Anonymous UserPresident at a outsourcing company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The solution is stable."
"The program is very stable."
"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."
"I like the user interface with regard to creating links between requirements and tracing links to requirements."
"IBM Rational DOORS keeps everything organized."
"The most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"It's web-based, so you don't have anything to install."
"It's a cloud based solution."
"The most valuable features are the baselines and links."
"It's difficult to set the code on the solution."
"The kind of dashboard is not very convenient."
"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."
"The user interface for the Change Proposal System could be improved."
"The interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."
"When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive."
"When you are in Jira or Confluence, you have some freedom in how you type in text. That's also a weakness of Confluence, however, as it opens the doors to sloppy work. In DOS Next Generation, the text is very rigorous, but it might be difficult for people who don't have the discipline. Having a way to quickly enter requirements could help. It might already be in there, but I don't know. I don't have enough experience with the tool yet."
"The whole layout of the screen could be improved, the layout is just so rigid."
"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."
"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."
"I don't personally know what the numbers are. I just know that one of the reasons we've limited it to three seats is a function of cost."
"The cost of maintenance is €20,000 to €30,000 ($22,000 to $33,000 USD) and there are no additional fees."
"Users can buy a three-year license for about 12,000 Euros."
"The price of this solution is very high, and it increases year after year."
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 2nd in Application Requirements Management with 14 reviews while IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is ranked 5th in Application Requirements Management with 4 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS is rated 7.8, while IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of IBM Rational DOORS writes "Has given us a means for improving the way we proceed through solution development". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation writes "Simplified our requirement process, helping with requirement creation and reuse". IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Jira, Polarion Requirements, PTC Integrity Requirements Connector, Jama Connect and 3SL Cradle, whereas IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jira, Jama Connect, Helix ALM and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector. See our IBM Rational DOORS vs. IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation report.
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.