We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

IBM Rational DOORS OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

IBM Rational DOORS is #2 ranked solution in top Application Requirements Management tools. IT Central Station users give IBM Rational DOORS an average rating of 8 out of 10. IBM Rational DOORS is most commonly compared to Jira:IBM Rational DOORS vs Jira. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 23% of all views.
What is IBM Rational DOORS?
IBM Rational DOORS is a requirements management application for optimizing requirements communication, collaboration and verification throughout your organization and supply chain. This scalable solution can help you meet business goals by managing project scope and cost. Rational DOORS lets you capture, trace, analyze and manage changes to information while maintaining compliance to regulations and standards. Rational DOORS provides requirements management in a centralized location for better team collaboration, and traceability by linking requirements to design items, test plans, test cases and other requirements. It also provides scalability to address your changing requirements management needs, test tracking toolkit for manual test environments to link requirements to test cases, and integrations to help manage changes to requirements with either a simple pre-defined change proposal system or a more thorough, customizable change control workflow with Rational change management solutions.
IBM Rational DOORS Buyer's Guide

Download the IBM Rational DOORS Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: November 2021

IBM Rational DOORS Customers
Infosys, Chevrolet Volt
IBM Rational DOORS Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about IBM Rational DOORS pricing:
  • "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."
  • "Licensing fees are billed annually and there is no support included with what I pay."
  • "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."

IBM Rational DOORS Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Juergen Albrecht
System Engineer / Requirements Engineer / Managing Director at CCC Systems Engineering Suisse GmbH
Real User
Top 5
Has given us a means for improving the way we proceed through solution development

Pros and Cons

  • "This product can help improve how your organization proceeds through solution development."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use for DOORS is that we implement this product for our customers and build-out customized components.  

How has it helped my organization?

This product improved our organization because it has given us a means for improving the way we proceed through solution development.  

What is most valuable?

One of the most valuable features of the program is the usability. It is really simple to use and its logic, look and feel are familiar to most customers. Let's say it is more of an old-fashioned interface design. If you look at the software, you will notice that the layout is similar to the old Microsoft Windows Explorer. This is helpful to customers who have long-term experience because the look and feel is something they remember from the structure of Explorer and they find it familiar when they go to use DOORS.  

There are several other features in the product that are valuable to users and to us. These features would have to do with the traceability and the possibilities for customization of the RP (Relying Party). This is important because several of our clients run an awful lot of customizations.  

In the past, we communicated customization needs to Telelogic and IBM through huge customer meetings like conventions, but nothing happened. That was when we added our engineering offices and started our business using customization tools. The clients who can't find what they need come to me now and ask if we could please develop tools like so-and-so (whatever company and functionality). We make it for them and we make it better with customizations — specific to their purposes. As a tiny, small engineering office we often get called for special solutions, for special company needs, which formerly Telelogic and now IBM was not willing to do for the customer. This is a big reason why DOORS is valuable for us and has helped us make our business.  

What needs improvement?

What could make sense for this product is to improve is to develop a more efficient way to import and export documents from Office 365 like Excel, or Word and the other applications in this suite. Maybe, if possible, add a PDF document export or something like that. There are quite a few single steps that you have to take separately at the moment to make this happen. The parts are already implemented, but there could be a much more unified and efficient way to get that done. Again this is a repeated request from users and nothing has been done to implement it.  

What I would like to see is in the product is that eventually, IBM will implement additional software solutions for integration. There is one that I know of that used to have the name RPE. It stands for Rational Publishing Engine. I think it is a tool that should be implemented in DOORS because it belongs to IBM after they purchased Rational Software. With this integration, we would have a much better way to actually import and export between Word or other Office documents.  

On another side, it would be good to also see them integrate the GC (Garbage Collector) trace tool. It is a logical requirements engineering tool that would enhance some capabilities. It could be a specialty add-on but the integration needs to be there. This product is owned by IBM because formerly it belonged to Telelogic as well. It would be good for IBM and the users of these tools to have these solutions implemented in DOORS.  

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with this product since Version 0.1. More than 20 years.  

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is quite nice at this point. After these last few major versions, they have made significant improvement and it is very stable.  

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

From my side, scalability is okay so far. I have not had any bad experiences in our own use or with clients.  

Our clients who use IBM Rational DOORS are usually large, enterprise companies, like airline industry companies, like Siemens, we work with Audi, Mercedes, and BMW. So we are not usually talking about small companies. But they are not all alike and we have clients of all sizes.   

How are customer service and technical support?

In the past, I had a reason to contact IBM technical support, but I wasn't impressed. It was a lousy service. There is no question the technical support can be improved. It might not be a bad idea. The funny thing is that since IBM took over Telelogic and some of the guys from Telelogic have been moved over to IBM. If you get the ones who still work for Telelogic, you get fine and proper service and resolutions. But if you do not have the luck to reach one of the Telelogic people and you reach one of the ordinary IBM people, it is the worst case and you probably will not get what you need.  

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Before we used IBM Rational DOORS, we just used Word and Excel to create our solutions.  

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is easy. The deployment usually takes a couple of weeks.  

In the deployment process, there are between three to seven people involved depending on the project.  

It is not simple to answer how many people are involved in the maintenance because we have decided to divide the way we look at supporting clients and products into different levels. Our support services have three levels now because all these different levels need different information about the tool in-depth to be able to use it properly for their purposes. If we do not provide them the information about the tool in-depth, we would not be providing proper support. In general, we have about six people providing the maintenance services.  

What about the implementation team?

We do all of our own implementations.  

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

All my clients are running under a special agreement using a client-server version of the DOORS product where they get a discount on the product and then only pay maintenance. They pay the maintenance on a yearly basis. They are mostly huge companies and this is partly how they were able to get this special agreement. It works well for them because we have informed the clients how they could reduce their maintenance costs.  

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

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.  

What other advice do I have?

What we actually have learned — or even maybe accepted and are comfortable with is now — is that for the user projects work best and most efficiently, it is absolutely nicer to work in a more structured way. This product helps order our projects. Because of what the tool does, we have a way to document the bare base engineering. What we did in the past, before DOORS, we all used Word and maybe Excel in our offices to set up our specifications for the product. In DOORS, we can now work in a different way. There are very nice features that help to structure your documents, to link your documents, and make a different analysis, test your approach and see it better. There were no tools like this in Word and Excel.  

You also have the possibility to re-use things. It is quite nice to use a tool that allows you to use all your experience from a technical point of view and create the solutions in one data source and one tool and use components you create for various other projects as well.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate IBM Rational DOORS as an eight-out-of-ten.  

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Other
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
LV
Project Manager at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Complex, slow, difficult to manage but has a good inbuilt view

Pros and Cons

  • "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."
  • "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."

What is most valuable?

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.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

Actively, I would say three years and non-actively, maybe five years. I was working in the QA department, and I was reviewing and validating the main equipment with IBM Rational DOORS. So, I know the tool, but it took a bit longer before I start to work much more actively with IBM Rational DOORS.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We discovered some tech stability issues with IBM Rational DOORS Classic and did not convert to IBM. I'm not really convinced about the solution. Basically, IBM doesn't really support or doesn't want to improve IBM Rational DOORS Classic anymore. However, there are still a lot of customers who have been using this solution for years, some of them even for 13 years or so. 

How are customer service and technical support?

I'm not sure about the support for other solutions, but the problem is that they don't really want to invest any more in IBM Rational DOORS classic. It's quite easy for a technical person to customize and do benchmarking to identify the root cause and proposed solution, but I think that IBM is not going in that direction. So, I'm not really happy. 

They are quick at replying for sure. However, I'm not really convinced about the solution, so I would expect to have a technical person who is experienced and find solutions. 

When I discovered and reported a performance issue, I got a reply that it is a well-known problem. I never saw that issue in the report. It looks like some of the bug information is not accessible to everybody.

How was the initial setup?

I managed to install it without any serious or issues, so it was quite okay. I had a lot of exceptions at different moments, but I managed to find solutions on the web. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

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. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

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.

What other advice do I have?

Our requirement is not for a huge database, just around 30,000 records. It's a shame that IBM Rational DOORS Classic is so slow in accessing such a small number of records. It's really new to the data architecture approach from the past, that is, from Telelogic.

In the new version, they no longer support Excel. So, we have to redo the whole configuration of the project, which takes a lot of time and energy. When I look at other solutions based on the results of the benchmark analysis, they look easier to work or install.

I'm also looking into the capability to export, and I got several issues with IBM, especially with the OSAC interface. There are some questions on the IBM website to assess whether it will really work or whether it is a limitation. Because it is not a well-defined limitation, you have to try. When you try and spend a lot of time and energy and do extra work, you find the limitations in what you can do, which makes it very slow.

In the past, IBM Rational DOORS was the best solution for me because it was the only one but today, people are not really attached to IBM Rational DOOR. They have to use it, but I'm not convinced that they're really attached to it.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten. It is complex, doesn't work as expected, and isn't easy to illustrate. I would expect IBM to have something better prepared, better integrated, and more compatible with I could do in the past.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Learn what your peers think about IBM Rational DOORS. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2021.
552,305 professionals have used our research since 2012.
KM
Sr. Systems Engineer at a manufacturing company with 1-10 employees
Real User
Customizable, has a helpful GUI for creating links between requirements, and provides a powerful change proposal systems

Pros and Cons

  • "I like the user interface with regard to creating links between requirements and tracing links to requirements."
  • "The user interface for the Change Proposal System could be improved."

What is our primary use case?

My primary use case is for the development and management of requirements, traceability of requirements up and down the architecture chain, and verification.

What is most valuable?

I like the user interface with regard to creating links between requirements and tracing links to requirements.

I like the DXL Wizard, in particular, to build custom views that I save.

I am a fan of the DOORS Change Proposal System, although a lot of people where I'm working have their own homegrown system. I continue to push them to migrate to the DOORS CPS.

What needs improvement?

The user interface for the Change Proposal System could be improved. When creating a proposal it is great and I have no problem with it. On the other hand, during a review phase, when many people are trying to look at the change and decide whether to accept it or not, the user interface is not really helpful because it just shows you the specific change. What we have done over the years to accommodate this is to create a specification module where we pull the proposed change features into that view. I can then look at the changes in the context of everything around it, and we can decide whether it is the change that we really want to make.

If there were a way in the change proposal window to view the specific change in the context of the other things around it, including potentially other changes, then that would be helpful. The workaround that we have created allows us to view all of the potential changes in concert with everything that is not changing, which is ideally what the change proposal GUI should do.

One of the people that I work with has expressed interest in a process where you have to propose changes to links, rather than just create them. In this way, you can maintain traceability under some form of configuration management for them as well. Personally, in 20 years, I have never had a program where we tried to control links to that degree. We would monitor them, but never had any formal change process for links.

We are not allowed to use DOORS as our configuration management tool and instead have to use Agile PDM. This requires us to export data from DOORS and import it there. However, if DOORS were tailored a little bit better then we could use it as our CM tool and avoid using the other one altogether.

More and more companies are getting involved with model-based systems engineering (MBSE). I know that DOORS has direct interfaces with many of these tools, although I have never used any of them so I don't know how simple they are to use. That said, anything that can be done to streamline and simplify the tool-to-tool interface between DOORS and other products is a good thing. For example, it should be easy to exchange data between DOORS and MagicDraw, CORE, Genesis, and others.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using DOORS for many years, since about 2000.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I have had no problem with stability and I think that it's worked very well. I have been using it for many years and from a user's perspective, other than the change in the name, it's been very stable and very consistent.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I have worked on programs that varied in size from a couple of hundred requirements up to tens of thousands of requirements in the database. It always seems to work beautifully, irrespective of the size. In this regard, I think that it scales well.

On any given day, we have potentially dozens of administrators and hundreds of users. We have facilities from Florida to New York to California and everywhere in between.

How are customer service and technical support?

I have not personally been in contact with technical support. When I need help, I see our administrator. I know that some of our administrators in the past have worked with technical support. Also, one of our former administrators belonged to a DOORS community user forum on the internet. This was a source of information that offered ideas and provided support. 

What about the implementation team?

Our in-house IT administrators are responsible for setting up and maintaining our software, including DOORS.

What other advice do I have?

My advice for anybody who is implementing IBM Rational DOORS is to start using it early in the program and use it consistently. In other words, don't let people do their own thing. Instead, come up with a standard process of what you do, which attributes you can use, consistent attribute naming, and consistent standard views. This way, everybody is using the same thing.

There will always be custom things coming up later, but you need to have a core standard. For example, every program will have 10 standard views and 40 standard attributes, which enforces consistency. As you go from program to program, people can understand it. That's all part of the initial setup phase, where you make sure that everybody is doing the same thing.

One of the things that I've been a big advocate for over the years is to remove the human from the process as much as possible. For example, I have to generate a file from DOORS to put in my configuration management tool for a formal release. This is usually a Microsoft Word file. The problem comes about when people edit the file after it is generated because they want to change the formating and other such things. When this happens, there is a risk of human error. Although there are ways to minimize this, I can't eliminate it. As it is now, I have no way of taking the human out of the loop completely.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
DH
General Manager & Founder/consultant at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Consultant
Top 20
Can manage lots of requirements and handle large amounts of data, but the interface needs to be improved

Pros and Cons

  • "It is very customizable and easy to scale."
  • "The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."

What is our primary use case?

I am a consultant and this is one of the solutions that my company uses to help our clients.

Rational DOORS is used to help our customers with system engineering. I use it to design complex systems like trains and cars. DOORS is used to collect all of the requirements for these big systems and then we try to organize the requirements. We make sure that the system functions in compliance with the requirements. 

How has it helped my organization?

Using this solution will streamline processes and generally improve the quality of them.

What is most valuable?

The most important feature is that it is able to manage a lot of requirements.

It helps to maintain global compliance during all of the stages of development. When you specify the functionality of the system, it is able to show that the system is compliant with the needs. Moreover, it is easy to maintain compliance based on the design.

This solution is able to manage a lot of data.

It is very customizable and easy to scale.

What needs improvement?

Implementing processes should be easier.

The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time. People like to have a nice tool that is up to date with the latest technology, and this is not the case with DOORS.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using IBM Rational DOORS for more than ten years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Rational DOORS is very reliable compared to the other tools that I have used. It works very well.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It is very scalable. You can start with a few sets of data and then add more as needed, so it's very scalable. It is also easy to customize and I am satisfied with it.

Depending on the project, we may have one or two people using this solution, all the way up to perhaps 50 people.

How are customer service and technical support?

I have never spoken with anyone at IBM's support.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I have also used REQTIFY. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is complex, although it is linked to the complexity of the project.

If you have something very simple then the setup will be straightforward but if you have something complex then it will be more difficult. For example, if you are designing a launcher to send satellites into space then you want to have enough information about it before you start the system. These systems are very expensive to develop, so you want to demonstrate that it will be of good quality and be able to handle the operations required to achieve the goals of the project.

It takes between one week and one month to deploy, depending on the requirements.

What about the implementation team?

I can perform the deployment myself, although sometimes we need to involve many people. There are engineers, quality teams, and validation teams. Many parts of the business can be involved in the deployment.

What was our ROI?

Because this is an expensive solution, if you want to realize ROI then you have to use it for big projects.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

This is an expensive solution. Licensing fees are billed annually and there is no support included with what I pay.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

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.

What other advice do I have?

The difficulty with implementing this solution is that you are asking the organization to change its processes. The important part is, however, that you are trying to improve the quality of the systems. You have to maintain the customer's vision and show that the goals will be reached, but done more efficiently. In the end, you have to give the customer every assurance that the work is done in its entirety.

This is a solution that I recommend. If people need to write specifications in the context of engineering then I think that this is the best solution on the market. If on the other hand, you want to manage requirements, then I don't think that it is an appropriate tool.

Similarly, DOORS is a good tool because you have to maintain compliance with all of the requirements during development. If you have a supplier with no needs or requirements then it is not at all an appropriate tool.

Overall, it is a good solution but they need to update the user interface. If they also lower the price then it would be perfect.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Julie Kent
Lead Modeling & Simulation Engineer at a tech services company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Pretty straightforward and great for tracking changes but technical support is slow

Pros and Cons

  • "Starting to use the solution is pretty straightforward. There isn't too much of a learning curve."
  • "There needs to be quicker access to tech support. When I have a two minute question that takes two minutes to answer, it shouldn't take me 45 minutes and/or a few days of callbacks to get to the right technical support person. It's unnecessary and frustrating for the user."

What is our primary use case?

We had a large number of requirements coming in as a federal contractor and we put them in DOORS. We did exports from that to map those requirements to what we were doing and the architecture that we were building. We did that in MagicDraw, which we attempted to integrate with DOORS.

What is most valuable?

Being able to track changes to requirements and being able to export is the solution's most valuable aspect.

Starting to use the solution is pretty straightforward. There isn't too much of a learning curve.

What needs improvement?

I found the user interface to be unintuitive. It's something they need to work on. I wouldn't say it is bad, per se. It is just like learning to write cursive.

I would push for more extensive integration with other tools since, for example, I needed it to integrate with MagicDraw. Building in that type of integration and other such integrations would be helpful for our purposes.

There could be a better structure around onboarding to get people started. It was unintuitive as to how to get started. It needs to be clear as to what the first things a user has to do in order to get going. 

There needs to be quicker access to tech support. When I have a two-minute question that takes two minutes to answer, it shouldn't take me 45 minutes and/or a few days of callbacks to get to the right technical support person. It's unnecessary and frustrating for the user.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for about two and a half years so far.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I don't recall any issues with stability, at least no more issues than anything else has. It's not buggy and doesn't suffer from glitches. I can't recall it crashing or freezing. It's pretty reliable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution seems pretty scalable, from what I have seen.

In our organization, we have about 25 people on the solution currently. We've extended slightly. I believe we have at least 50 licenses out there that can be used.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is okay. I would say it took a long time to get to the right person. That said, when I get to the right person, I found they were helpful. Overall, I'd say that their support could be faster and more responsive. They tend to be slow to react and hard to reach.

How was the initial setup?

From my point of view, I didn't do the initial setup. However, from the moment I started using it, I found it to be straightforward. 

I'm not sure how long deployment takes.

What about the implementation team?

I was not aware of anybody outside the organization coming in to handle the implementation, however, that doesn't mean that someone on the IT side didn't have that. I'm unsure if we had outside help.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I don't have much information about pricing. I do know that our organization bought more licenses than we need, however, so we can easily add more people to the solution when we need to.

What other advice do I have?

Although I cannot say with certainty, I do not believe my company has a business relationship with IBM.

I do not know which version of the solution we are currently using.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations.

Overall, I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. While it's largely helpful, there are just a few things, like unresponsive technical support and difficulty with the general learning curve, which could make it more user-friendly.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
FC
President at a outsourcing company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 20
An incredibly stable solution that allows us to simply link requirements with one another and with test descriptions and automatically produce reports

Pros and Cons

  • "I like the way we can simply link requirements with one another and with test descriptions and then automatically produce reports that are required to show compliance to our customers. It is a combination of requirements management and reporting that I like, but I really have very little to do with the reporting part of it. I don't know how easy or hard it is to create those reports."
  • "One thing that I would like to see is a lower-cost version of it that we could use for smaller projects. Sometimes, we do projects for commercial customers who would benefit from something like DOORS, but it's just so expensive. It's just a monster, so a lower-cost version would be the thing that we'd like to see."

What is our primary use case?

We use it to manage requirements. For the defense projects, we basically do a waterfall design methodology. So, we input the customer's requirements at the top level, and we flow down through all of the design requirements and the testing requirements. We keep it all managed through DOORS.

How has it helped my organization?

Many of our defense customers give us the requirements in a DOOR file, so we can instantly import it. Nobody has to sit there playing with spreadsheets or anything else. In minutes, we have the requirements, and we can begin the flow down to the various levels of the design as we work on it. The thing that we like about it is the fact that it's compatible with what our defense and also space customers use.

What is most valuable?

I like the way we can simply link requirements with one another and with test descriptions and then automatically produce reports that are required to show compliance to our customers. It is a combination of requirements management and reporting that I like, but I really have very little to do with the reporting part of it. I don't know how easy or hard it is to create those reports.

What needs improvement?

One thing that I would like to see is a lower-cost version of it that we could use for smaller projects. Sometimes, we do projects for commercial customers who would benefit from something like DOORS, but it's just so expensive. It's just a monster, so a lower-cost version would be the thing that we'd like to see.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution on and off for about eight years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is incredibly stable. We've never had a problem with its stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

In the projects we've done, we've never bumped into a limit where we needed to do anything to accommodate the project. It just works. So, we've never had to scale it.

In terms of the number of users, we're limited to about three people who use it, and they're all hardware and software engineers. 

It is being used extensively. We use it every day. We could apply it to other things. If there was a lower-cost version of it, we would probably use it more widely through our projects, so that's really more a function of the cost of the product than the usability of it. 

How are customer service and technical support?

I didn't have any encounters with them.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

DOORS is the only system we've used for this purpose. In other cases, we create massive spreadsheets that have links in them and are completely unmanageable, but they do the work.

How was the initial setup?

I wasn't involved in that.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

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.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate IBM Rational DOORS a 10 out of 10. The main reason is that it's what our customers use and what we've been using for many years now, and I don't see any reason to change, frankly.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
FD
Electronics and Software Development Area Manager at a transportation company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Good shell scripting with good stability and helpful technical support

Pros and Cons

  • "The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect."
  • "The performance could be improved. It doesn't run as smoothly as it could."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution for giving requirements, both mechanical and electric.

What is most valuable?

The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect.

What needs improvement?

The strict requirements for synchronization of the data could be relaxed. It requires a permanent connection with good bandwidth. This means that in an environment with remote networking that you need to go through a VPN or use some kind of virtual machine in the middle. We had some issues with the disconnection of desktop software and so on. The strict requirements of time synchronization between the DOS server and the client that request you to have a permanent good connection are difficult now that we are working more remotely due to COVID.

The solution has some scalability issues.

The performance could be improved. It doesn't run as smoothly as it could.

The usability when you're doing writing tends to be similar to Windows. It's a rational style. It needs to be able to do drafting with drag and drop, copy and paste, etc. There needs to be more usability in order to help people move data, create drawings, etc. 

The solution should be able to support different formats and texts.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with this solution for seven or eight years at this point. It's been a while.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the solution was okay, aside for the disconnection issues we faced, it was largely fine.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The original version has some scalability problems. In some specific cases, we had some problems managing all of the client's licenses and digital locks. 

We currently have about 25 to 30 licenses and that covers 50 to 70 users.

How are customer service and technical support?

We've dealt with technical support in the past, especially at the beginning. We're mostly satisfied with the level of support we've been given. Sometimes it would take a while for them to get back to us, however, the support we received always helped and we were able to resolve any issues we had.

How was the initial setup?

We worked together with one of our dealers in order to handle the initial implementation. We were handling a complex environment in order to fit our requirements. Due to our needs, the implementation and initial setup was more complex than straightforward.

Deployment took us a couple of months, including having time to review everything.

We have our own internal team that handles ongoing maintenance.

What about the implementation team?

We used some FirePop Integrators to assist us with the implementation.

What other advice do I have?

Our organization does have some commercial agreements with IBM. We're more of a customer, however. We arent an IBM partner.

Whether this would be the correct solution for a company depends on the installation and requirements. You'll need to prepare a specific environment for the company according to how it works. Therefore, it depends on the customization requirements. If they want it related to the environment itself or not, there may be some complexity in the setup that needs to be planned for. That said, I would recommend the solution overall.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's pretty good, however, it could improve its overall performance.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Juergen Albrecht
System Engineer / Requirements Engineer / Managing Director at CCC Systems Engineering Suisse GmbH
Real User
Top 5
Customizable, easy to use, and the reporting features are good

Pros and Cons

  • "I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."
  • "There are problems with communicating between DOORS and Microsoft Office."

What is our primary use case?

I run my own engineering office in Switzerland for training companies on a freelance basis. I have used the most recent version for several projects.

What is most valuable?

This solution is very simple to use.

I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL). I have developed a lot of tools and it is quite nice. For example, I have a tool that I wrote that can perform a trace analysis for automatic reporting. It only works on classic DOORS because it would have to be reprogrammed in JavaScript or another language.

The UML editing and reporting features are good.

What needs improvement?

There are problems with the communication between DOORS and Microsoft Office. It doesn't matter which version of MS Office is used. When trying to communicate between Excel and DOORS or Word and DOORS and vice versa, problems arise. I would like to expect a more professional application here. A tool to gradually import scripts into DOORS Next Generation (DXL to Java) would be very helpful. Merging classic DOORS with next-generation DOORS using a web client would be a great idea.

I would like to see a much more professional way to generate documents.

A tool to import scripts, step-by-step into DOORS Next Generation would be very helpful.

The merging of classic DOORS with Next Generation DOORs using a web client would be a great idea. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using IBM Rational DOORS since 1999, version 0.1.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I have never had any problems with DOORS for any of my clients. It runs fine.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I have worked on smaller projects in the past and everything has worked fine, including the requirements and visibility. My clients have been happy and this has caused them to grow by purchasing additional licenses.

That said, this solution does not scale as well as I thought it would, so improvements could be made with respect to scalability.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Before using this solution I did everything in Microsoft Word.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

I have done everything myself over the years.

What other advice do I have?

I have been using classic DOORS version 9.6.1.11 and I was interested in switching to IBM DOORS Next Generation, but it is not as easy as I thought. The complexity is quite different and it is not very user-friendly. You used to have your own client and database, but now that it is mixed with the web, it doesn't make sense for me to use it.

Unfortunately, I think that DOORS was a nice tool and it is a pity that it has been ruined by IBM. The technical support is a mess and it is not the quality from the past.

I still really enjoy working with this tool. Even though it has been taken over by IBM, it is something that I have to live with.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer:
Flag as inappropriate
Buyer's Guide
Download our free IBM Rational DOORS Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.