašnjenje koncepta SUS ankete te metoda i načina rada koji su korišteni u svrhu njezine obrade. Četvrti dio rada je provedba SUS ankete kod studenata specijalističkog diplomskog stručnog studija Menadžment - Upravljanje projektima, koji su izabrani iz razloga što oni predstavljaju buduće generacije korisnika odabranih alata za upravljanje projektima i predstavljaju vjerodostojnu skupinu ljudi koja može pomoći pri ispitivanju upotrebljivosti odabranih alata. U četvrtom dijelu rada je ista ta anketa obrađena od strane autora rada te se rezultati i konačni sud predstavljeni. Nakon analiziranja i predstavljanja rezultata SUS ankete, autor je ponudio zaključak u kojem se u kratkim crticama može pročitati konačno razmišljanje te osnovne smjernice koje rad prezentira. U završnom dijelu rada, osim sažetka koji je preveden i na engleski jezik, nalazi se popis slika, popis tablica, literatura te priložena SUS anketa koja je korištena u svrhu izrade rada. |
| Abstract (english) | The work deals with 9 selected project management tools: Asana, Jira, MesiterTask, Monday.com, OpenProject, Project Plan 365, ProofHub, Trello and Wrike. In the first part of the paper a theoretical basis was made and basic concepts related to the project itself, project management, life cycle of the project, information system of project management were clarified and basic information related to software and companies behind them was presented within the same part, as well as expert opinion regarding each individual tool. In the second part of the paper, an analysis of all tools according to 6 criteria (collaboration, resource management, project management, possibility to work remotely, assistance and support, and price) was made in such a way that the author applied to each software separately and analyzed it considering the criteria that are relevant when deciding whether or not we want to buy certain software. The third part of the paper includes clarification of the concept of the SUS Survey and the methods and modes used for its processing. The fourth part of the paper is the implementation of the SUS survey for students of graduate professional programme Management - Project management, selected because they represent future generations of users of selected project management tools and represent a credible group of people who can help in testing the usability of selected tools. In the fourth part of the paper the same survey was processed by the authors and the results and final opinion were presented. After analyzing and presenting the results of the SUS survey, the author offered a conclusion in which the final thinking and basic guidelines presented by the paper can be read in short cartoons. In the final part of the paper, besides the summary, which has also been translated into English, there is a list of pictures, a list of tables, literature and an attached SUS survey used for the purpose of writing the paper. |
