I worked on-site with Atlassian Jira, and Jira add-on requirements. In my opinion, it is nearly the same solution, but I have no experience with it. I only know that it is also used for account management, but I have no prior experience.

We have PTC Windchill. But we need an extra license. Moreover, I want to know the difference between them because some people have knowledge of DOORS, and some people have knowledge of Windchill. And we need to decide which one we buy more licenses for and go with.

We are satisfied with IBM Rational DOORS, but since we have another choice, which is Windchill, we are not sure if we should go with DOORS now or we go with Windchill.

We used a benchmark study in which 10 other tools were rated, including Reqtify (which is not a real REQM tool), Requisite Pro, Caliber, and Cradle.

I was not offered any other option. The company has used this tool for years for requirement gathering and maintenance.

We have evaluated many tools over the years, including MKS, Siemens Teamcenter Requirements solution, and none of have met the ease at which a user can create and customize their own views and traceability reports, without an administrator performing customization.

I would like to use this space to give an opinion on migrating from DOORS to DNG. I have been the sole person in charge of and doing the migration and I have provided input on other migrations.

I understand the desire for, and have in the past strongly advocated, the use of an integrated tool chain. IBM Jazz products like RQM, RTC, DNG, etc. provide, in theory, the holy grail: planning, defect/change management, requirements, and tests, all linking together. However...

Focusing just on DNG, it is in my experience a terrible product. Some features work really well. But others baffle me in their ineptitude, and these are legion. Almost everyday I run into an issue that makes me curse it under my breath.

People who have used DOORS to it's fullest extent, with a high-level of DXL customization, will hate DNG. One of the hardest parts of migration is convincing users DNG is better. I have given up on that because I am now of the opinion that DOORS is better than DNG.

Why? DOORS, at its heart, is not a requirements management tool. It is a highly extensible object linking system. That extensible-ness is absolutely key to making the product work for you.

I have come to the conclusion that if you are considering migrating from DOORS to DNG... DON'T! Instead of spending 100's to 1000's of hours doing migrations, invest those hours in a DXL programmer to make DOORS do what it isn't doing for you now.

IBM Rational will work with you if you decide to use DOORS. The support provided by the vendor is excellent.

Our evaluations are ongoing. As an independent requirement engineer and system engineer, I'm running my own engineering office. From time-to-time, I have a client that asks me for information about other tools. But most of them still use DOORS or some other classic tool which has grown up through the .Net generation. So we do the research, but the research is more often to propose something to our customers if they are interested in doing something different and more modern.  

We do not have any shortlist of other possible solutions at this stage because it may require changing operating systems. It's quite different if you compare both DOS and the next generation. I am still trying to figure out what is the best way to move forward. At the moment, I'm not really satisfied with the technology that is working with DOS next generation.  

I get the idea behind the viewpoint from IBM, especially if you understand the focus on the newer, improved platform. It makes sense. But for established companies that have hundreds or thousands of documents in a classic DOS database, it is not as simple as the IBM company thought to populate the next generation. Especially in a technical company, we need one more serious tool and with some evolved features. When that happens, it will be okay. But a total switch from what they were doing is not what most companies are looking for. In my impression, it is not important to have a lot of tools for the same discipline. I think it would be more worthwhile to get one nice mature tool which suits all the interests and at the end of the day. So far it does not exist.  

But by the same token, what we have to take in account is it doesn't matter if a product is made by a company called IBM or whichever company it is, we have to take care about the philosophy as it is only by having better tools that we have better success in a project. I'm not an engineer who is against all new technologies, but at the moment my impression about the American leadership and about the software technology — the current direction is frightening.  

I think it is now time to think more about what direction the American software companies are taking us in. It may not be the right way or the best way to see the future of the computing world. I have heard managing directors say, "We have to find other solutions at the moment. This software we get is from America and we are not willing to accept this leadership and direction at the moment.  

Over the years supporting requirements management, I have participated in many trade studies where tools were evaluated. DOORS won most every time. Tools under consideration were Slate, Requisite Pro, RDD100, RTM, Razor, and TcSE.

Over time, I have tried every other ARM tool out there for various customers and kept going back to Rational DOORS.

No other solutions were looked at due to contractual requirements.

Over many years I have evaluated and used many other COTs and bespoke requirements management tools. I have found IBM Rational DOORS to be the most flexible and powerful solution available for serious requirements management.

I am validating this solution. I still have a lot of solutions that look promising, such as Jama and Polarion. 

I'm more concerned about the effort to extract the system and to train people. In the world of requirement management, usability is really important from a UAT factor. Some other solutions have a better user interface, and they are easier to understand than IBM Rational DOORS in general. Even though I have experience in IBM Rational DOORS and I'm quite familiar with DOORS concepts, I find other solutions, such as Jama or Polarion, easier to use.

There are a few other requirements management tools, but none are at this level of solving complex situations.

There is another solution called Rational DOORS Next Generation that has a nicer interface and it is easier to use, but it is less scalable.