IBM DOORS Reviews

We capture the requirements of the clients and gain acceptance. We can also review the requirements and adjust further developments as necessary. 

The data logs are ver conveneint. 

The setup is very easy.

It is user-friendly. 

The speed lags based on the server and the remote connection.

They need to provide users with information on what options would be best for their setup. 

The export of the requirements does not allow me to see the linking of the requirements. I'd like to see some sort of visualization or flow chart so we would have an overview from a system perspective.

I've been using the solution for four years. 

You can request licenses if you need more access from more users. 

I've never contacted technical support. The setup is done, and we have cleared the requirements. We've never had any technical difficulties that needed us to reach out.

You can create a whole server inside the project. It's easy to set up. 

I wasn't directly involved with the deployment and do not know how long it takes. 

You do have to pay for a license per person. 

It is worth the money given the market options. There's good compatibility between you and your clients that makes it valuable. 

We are a customer and end-user. 

We have a server-based deployment. 

The solution has some of the most advanced features on offer, which is why we chose the solution.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It can meet the needs of any developer. However, it does lag a bit. 

IBM Rational DOORS is used as a requirements management tool. It enables you to do full requirements development and testing.

The most valuable feature of IBM Rational DOORS is the full requirements development and testing.

It would be helpful if Microsoft provided a more user-friendly interface for updating and querying updates. Additionally, if there was a way for users to notify developers of any changes in requirements, it would allow for faster and more efficient updates to the solution's architecture. This could be in the form of a notification system that alerts developers of any changes that need to be made. Additionally, the solution is document-driven and it should be more digital.

I have used IBM Rational DOORS for approximately 20 years.

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

We have two people in the company that uses the solution.

We do not have plans to increase usage. We are moving towards a more digital environment where we are using SysML and UML to write requirements instead of text-based messages. IBM Rational DOORS should have the capability to model these requirements, but currently, the add-on they have is not effective.

While a large number of requirements may be present, managing them effectively is a separate challenge. There are various tools available for managing requirements, such as IBM Rational DOORS, but they may not always be sufficient. Effective requirements management is crucial in this field.

The field of engineering is evolving, moving away from traditional methods of management, such as using tools, such as  IBM Rational DOORS to organize and allocate textual requirements. The 2018 DOD strategy for digital engineering highlights this shift towards utilizing models rather than documents in the digital environment. However, many people are still stuck in the old ways and unaware of this change. It is important to keep in mind that the new way of doing things also involves developing architectures using the modeled requirements.

I rate the scalability of IBM Rational DOORS a ten out of ten.

I rate the support of IBM Rational DOORS a ten out of ten.

I have used Excel spreadsheets prior to using IBM Rational DOORS.

The return on investment in system engineering is difficult to quantify as it primarily involves writing clear and comprehensive requirements. While a team may be dedicated to this task, measuring the return on investment can be challenging.

IBM Rational DOORS is highly expensive.

I rate IBM Rational DOORS a nine 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.

I use DOORS to support my customers, who are heavy users of the tool. I try to figure out what's wrong whenever they have some issues. For example, if they need some help, I use the tool to recreate my customers' environments and work with it to find solutions for them. About 10 people in my company do the same thing as me.

When you install DOORS locally, you have the flexibility to do what you want with the solution. You can add functionality and do many things that you can't do with other tools or do well enough to satisfy your users' requirements. For example, you can save linked versions when you do baselines, and then I can handle linked changes between different baselines. You can't do this with other tools, or it's hard to do.

The web application DOORS Web Access doesn't have the same functionality as the standard client, so it's not a real substitute. For example, web Access only provides writing requirements, but you can't do much more with it. If you want to change multiple attributes or something like that, it's better to use the standard client. I would also like to see some improvements in the reporting.

I've been using Rational DOORS off and on since 2001.

DOORS is stable. I have seldom have problems with it.

DOORS is a file-based data storage system, so it isn't that useful for large user communities. If they want to work with the standard client, it is crucial to have a solid connection between the client and the database software because there's a lot of communication back and forth, so the scalability is not so great. Some of my customers have installations with upwards of 100 clients. 

IBM support for DOORS is helpful and quick. You get a real solution in a short time most of the time.

Setting up DOORS is easy, and I can handle it by myself. The initial installation takes around an hour, but the total deployment depends on your environment. However, you can handle it with a remote install, and installing the client itself takes only a few minutes. 

I rate IBM Rational DOORS eight out of 10. 

I am using IBM Rational DOORS for managing engineering requirements.

IBM Rational DOORS has helped our organization because of the sense of configuration baseline. That is key for us. With it, we can create and freeze baselines, put them on the configuration control,  and then use it as evidence. 

What I like about DOORS is baselines, it's easy and I use the capability of multiple users. The traceability or links between different levels are very nice. Additionally, it is used by all of our suppliers, which brings us commonality.

One of the things that many people complain about is it's hard to manage attributes. For example, tables or figures. This is something that can be improved. 

The most important improvement for me right that is needed is based on textual structure type, which has been good, but there are new trends and more model-based are required. For that, it's outdated, it does not work well. It's outdated when it comes to model-based requirements

I have been using IBM Rational DOORS for approximately four years.

The stability of the solution is good. However, you can access the database remotely and when you have too many users, you see the performance reduces. I don't know what the exact threshold is to where the point that it starts affecting the efficiency. I know when there are too many people accessing the database simultaneously, it can get slow.

The scalability is good in the sense you are allowed to have many users, but performance-wise it will decrease if you have too many. However, it can scale in different ways for certain other requirements, it is very good. I have no issues. It's easy to manage.

We have hundreds of people using this solution, mostly in the engineering department.

This solution is being extensively being used in organizations.

I have not used technical support because whenever we have issues, we raise a ticket and the ticket is managed by our IT. If they need any higher-level solution they will contact the IBM Rational DOORS team.

We are using Siemens Teamcenter for the same usage as IBM Rational DOORS, but for different databases, they are not interconnected.

We have an IT department that does the implementation and all the maintenance of the solution.

My advice to others that want to use IBM Rational DOORS is you need to know what is the usage you want to give the solution. If any company wants to do something more mode-based oriented, I would not use IBM Rational DOORS. However, if you have a more textual requirement, IBM Rational DOORS is a good solution.

I rate IBM Rational DOORS a seven out of ten.

We used DOORS to elicit and gather user needs and then document them. We would then document these needs with diagrams and pictures that could be used to implement products and tests. We also used it for traceability purposes.

System engineers, software requirements engineers, software development engineers, software manual test engineers, software automated test engineers, software DevOps teams — these were the people who mainly used this solution.

We went from an ad hoc Word document to a table-driven model that could be reviewed without submitting any documents. That was a big help.

This solution is the Cadillac of similar solutions. I liked that we could export to Excel and Word. We could also link to other off-shelf tools.

Compared to other tools that I have used over the past 20 years, DOORS is the best of the best. It's expensive. It's a heavy-duty tool. 

It would be nice if it could be scaled-down so that it could be installed and implemented without much learning or training. That would also make the price more attractive.

You have to pay the premium price, but if you're a startup company or a medical device company, you'll want to create traceability immediately. It's actually simpler to use it straight out-of-box. It requires a lot of administrative work. The initial setup is not very easy — at least on-premise. A lot of training is required. It should be easier to use. 

I began using this solution in 2000. I used it at my old company; I don't use it anymore.

This solution was very stable. It took our staff a while to transition from previous technology to DOORS. Otherwise, the tool itself was very stable. In the end, people saw the difference. Especially when it came to traceability from the system requirements to the product requirements, to the software requirements.

The technical support was very good. Better than Microsoft.

An implementer did the initial installation. Based on what I heard, it's not easy to install. I don't want to say it was complex, but it wasn't very easy either. It's not just like installing  Word or Microsoft Office — it wasn't that easy.

We were a big organization complete with different teams. There were some disagreements on how the tool should be set up, how the traceability should be set up, etc. These discussions delayed the delivery or the final implementation. Otherwise, it could have been set up quickly. A lot of customers made it much harder. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.

IBM DOOR is the best tool you can purchase; it's the Cadillac of all tools. Don't be scared of its vast amount of features. Use only what you need, and don't panic about the complexity or the completeness of the tool

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.

IBM DOORS delivered substantial value by increasing transparency, quality, compliance, and efficiency in requirements-driven development. When properly configured and embedded into defined engineering processes—as demonstrated in my projects—it significantly reduced project risk, improved product quality, and enabled organizations to successfully deliver complex, safety-critical systems.

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.

In my experience with IBM, I received initial customer requirements, which I stored in an Excel spreadsheet. These are then integrated into DOORS for comprehensive management throughout the project lifecycle, including contractual obligations with suppliers and stakeholder requirements adjustments.

The platform's traceability capabilities are invaluable. They provide a solid foundation for certification processes and manage requirement changes across project lifecycles.

Enhancing security measures, particularly when handling multiple projects simultaneously, would be beneficial to prevent data loss within DOORS.

The platform has proven stable when managing several concurrent projects.

The product is scalable, but it's crucial to ensure robust security measures when managing multiple projects simultaneously.

IBM's support services have been commendable. Their support team was responsive and helpful whenever I needed assistance managing requirements in DOORS.

Positive

IBM DOORS is more user-friendly for requirement management and offers superior traceability compared to Cradle, which has a less intuitive interface.

Setting up the platform can be complex, especially when configuring modules and building diagrams.

I rate the process a seven. 

The product generates a return on investment for large-scale projects where meticulous requirement management is critical for successful outcomes.

The licensing costs for the product are quite high.

I recommend the platform, particularly for its effectiveness in managing complex requirements.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

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

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

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 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.  

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

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

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.   

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.  

Positive

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

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.  

We do all of our own implementations.  

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.  

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 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.