IBM DOORS Reviews

I manage the entire application lifecycle management, which includes requirement management, architecture, and software work products. I use IBM DOORS for requirements, Engineering Workflow Management (EWM), and all the Jazz tools for project management, timelines, release management, and IBM Test Manager. Our team is a global group of approximately 40 people within my business group, and we cover system management, project management, and testing. We follow the A-SPICE standards, and all A-SPICE work products are integrated into our toolchain.

I can provide an overview of the valuable features we utilize. The requirement management system makes it very easy to maintain the entire V-cycle from customer requirements through test coverage. The data and versioning are managed very well, and the dashboard features available with the toolchain help us reduce our efforts significantly. The widgets are also quite helpful, as they allow the team to access details through different widgets.

Additionally, there is a reporting feature that supports our organization. My organization has developed their own customized reporting tool that leverages the support from this reporting feature, and we use that as a standard practice.

I believe the toolchain currently covers all of our requirements. Even for A-SPICE and related requirements, I can add attributes and manage things effectively because the tool is highly customizable. I can continue updating things and managing different processes. The only gap I have identified is in code-level coverage reporting. I have coverage traceability from IBM DOORS through the architecture and design, but I am unable to demonstrate code-level coverage reporting. That reporting capability would be helpful. Testing is covered very well through IBM Test Manager. The traceability to code is something I feel there may be certain gaps in, though I may not be fully aware of all capabilities since my role is different and I primarily receive reports rather than being an end user.

Regarding the traceability feature, I am not an end user but rather receive reports from my team, so my perspective is limited.

I have been using the solution for approximately six months, though my team is the primary user. I manage the team, and they use the toolchain for software and validation-related activities.

I cannot currently comment on stability since we are still in the exploration phase. Other groups in our organization have been using the toolchain for quite some time, and they have supported us in deploying our project into this toolchain and provided configuration customizations for us. To date, there have been no issues.

It is very early to make a definitive assessment because we have only started with one project. The initial deployment is time-consuming as team members require support and training. However, by next year, once the team is more comfortable and trained, I can see it will be much easier. We are also creating a platform that will serve as a baseline for creating variant management for other projects, which will significantly reduce time and effort. Previously, my business group used manual processes and templates, which was tedious and prone to manual errors. The toolchain will definitely help in the long term, but for now, we are in the deployment phase.

We are using IBM DOORS. Previously, I attempted to reach out to obtain this tool for my business group. However, another business group within our company was already using the IBM ALM toolchain, so we decided to use the same toolchain beginning in January.

The other business group has been using the toolchain for approximately six to seven years. They have trained us on this toolchain, making the deployment quite easy due to their tier support.

Since my team is new to this tool, the initial setup took considerable time. However, within six months, they have become familiar with all aspects and are now managing all releases through the toolchain.

I am not handling the implementation. The central team manages that aspect, and they would be the appropriate people to comment on integration details. I am only using the tool, while the centralized team handles the configuration.

The primary beneficiaries are engineers.

The ROI is really excellent. I can manage customizations for projects across different regions, as each region has its own standards. Europe primarily follows A-SPICE standards, China follows a different process, and some regions use lighter processes. This customization capability helps me reduce process overhead and efforts significantly. The team also has detailed support for these customizations, making them easy to handle.

Regarding the traceability feature, I have not personally used it since my role is different and I primarily receive reports rather than being an end user. My team may have used this feature, but I cannot speak to it directly.

My organization has developed a reporting tool that leverages support from the toolchain's reporting feature, and we use that customized tool as a standard practice. I would rate this review an overall 8 out of 10.

I use IBM DOORS because my customer wants it for managing their requirements.

IBM DOORS is a tool from the 20th century. It is very old but capable of storing, organizing, and exchanging requirements. It helps to manage requirements efficiently, which significantly improves the way requirements are managed.

IBM DOORS should cover all engineering functions seamlessly, not just requirement engineering. Some tools can be exchanged for better integration. It has limited functionality, becoming slow, and not all features work perfectly, like references and linking. More features should be available in alternative tools.

I have worked on some projects with IBM DOORS.

I would rate the stability of IBM DOORS at five or six out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of IBM DOORS at three or four out of ten due to its old architecture and limited functionality.

I have not used IBM's technical support extensively, however, I would rate it around five or six out of ten.

Neutral

I did not use a different solution before IBM DOORS.

The initial setup is not easy, mainly since it is not a real database tool, and it becomes very slow. It has limited functionality, and not all features work as expected.

Two decades ago, IBM DOORS delivered positive outcomes by saving time and providing stability in managing requirements and linkages. However, now it may not be valid compared to modern tools with more current standards in engineering and development.

From my experience, I would not recommend IBM DOORS to others now. My company is using a different approach with software like Java and CodeBeamer that integrate better with development and management tools. 

My overall rating of IBM DOORS is five out of ten.

A few of our organization's customers use IBM DOORS for confidential documents. One of our customers used the tool to establish traceability for certain documents because solutions like PTC Integrity were not mature enough to handle it a decade ago. The aforementioned customer used IBM DOORS for requirement management and to transfer all data from MS Excel to IBM DOORS. 

IBM DOORS offers seamless integration functions with other third-party tools such as Jama and Polarion. But PTC Integrity is more flexible than IBM DOORS. 

IBM DOORS has a well-refined ASPICE template, which is absent in competitor solutions such as PTC Integrity. 

IBM DOORS effectively synchronizes with Polarion. But suppose when Polarion is running on Linux and you want to integrate with IBM DOORS on Windows, that is when compatibility issues arise. For the aforementioned issue we often receive advise in our company to migrate Polarion to Windows before integration. 

IBM DOORS is a heavy-duty application compared to competitors such as PTC Integrity. Exporting an IBM DOORS module is highly time-consuming for its bulkiness. PTC Integrity is a lighter solution that allows the development of a gateway template. It's crucial to consider the use cases and the other vendors that need to be integrated before using IBM DOORS. 

Our company is a PTC competence center, so most of our customers are from PTC. The customer integrations our company deals with include modeling tools such as Simulink, MATLAB, and Integrity Modeler to synchronize documents. The digital threat maintenance between IOD and Windchill is also a crucial part of our organization's operations. 

The solution should be more compatible with thin clients, there should be focus on web-based clients who can be more effective in IBM DOORS. At our company, we don't want every customer to use the thick client format with the solution. I would like to witness the seamless integration of IBM DOORS with Windchill in the future version. 

The integrations in IBM DOORS should be web-based, I don't prefer to use multiple plug-ins. For example, I want to integrate IBM DOORS with MATLAB, Simulink and Jenkins effortlessly which is possible in Codebeamer. I want every feature of Codebeamer to be present in IBM DOORS in the future releases. 

I have been using IBM DOORS for two years. 

I have witnessed the solution crash multiple times, it might be due to the outdated version I am using. I would rate the stability a six out of ten.  

IBM DOORS Next Generation offers better scalability than the basic version. IBM DOORS uses an outdated architecture so its unable to offer satisfying scalability. The solution lacks model-based system engineering and its considered as only a requirement management tool. PTC Integrity is an excellent system software engineering tool while IBM DOORS is a better tool for requirement engineering. ALM doesn't always suggest requirements; it can also be modeling and reporting as well. 

If a company wants nothing else but requirement management capabilities, then I would recommend IBM DOORS to them. If a customer wants a solo application without modeling and diverse integration capabilities then IBM DOORS can be the right choice. 

The vendor provides outstanding tech support; I get fast responses every time I enter a code case. A direct video call facility like PTC Integrity is unavailable in IBM DOORS. The tech support from IBM DOORS can be more interactive where the support executive can check my system and resolve the issue through screen sharing for which respective emails are received. 

The initial setup of IBM DOORS is complex, whereas it's easy for competitor solutions, such as PTC Integrity and Codebeamer. A compatible Java version is required before installing IBM DOORS and there are complexities with integrating tools running on Linux. 

The price of IBM DOORS depends upon the pricing models and the licenses the user selects. The product, on average, starts at $134/month. IBM DOORS is available at a reasonable price. 

The change control function is much better in PTC Integrity than in IBM DOORS. Certain compliance aspects, such as time to market, current editing requirements, and agility, can be improved with IBM DOORS. The impact of IBM DOORS on time efficiency on employees depends upon the user's use cases. 

I would rate IBM DOORS as seven out of ten. I would only recommend the solution if the use case is restricted to requirement management,  requirement engineering and configuring certain mobile templates. There are certain integrations, digital threat ability, data procurement from cloud-based or IoT products or Windchill products, these are not seamless in IBM DOORS.

For the aforementioned issues some customized applications need to be developed to resolve them. The solution should be easily configurable by layman knowledge individuals. 

I am currently working for a startup company, helping them establish the requirement engineering process. We have installed Classic DOORS, and we are satisfied with the tool. I am an IBM partner reseller, and I have many years of experience running my engineering office. I have written numerous DxL scripts for communication. I am the managing director and a mechanical engineer.

I really enjoyed the API. I developed many applications on DOORS Classic. I received the silver and platinum medals from IBM for some test management features and the DOORS exchange tool. However, not frequently. In developing and programming, I figured out that IBM's intellectual competence was not as satisfactory compared to Telelogic times. 

I recommend Classic DOORS to my clients as it is a safe and simple tool. However, many of my customers find it complicated, especially due to the auto-updating and undocumented changes by scripting inside the source code. The service during Telelogic times was much better than when IBM took over.

Compared to today, DOORS' competitors also excel in this discipline. Yet the price is too high. It's often not as generic as it used to be. IBM promised to find a way for a generic format that allows DOORS to be used in a wider range, working with applications from competitors.

I have used the solution since version 0.1.

IBM's original founder, Roger Stevens, and I are still friends. In the past, we collaborated on rollouts for the US, Britain, and DOORS for Europe, especially in Italy, France, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands.

Positive

I recommend Classic DOORS to all my clients as an engineering office. Many customers find it complicated due to auto-updating and undocumented changes by scripting inside the source code. The service during Telelogic times was much better than it has been since IBM took over.

Over the years, the first version cost something around 5800 euros.

The all-in-all service through Telelogic times was much better than since IBM took over. It is complicated sometimes, such as the logic about updating, moving from one server version to another, and the communication between restricted and non-restricted servers. 

Especially for military clients, it's not satisfying due to the need to bring together classified and unclassified information. Telelogic times had these issues on the right track, but IBM's takeover has worsened the process. 

Many clients now use Classic DOORS for non-classified projects yet need other programs for classified ones. I would rate the overall solution five out of ten.

DOORS facilitates the adoption of a chain toward DevOps architectures. Using all the IBM Rational tools, we can trace all activities related to a project, from beginning to design to development. 

For example, we use Rational Rhapsody to design models, incorporate requirements, and then generate software from those models. We also use Rational Team Concert to plan tests and Jenkins for continuous delivery.

The biggest improvement for me is definitely the ability to use DOORS in a web environment through Rational DOORS Next Generation. Integrating with Rational Team Concert via the web interface has also been beneficial. 

However, not all Rational Team Concert operations are available from the web client. Certain operations, like creating streams or components, still require using the desktop application. They're not accessible through the web interface.

And in my opinion, this limitation should be removed.

Creating streams, components, etc. We still need the desktop app for those.

DOORS has enabled flexibility in mapping requirements to the software. Tracking changes over time due to team meetings and other factors is important. 

Additionally, I've been using DOORS Next Generation, the web-based tool, especially in the last year.

I like its ability to automate tasks using DXL and Java scripting languages is powerful. DOORS Next Generation also offers improved IP integration through JAPI.

While managing requirements, I like the ability to track changes within documents and compare different versions of requirements.

The traceability matrix in DOORS improved our project outcomes.

It helps ensure coverage of requirements at different levels, from user requirements to software requirements to test requirements.

The modeling capabilities could benefit from a web-based tool like DOORS Next Generation, integrated with Rhapsody.

So, integration between Rhapsody modeling and DOORS in the web tool.

Another area of improvement is API. The DOORS API uses Java, not JavaScript.

DOORS is not very user-friendly. New users need training, and some find the learning curve steep.

I have been using it for many years. I have been using it for five years in different domains. 

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We have a large user base, so scalability is important.

Approximately 300 individuals actively use the tool.

The initial setup is not very simple. 

Setting up the server with all the licenses and switches requires a team, especially for large teams and scaling across multiple machines. It's not a one-person job, so maybe a six.

The initial deployment took a few weeks.

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being very affordable and ten being quite expensive.

It was a little bit expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

The solution is used to meet the requirements of system design from the user level to the supplier level, let's say. So it is used to have all the requirements integrated into only one database and link them with the different suppliers or stakeholders. So that's the main use, and we use it for those databases, basically.

I would say that the best feature of the solution is that since everything is in one place, and if you make any changes, then they are recorded or tracked. Also, it is very good to have the totality between different levels. Being able to pull up the information from different modules, especially from one of those that you want the information to be presented, basically keeps everything clear and quite well-presented. The only downside of the solution is its performance, which is quite low sometimes. But in terms of the best thing about the solution, I can say that it gives you confidence. If you enter the solution and let it stay like it is, there are not going to be any issues or any loss of information for these companies.

The low performance of the solution is probably because it is quite an old tool. Otherwise, you try to use it, and you try to open certain modules, follow some links to open some other requirements, etc. It takes quite a long time to process those inputs, and the loading time can be in minutes. If you try to work your way around some requirements, You need to wait from time to time for the doors from the modules to open and to be set up, and that may put you out of focus since you will need to do a lot of stuff in the meantime.

The solution can be improved because it's quite an old tool, so it's twenty years old at the moment. It doesn't allow some flexibility, especially when considering some of the new tools, like Jira. In Jira, it's quite good in terms of getting Jira available to all those tools. It can also be linked quite easily. You can integrate Jira with all Microsoft, SharePoint, and other tools, and it is not difficult. It can be done in IBM Rational Doors but through DXL coding. So some new tools provide you with more facilities in that regard.

Probably, I would say, to have an interface more friendly so you can tailor the database to your needs for a specific project. At the moment, its needs are DXL-based, and there is a need to have people knowing that around it, which is tough. If it can have a more flexible interface that provides you with some flexibility, then it would be good.

I have been using IBM Rational DOORS for four or five years. I work as a SI in my company. Also, I don't remember the version of the solution I am using.

It's a stable product that is difficult to experience crashes. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable product. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

My clients are usually enterprise-sized businesses.

I haven't used IBM's support. I don't think it's particularly good. When I have to find some information about things like, configurations or some tools online on the IBM database, it's not easy, to be honest. I think it's because maybe not many people would use it or know about it. So, it's not easy to find out on the internet how things work. The information is not available, so it's complex. I rate the support a two out of ten.

Negative

I haven't participated in the installation phase.

I think it's expensive because you have to pay for the licenses to IBM and all that and maintain them. And I think it's quite pricey, but I don't deal with that, so I'm not sure.

If you are quite serious and want everything under control and don't want to make mistakes or deal with the mistakes done, then I can recommend the solution to such individuals. If you are starting to operate from scratch, maybe you should look for other tools in the market that can provide you more facility on cheaper options and are easier to tailor to your needs. If you are already using it, probably keep using it because switching from one in the middle of an operation is quite difficult. But if you are starting to upgrade from scratch, I'll propose you use something else.

I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use IBM Rational DOORS to migrate from DOORS to other systems like MagicDraw. Additionally, we can accept data from these systems and migrate it for storage. This process involves syncing data between various applications.

IBM Rational DOORS is quite stable and useful, especially regarding gathering requirements, addressing them, and linking them. The user interface (UI) is simpler, cleaner, and stable.

One of the most valuable aspects of IBM Rational DOORS is how it structures data. When working on multiple projects, you'll find that each project contains various models. These models are akin to Word but offer additional functionalities. DOORS Security provides capabilities that Word lacks.

Under each module, you can organize requirements hierarchically and trace the requirements via internal and external links. Unlike Microsoft Word, DOORS enables versioning, allowing you to baseline your requirements and effectively freeze them when necessary. These functionalities make the tool highly useful and stand out among similar tools.

When the requirements increase within a single model in IBM Rational DOORS, it takes time to save. The requirements are associated with an absolute number in DOORS. For instance, they possess creation dates, modification dates, and information about the creator of each requirement. One specific attribute is absolute number.'The DOORS database automatically generates this absolute number and remains unmodifiable through the API. Therefore, it is not feasible when migrating data from one DOORS system to another or attempting to alter the absolute number through the API. The database generates this absolute number, which is unchangeable. DOORS cannot control or modify these auto-generated absolute numbers.

I have been using IBM Rational DOORS for a couple of years. We are using both V9.5 and V9.7 of the solution.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

10-15 users are using this solution. Four to five users are using this solution every day.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven to eight out of ten.

Both technical support and documentation are really helpful.

Neutral

The initial setup is simple and takes only half an hour to complete. For deployment, you need to click, provide some inputs, and execute fairly simple actions.

I rate the initial setup a seven to eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

We did the installation by ourselves. One person is enough to do the deployment, depending on the knowledge of software and administration.

There is no maintenance required until your license needs fixing. However, it is entirely maintainable. You don't have to handle any maintenance until you upgrade to the next version of DOORS, and even then, the process remains straightforward.

IBM Rational DOORS is highly useful for project requirement management. I strongly recommend utilizing DOORS for requirement management and offer flexibility.

DOORS is a valuable tool, and it has attracted numerous customers. Many organizations, including Fortune 500 companies, use DOORS for their operations.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We want to use it for requirement management.

The images are not clear. We have to use them as OLE objects. And in the testing part, I'm not sure how to link it with it. This is my main concern.

In future releases, I would like to see importing features. Like can we link it to PLM? And can we link it with Windchill? I found some difficulties when I imported to DOORS. It's easy to explore, but when I import, sometimes it lags, and sometimes the numbering is weird.

I have been using this solution for six months. 

It is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution. We have about 15 end users. We are planning to increase the usage and procure more licenses. 

The customer service and support are good. There is room for improvement in speed of response. 

Neutral

The setup was not easy.

Our IT team handled the deployment. It took them one and a half months. But we have only one working license for now. 

The product is easy to use after we deploy it. We took a training call on it. So I think now it's clear for most of them, but maybe not indeed, but it's enough for users to start working.

The pricing is quite high. We didn't pay for additional support. We didn't need it. They helped us without any cost in the installation part. 

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.

Just to start working on it because I think it will simplify life.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The most valuable feature of this solution is traceability.  We can trace every requirement, including what the stakeholder must do and component-level requirements. We can trace them easily, which is very beneficial.

It is easy to use. You can use it easily. 

It is similar to an improved Excel spreadsheet. It is also simple to use for a newly graduated engineer.

I am not sure if this is due to our infrastructure, but the server is a little slow. Perhaps this is due to our computers or connections. My issue is that it's slow.

I am not sure if the solution is on IBM's or our company's side.

Both the performance and the price could be improved.

I have worked with IBM Rational DOORS for one and a half years.

We are using version 9.7.

The latest version is next generation and we don't use it.

IBM Rational DOORS is very stable.

I would rate the stability of IBM Rational DOORS a nine out of ten.

IBM Rational DOORS is very easy to scale.

It makes no difference to us whether you have 20 or 2,000 requirements. IBM Rational DOORS makes it simple to manage them.

We have about 35 licenses, but there are many more users. They are all float licensees. 

IBM DOORS is used by approximately 60 people.

I have not had any contact with technical support. 

If we have an issue, our IT department is in charge of contacting technical support.

Since last year, I have had no problems.

I don't know because our IT department sets up the program.

It is very expensive.

With five being the most expensive, I would rate it a five out of five. 

I am not sure why it is so expensive, but one license will cost approximately $15,000 in US dollars.

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.

They have a lot of add-ons. I believe they are now on the Cloud; you can use them on the Cloud or on a web browser. I would recommend that version to our company, but I have no suggestions for IBM to include this program.

I just evaluated it for our needs, and it completely meets them. I consider the technical aspects rather than the price.

If I consider the technical aspects alone, I would rate it a ten out of ten. Pricing would be a six or seven out of ten.

I would rate IBM Rational DOORS a nine out of ten.

There are numerous projects that we are using with IBM Rational DOORS. They are isolated from each other and then we receive requirements from outside sources, load them into DOORS, and use them to do traceability into architectures developed in MagicDraw.

It has improved our ability to do traceability back to our initial requirements. The traceability allows us to be able to rapidly advise our sponsors.

I like being able to sort and categorize the requirements and the exporting functions.

I would recommend that fuzzy logic be added to the search capabilities. I think there is probably room to improve by offering free training.

I have been using IBM Rational DOORS for the past ten years.

IBM Rational DOORS is stable.

I think overall it is scalable and has measured up to everything we have tested it with.

I would rate technical support a six on a scale of one to ten. I have tried to contact them twice and never heard anything back.

Neutral

My initial setup and integration were more complex than I was expecting.

I believe they did the deployment in-house.

I would tell them to be very cautious about how they initially import their requirements into the product because that initial import seems to carry more weight and effect than I would have anticipated.

I would rate IBM Rational DOORS a seven out of ten.