IBM DOORS Reviews

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.

We use the solution internally in our organization.

The product creates an ID for each requirement update. It is very detailed. The product enables users to divide the requirements and export them. So, I need not give my customers access to my database. They can review it and send it back. The next-generation features are good.

The customer must also have the tool to import the changes and accept them as a part of the review. It is a disadvantage to us if the customer does not use the tool.

I have been using the solution for two years.

We do a lot of testing compared to other companies. We face a lot of downtime, even for a normal website. There are a lot of bugs, but the vendor has not solved anything yet.

The initial setup was difficult. My organization did the deployment. Online licensing includes a lot of processes that I am not aware of. Once the organization installed the solution, I requested an additional license. It is difficult to use the tool. The solution is deployed on my laptop. I have an internal link to access the product and GUI.

The licensing cost is too high.

If I had considered the latest next-generation features, it would have been easier for me. I'm not a full-time requirement engineer. I am exploring other tools. My organization decides which tools to use. Overall, I rate the tool a six out of ten.

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.

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. 

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.