Rally Software Reviews

The features I like are the backlogs and the transparency through those backlogs.

We have a lot of product owners (POs) and teams that work on the common backlogs, so we need the transparency in these backlogs. We get the transparency between the teams and the departments.

We have teams that are not collocated, so the team tool for managing and showing tasks and work has to support this.

We use a tool that automatically updates all active users screens as
one user updates a task or other work.

This is helping with issues we have seen in Agile Central when more than
one person is working on the same issue, to do a missing update of what needs to be done or started.

I would like to see live updates. Live updates would help us because we have off-shore teams. We're actually using another tool right now because Agile Central does not support it. We're using two tools.

I would like to see some management views on the workflow. The workflow is not lightweight. It's pretty big.

We did not have any issues with stability. Sometimes it's slow, but we have not had any issues.

We have not had any scalability issues. We have scaled it to some degree, four or five teams, but that's just a fraction of where we're going.

I have used technical support for minor issues and they were good.

We were not previously using a common solution.

We decided to invest in a new solution because of the Agile transformation in our company. We needed a tool for that.

I was involved in the roll-out and it was straightforward.

We were looking at JIRA and other options that I cannot remember right now. It was six or seven years ago.

The most important criteria when we selected the vendor was the functionality of the cross-transparency between backlogs. That was the main reason we chose this solution.

Start small.

The entire application lifecycle from user story to the quality assurance for the testing. It has performed great. It has a great set of features which address the whole process. 

It has streamlined the entire process of development from getting the requirement for the application, supporting all the testing processes, and reporting all the defects back to development.

Its integration of support of the quality assurance process. It has allowed the quality assurance team to keep all information in sync with the application requirements and user stories for our general development.

We would like maybe to have more integration with test automation. As it is right now, it does not support automation of the quality assurance process. It just supports manual testing. 

It is very stable. It has been on the market a long time.

It scales very well. It improves in technology constantly and gets up to speed with the latest and greatest. Basically, all the functionality. 

We use the technical support once in a while. They are very responsive and knowledgeable.

The initial setup was fairly streamlined.

If you are looking for a stable ALM that supports the agile process, this is the solution to go with.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: functionality and stability. So, for it to be a stable technology with a solid road map.

We have many teams that work on different modules and every team can follow what the other team is doing at the moment, so as to take a decision about taking the user story into the sprint or wait, till the dependent team finishes its work. So, it suits distributed and big projects.

The most valuable features of this product are

• Creating, updating and deleting (CRUD) operations.
• Search for the user stories, defects and test cases (I simple search by the ID and do not often use the Advanced Search option).

These functions are valuable for me, because I do use them every working day.

Probably, the user story history details could include the candidate. Now, it is ugly looking and is not informative. I would prefer to use it to restore details.

I did experience stability issues. 

Sometimes, it has short hanging periods during a planning session, i.e., when you discuss the user story, without the screen displaying the acceptance criteria, mockups and so on.

As usual, there were some scalability issues. If you have many items on the screen, it becomes a bit slow.

Sometimes, the UI is not intuitively understandable.

Make it user-friendly. 

Probably, you can add some UI templates such as a combination of filters/functions, etc.

Plan, Quality, Track [Iteration status, burnout charts, etc.]: All these menu features are highly valuable.

Highly helpful for defect tracking and maintaining story cards.

At times, when we update the status for cards or defects, it shows a message that says something like, "Someone updated the status before, which one to consider: yours or theirs?"

I have been using CA Agile Central for over 10 months.

We have had no Issues with stability.

We have had no Issues with scalability.

Technical support is good.

No solution was used before.

We didn't evaluate other options.

Perfect product for implementing the agile platform.