Organizations

Modified on Fri, 25 Sep at 1:32 PM

The Organizations feature was introduced to replace Groups as the primary mechanism for resource demand management in Cora PPM. This page explains why it was created and what it replaced.

Why Organizations Were Created

Prior to Organizations, Cora PPM relied on Resource Groups to manage both access permissions and resource demand alignment. While effective for smaller implementations, this approach had significant limitations at scale:

  • Scalability constraints: For customers with thousands of users and complex resourcing structures, Group-based management became restrictive and difficult to govern.

  • Manual overhead: Moving users between Groups was required whenever resourcing alignment changed. This is a time-consuming and error-prone process.

  • Static demand model: Groups did not support dynamic linking between user profiles and project demand, making it difficult to automate approvals or handle cross-team resource requests.

Organizations were designed to address these pain points directly, introducing a hierarchical structure that enables automation, scalability, and advanced resourcing capabilities that Groups simply cannot support.

Organizations vs. Resource Groups

Organizations and Resource Groups are complementary, not mutually exclusive but they serve very different purposes. Choosing the right approach early is critical for scalability and governance.

Capability

Organizations

Resource Groups

Resource demand management

✅ Primary use case

❌ Not supported

Access control / permissions

⚠️ Indirect (via Org)

✅ Primary use case

Supply & Demand Manager roles

✅ Required

⚠️ Works, but limited

Bulk user-to-project assignment

⚠️ Possible but indirect

✅ Straightforward

Large-scale implementations

✅ Recommended

⚠️ Works, but limited

When to Use Organizations

✅ Resource Demand Management

Use Organizations when implementing the Organisational-level resource demand feature. This links users and projects via their assigned Organisation, enabling automated access and streamlined resource allocation.

✅ Large-Scale Implementations

Recommended for customers with thousands of users or complex resourcing needs. Organizations provide a more robust and scalable structure than Groups in these scenarios.

✅ Team-Based Capacity Planning

Teams functionality (e.g., squads) only works when Organizations are enabled. Teams are tied to Organizations for capacity and approval workflows.

✅ Demand-Supply Roles

Supply Managers and Demand Managers operate based on Organizations. This is essential for approval workflows and cross-organization resource requests.

When to Use Resource Groups Instead

✅ Access Control Only

Groups are best for managing project access permissions (e.g., Project Owner, Project Manager, Read-Only) across multiple projects where resourcing logic is not required.

✅ Quick Bulk Assignment

Use Groups to bulk-assign users to projects or programmes for visibility and permissions without impacting resource demand logic.

✅ Legacy or Simple Implementations

If the customer does not require advanced resource demand or organisational-level approvals, Groups may suffice.

When NOT to Use Organizations

⚠️ Caution: Organizations add configuration complexity. Avoid enabling them unless the customer has a clear need for one or more of the use cases above.

❌ Small Implementations

For customers with a small user base and simple resourcing needs, Organizations may add unnecessary complexity with little return.

❌ No Resource Demand Requirement

If the customer will not use the Resource Demand module or advanced capacity planning, Organizations are not needed.

❌ Static Access Model

If access control is the only requirement, with no dynamic resourcing, Groups alone are sufficient and simpler to maintain.

Was this article helpful?

That’s Great!

Thank you for your feedback

Sorry! We couldn't be helpful

Thank you for your feedback

Let us know how can we improve this article!

Select at least one of the reasons
CAPTCHA verification is required.

Feedback sent

We appreciate your effort and will try to fix the article