Anonymous UserManufacturing Manager, Capital COE at a manufacturing company
Anonymous UserTechnology Architect at a computer software company
Anonymous UserPerformance and Automation Testing Squad Lead at a financial services firm
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"It makes work visible, so everybody knows where everything is. It uses Kanban, and that makes work visible."
"We use the board and card hierarchies in terms of sprints so that we can see if we have cross-functional teams that are working on the same projects together, especially when projects have dependencies. The parent-child relationship within cards is really nice so that we can see what kind of dependencies there are when we're trying to get projects finished."
"My team specifically uses our board for all of our Remedy tickets that come in. We had a card for every ticket that we get, and we're able to add the link to that specific ticket there.If I'm out of office, for example, and someone else needs to work a ticket or someone is being contacted to work on a ticket, I don't have to sign on it. Someone else can easily access that ticket because I put the link in there. It's nice. It has a lot of great functionality in there."
"Using the tool seems to save time versus trying to do things in a regular manner. It is highly collaborative; everybody can see things in one place. It is a highly functional, but pretty simple tool. That is hard to find: A tool that has a lot of functions, but is also simple."
"The cataloging is a very valuable feature. For a lot of enterprises, they end up not knowing which applications do specific features. The cataloging helps with this. It's not that verbose, but it still gives you allowances to put in more detail."
"It is relatively easy to use and user-friendly once the setup is complete."
"It helped us contain critical things, like source code and several documents, which is very important to us."
"At the same time, if you're working from the architect or the designing team you, it's quite easy to manage the resources online."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting of the CPU usage on the dashboard."
"You can customize the board according to your needs."
"By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation."
"We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone access to the test cases and artifacts via the cloud. There is no need to contact anyone."
"The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
"The test-case repository and linkage through to regression requirements will absolutely be a key component for us. We haven't got it yet, but when we've got an enterprise regression suite, that will be a key deliverable for them. We will be able to have all of the regression suite in one place, linked to the right requirements."
"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."
"Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape."
"I love to use this solution with single projects. It has helped our productivity. With the metrics that I receive, I can put them onto the management model so I can see them there. It has reduced our time for project management and controls by 20 percent."
"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."
"I do not know what it can do in the area of scrum. Maybe it has that functionality. I have never tried to set it up. You think of LeanKit from the perspective of Kanban. I don't know if there is a template for scrum, a scaled agile framework, or any of those scaling frameworks."
"Being able to track actual time on cards or sprints, instead of using just the planned start and stop date, would also be useful. I would like to see something like JIRA has with actual sprint starts and stops."
"The ability to report on customizable fields and third-party extensions needs improvement. I'd like to see more of those being able to be used. I don't know how that works for Planview, but just getting a little bit more added there would be nice."
"The integration with the Enterprise One product is probably an area for improvement. It's not really broken. It's just that it is such a handy tool and a great way to visually manage things. There is a very limited hookup/integration between Enterprise One, which is the master Planview tool, and LeanKit. While they are looking at this on their roadmap, it definitely needs to happen. There is a lot of opportunity there."
"The features should be more intuitive. If I'm looking for something, its location should be easy to locate."
"There is not enough beginner support material in the form of FAQs or simple training to help you get started."
"Of course it would be related to customer experience. The solution is not user friendly at all. It needs an expert to use it, although the reporting feature was okay."
"The directory designer manager is uncivil. The design manager is clearly really unstable."
"The stability of this solution can be improved."
"The reporting functionality needs to be improved."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"The version of Micro Focus ALM that we use only works through Internet Explorer (IE). We have to communicate to everyone that they can only use IE with the solution. This is a big limitation. We should be free to use any type of browser or operating system. We have customers and partners who are unable to log into the system and enter their defects because they work on a different operating system."
"ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."
"When it came to JIRA and Agile adoption, that was not really easy to do with ALM. I tried, but I was not able to do much on that... There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects."
"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."
"Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way."
"In general, Planview's cost structure is reasonable. You get quite a lot of functionality for the license cost that you get."
"Compared to the market, the price is high."
"Pricing is managed by our headquarters. I am able to get from them for very cheap. The market price is horribly expensive."
"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."
"Depending on the volume, the annual maintenance costs vary on a percentage but it's around $300 a year per license for maintenance. It's at 18% of the total cost of the license."
"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."
"Most vendors offer the same pricing, though some vendors offer a cheaper price for their cloud/SaaS solution versus their on-premise. However, cloud/SaaS solutions result in a loss of freedom. E.g., if you want to make a change, most of the time it needs to be validated by the vendor, then you're being charged an addition fee. Sometimes, even if you are rejected, you are charged because it's a risk to the entire environment."
"I don't know the exact numbers, but I know it is pricey. When we talked to the sales reps we work with from our company, they say, "Well, Micro Focus will never lose on price." So, they are willing to do a lot of negotiating if it is required."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."
Planview LeanKit enables engineering teams across all levels of the organization with a visual work delivery tool to apply Lean management principles to their work, helping them work smarter and deliver faster.
Micro Focus Application Lifecycle Management software (ALM), is a unified platform that helps teams prioritize, align and focus their project activities, provides actionable insight, and fosters the re-use of assets from requirements through development, testing, and readiness for delivery.
Built on best practices, an extensible architecture and centralized repository, Micro Focus ALM is one of the first unified, technology-agnostic application management systems available now; integrating out-of-the-box with over 30 open source and competitive industry products.
Micro Focus’s ALM suite provides flexible solutions and deployment options to meet your needs and scale with you as you grow.
IBM Rational ALM is ranked 8th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 6 reviews while Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is ranked 3rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 24 reviews. IBM Rational ALM is rated 7.2, while Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM Rational ALM writes "Helped with time management, improved our resource utility, and helped assure on-time completion". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center writes "Makes it easy to go back and execute the same test every time with automation". IBM Rational ALM is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, PTC Integrity, TFS and Atlassian ALM, whereas Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is most compared with Micro Focus ALM Octane, Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Tricentis qTest and TFS. See our IBM Rational ALM vs. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.
We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites 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.