Lana RousakovskiSenior Leader in Software Testing and Process Improvement at a tech company
Shanice HopsonSoftware Engineer, Space Systems Department at National Aeronautics and Space Administration
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"In terms of meeting business challenges, it helped to shorten the dev/testing cycle by identifying requirements gaps early in the process, by having models shared within the development team. It helped increase test coverage and reduce the number of issues experienced by clients/customers."
"The ability to create models/diagrams at multiple levels (nest/embed them) helps in taking models from high-level business requirements and building them into detailed requirements models and test models. Plus, it helps reuse lower level models. It also allows maintaining models at appropriate levels, even for very complex systems/solutions."
"Integration with TDM, test data management tool, provides the ability to generate data or use identified (preset or parametrized) test data. It allows significant expansion of test coverage and flexibility, without creating new tests and needing to maintain them."
"Integration with automation is one of the reasons we started to consider moving to this tool from our original tool for implementing test modeling. ARD appears to have better integration with Selenium. It also has the ability to record scripts/flows using Selenium Builder and import them into ARD, which will then create and optimize a model based on that."
"Measuring test coverage helps in one of the most challenging tasks. It has logic that can help to select the right set of scenarios and know what coverage it will provide."
"The most valuable feature for me is the ability to enter data into one table, or context, and link it across modules."
"The solution is stable."
"The program is very stable."
"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."
"It is very customizable and easy to scale."
"The most valuable feature is the management verification and login."
"This product can help improve how your organization proceeds through solution development."
"We have different generations of all products. It lets us select and see unique attributes for each release or generation. You can use attributes to define a selection area to see which equipments are for the old versions and which ones are for the new versions. This inbuilt view is what I like in IBM Rational DOORS. So, for a database and a set of requirements, it will select and show unique attributes for a release or a generation."
"Needs improvement in aligning models so they look clear and readable without having to move boxes around."
"It would help if it would save different subsets of test cases, use cases, etc., of a given diagram, for different purposes and provide an easy way to name those subsets."
"It would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now."
"It's difficult to set the code on the solution."
"The kind of dashboard is not very convenient."
"There are problems with communicating between DOORS and Microsoft Office."
"The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."
"The problem is that because the GUI is so bad, you either have to spend a lot of money customizing the interface yourself, or a lot of money on training."
"IBM should integrate some solutions they already own toenhance the utility of the product further. Specifically import and export to Office products is more difficult than it needs to be."
"Complexity, performance, openness are the three areas that can be improved. The IBM architecture and specifically Jazz looks more complex. There are a lot of servers. It's quite complicated. The search capabilities lack in IBM Rational DOORS Classic for customers who have a database with a requirement of more than 25,000 records. For example, you can search easily for a module, but it's really difficult to look for keywords through the whole database because all the modules are separated into small components, which makes the search quite complex. This is something that's really annoying because when we want to make an impact analysis, we would like to analyze the product globally. It's quite difficult to manage. The fact that you can interact externally with data makes it complex. The approach is complex and doesn't work as expected. For example, when I tried to experiment with exporting some records, the tool crashed, but I couldn't find out the root cause, that is, whether it happened because of Rational Windows or lack of memory. It was just crashing. Logs weren't very clear. IBM can try to use more recent technology for different aspects and make it easy. They can also provide free integration from DOORS Classic to DOORS. Currently, all the customization in Excel is lost, which makes it very complex. It would be a feature to make new versions compatible with features in the past versions."
"Recommendation is to go with concurrent licenses as oppose to seat license; this gives more flexibility."
"Licensing fees are billed annually and there is no support included with what I pay."
"Pricing can vary depending on the size of the organization and how contracts are negotiated."
"IBM is a bit too expensive in terms of pricing. Customers are paying a lot for the license, and the price is quite high for this kind of environment. It is quite high as compared to what we can get today with other solutions."
"It is expensive to onboard additional users."
Earn 20 points
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 7th in Application Requirements Management with 1 review while IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 2nd in Application Requirements Management with 13 reviews. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 9.0, while IBM Rational DOORS is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer writes "Eliminates requirements gaps early in the development process & make test design process more efficient ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Rational DOORS writes "Has given us a means for improving the way we proceed through solution development". Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Cognizant ADPART, Jira, Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus ALM Quality Center and Conformiq, whereas IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Jira, Polarion Requirements, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation, PTC Integrity Requirements Connector and Helix ALM.
See our list of best Application Requirements Management vendors.
We monitor all Application Requirements Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.