2019-09-10T09:04:00Z

What needs improvement with Polarion ALM?


Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Polarion ALM.

What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?

Guest
55 Answers

author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

The solution is not easy to use. The configuration aspect of the solution is not easy. A person needs a lot of programming knowledge in order to successfully handle the job. The cost of the product is quite high. They should work to bring it down a bit so it's not on the higher end of the market.

2020-12-19T10:14:20Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

This is an area that has already been corrected, but the Navigation areas of the document and being able to have subdocuments was an area that needed improvement. Technical support needs some improvement. The pricing could be reduced. If the pricing would come down and it was more affordable then we wouldn't have to switch.

2020-08-30T08:33:38Z
author avatar
Top 10Real User

The ease-of-use could be improved a little, but at the same time, it's a complex tool so that has to be expected; such a complex tool cannot be completely straightforward. The license model is okay for large companies but would be quite expensive for smaller enterprises. Also, the beginner's tutorials are quite outdated — working on versions from 2010 or 2012. More up-to-date tutorials with different use cases would be a nice adjustment. It's always possible to improve such tools by adding more features and improving automatization. For example, we never tried the connection to build service. I believe it's possible to do that, to automatically link it to the software build process. We only used it more or less manually. It's possible that, that feature could be improved because I believe there was a reason why we didn't do it, but I can't explain in more detail as I was not really involved in the process. In general, I would like to see improvements on the information and materials.

2020-08-02T08:16:00Z
author avatar
Consultant

The most important thing for them to improve should be platform-independent features. They should also provide extensive pipelines and release pipelines that we can define and we can work on. Another area of improvement is integration with external tools and external platforms like Linux, Mac, and other stuff. Most of the teams are basically moving towards faster development. Everything should be flexible. All the tasks you can see in AWS and Azure, you would just need to drag and drop and release into the pipeline. Right now, if you can evaluate the tools, then I think that as for the cost differences and for the usability, and other things concerned, so I will rate AWS at the first, Azure second, and then Atlassian tools and then Siemens would be fourth or fifth.

2019-09-25T05:10:00Z
author avatar
Top 10Real User

The interface for this solution needs to be made more user-friendly to provide a better user experience. If we have too many work items in one LiveDoc then usage can be limited because the loading times are very slow. In the next release of this solution, I would like to see the limitations removed. There should be a better facility for importing, such as from an IBM Rational Doors document. The configuration would be much simpler if it had limited functions for synchronizing with JIRA, for example.

2019-09-10T09:04:00Z
Find out what your peers are saying about Siemens, Atlassian, PTC and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: June 2021.
509,570 professionals have used our research since 2012.