IBM Rational DOORS Reviews

It handles large-scale requirements analyses including traceability and impact, but in addition also has its own accessible scripting language, DOORS Extension Language (DXL), which allows users to tailor the tool to suit their more specific needs and processes. Extensions built through DXL have offered a much greater ability to tailor Rational DOORS for a variety of specific processes and needs.

I use it to support a variety of customers. Using it, I have been able to quickly and accurately perform holistic analyses of data. I am able to create a traceability and impact analysis report of a set of 20+ documents in minutes, and then use the tool to help verify that the data is accurate.

"Out of the box" Rational DOORS, in most cases, will not have many desired features for specific needs. DXL allows a user to customize it to fit many of those specific needs, but such extensions require lots of training and time. Therefore, while the rooms for improvement can be filled, it requires a trained expert user - or users - to access the full Rational DOORS functionality. It is not friendly to new users, and has a steep learning curve.

I’ve used it for one year.

I have not had any performance issues between a Rational DOORS database of 100 requirements vs. one with 10,000+, beyond an expected increase in processing time for dealing with more objects. Even with 100 to 10,000 requirements, processing time for common tasks only goes from a few seconds to a few minutes.

In most cases with clients, initial set-up involved importing a document corpus into Rational DOORS, then verifying that it was imported successfully. Regardless of the format of the original documents, I have not had trouble configuring documents then importing them into Rational DOORS, which supports imports of CSV, ReqIF, rich and plain text, FrameMaker files, and several others. Rational DOORS 9.6 also supports importing documents/spreadsheets to update current data.

It is process agnostic, i.e. it can be tailored to serve any life-cycle process flow. It also integrates with the largest number of software and systems engineering tools in the marketplace.

It supports the capture, management and development of requirements, thereby reducing defects at the earliest stage of a project.

The underlying database engine is proprietary, therefore integration with other tools can only be achieved via the Rational DOORS DXL API. The newer version, Rational DOORS Next Generation, will fix that.

I started using it at v5.2.

Organizations that do not have a requirements engineering process in place are generally in for a big surprise when they deploy Rational DOORS, since it does not implement any particular process or methodology.

Partitions are one complex feature of Rational DOORS that are not particularly robust and is generally avoided, unless the project database is administered by a very proficient and experienced administrator.

It is based on a single, centralized database server, making multi-site exchange and collaboration somewhat challenging.

Customer service suffered everytime Rational DOORS changed its organizational structure (i.e. from QSS to Telelogic to IBM). Also, the quality of service suffered when it was outsourced to India. Since then, however, IBM has improved it considerably.

Richard Watson's team has provided Rational DOORS technical support from day one. If it could be explained, they would explain it. If it could be fixed, they fixed it.

I've not used a previous solution, but today, I'm investigating the Eclipse Requirements Management Framework (RMF) for small entities/teams that cannot afford a power tool like Rational DOORS.

Installation is straightforward. Project start-up can take some time if an organization or project does not have an institutionalized process around which they have tailored DOORS usage. Also, if tailoring requires DXL scripting, the organization or project must have the expertise available. Many projects/organizations stay away from customization for that reason. Using Rational DOORS integrations with other tools can add another layer of complexity.

I have implemented Rational DOORS projects both as an external consultant and as an in-house expert.

The best money invested on a project is always on requirements engineering, and an ROI of 10-20:1 is not uncommon.

For small teams, node-locked licenses are the least expensive by far. As the project team grows, i.e. 10+, one flex licence per five team members becomes more cost-effective.

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

If you do not have a resident Rational DOORS expertise, invest some up-front money to secure the assistance of one to help with deployment, tailoring and training,

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.

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.

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. 

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

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

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.

Before using this solution I did everything in Microsoft Word.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I have done everything myself over the years.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The DXL Library DXL script routines/algorithms and the DOORS importer.

It's saved us time, as much as 35% when compared to v9.3.03.

None as IBM have left v9.5 as the extant version and now moved it into DOORS Next Generation.

I've used Rational DOORS since 2009, and v9.56 for 18 months.

No issues encountered.

It is the most stable platform, and did not crash once unlike v9.3.03 version that we had previously.

We used it on one programme to start with, but when I left the company, we were using it on five separate programmes.

We were using IBM directly, and they were 10/10.

10/10 - IBM take real pride in their technical support activity with customers.

No we didn't, as we were under contract to use DOORS.

It installed really well, and it has a straightforward license key operation.

It was done in-house, but our engineers had guidance and support from IBM, which was excellent.

It's massive, as it's a contract requirement. DOORS v9.5 enabled us to satisfy all our customer demands with relative ease. Can't quantify the ROI in financial terms though.

DOORS rules are that you have licences per company which give access to the software according to the users who need access at a particular time. Most businesses would probably find it too expensive to have a single licence per every DOORS user.

No other solutions were looked at due to contractual requirements.

Use DOORS Next Generation or later versions of DOORS v9.X

I use Rational DOORS to define requirements during the software development process and share databases with our suppliers.

Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want.

Rational DOORS doesn't support the agile process.

I've been using Rational DOORS for over ten years.

Rational DOORS is stable about 70-80% of the time.

Rational DOORS is easy to scale.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We used a vendor team.

I would give Rational DOORS a rating of nine out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is mainly to manage all of the requirements, from the user requirements to the system requirements to the sub-system requirements. Also to manage traceability, the baseline, and the different baselines of the requirement. 

Traceability is the most valuable feature of this solution. I like that is has the capacity to manage traceability from one level of requirement to another.

The HMI is difficult to use and the user interface should be better.

The program is very stable.

It's a bit difficult to say how scalable this program is, because you are driven by the number of license that you have. I can't remember the model we're using, but I believe it is a floating license mode. Eventually, if you have too many people connected at the same time on IBM Rational DOORS, the last one can't access to the program. So the scalability is limited by the license scheme. We have around 10,000 users currently. 

Our technical support is managed internally. We don't have access directly to IBM. 

I did not manage the setup of the program, but I believe it is quite straightforward.

If you have a high number of requirements to manage and if there is a need to sustain these baseline of requirements for a couple of years, it is the right solution for you. However, if you have a small project, it's not mandatory.

In the next release of this product I would like to see a better user interface. I would like it to have the capacity to include drawing and to produce KPIs on the requirement baseline. Also, the kind of dashboard is not very convenient. 

On a scale from 1 to 10, I rate this product a seven.

• Configuration management
• Requirements linking
• Access control
• DXL5

It enables us to manage our customers' requirements effectively and efficiently.

They need to improve the DOORS change proposal.

I've used it for six months.

No issues encountered.

It can crash, but it doesn't happen too often.

I've not used their customer service.

No previous solution was in place.

We did it in-house, but I wasn't involved.

Use right license model to suit your needs.

Get someone who is familiar with the product to manage