IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) Reviews

For companies in heavily regulated industries who are doing product development, IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is a good tool. It helps them create documentation that satisfies auditors.

I find the requirement management part of IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) most valuable because it is probably not the best, but it has less competition. They stand out in the market.

I think usability should be improved in IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) as the top priority. If you look at the UI, it was literally designed ten years ago, and even at the time it was introduced, it was already somewhat outdated. Even though it is a professional tool, nowadays people expect at least some level of usability from their tools, regardless of how professional the task is.

Additionally, if you want to utilize it on a wide scale in an organization, you need to train every person to use it. There is always a threshold for new users to start using it.

I have been working with this tool for around fifteen years.

I would rate their technical support not very high, from one to ten. They are really slow and not very coherent. They have really skilled people there, but it is somewhat random who handles your request. The response times are extremely long.

I would give their technical support a maximum of five out of ten, which would be reasonable. They do what they promise legally. They will answer within seventy-two hours, but it is normally seventy-one hours, which is still three days. If you are a consultant on the customer side, waiting three days for the answer can feel unreasonable. I think that is a good description.

Neutral

In my opinion, the good competition for IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) includes Atlassian tools along with Polarion RM and Jama Connect. I have been working with these tools and I would say that they are competitive tools when talking on a wide scale about requirements management. I am seeing IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) mainly focused on that due to the projects I have. However, I would say that in some cases, IBM DOORS Next is the only tool that can really solve the problem. It is the most capable and has the most features. For example, the Global Configuration Management feature is for very large, highly regulated product development organizations. It is the only choice you can make.

It is an SAP equivalent if you do large-scale ERP. It is a tool that makes the thing work. It is not easy. However, many companies make the mistake of not understanding the level they are at or what their target level is. If they are an agile, medium-sized technology company having quite many products and small products, and they work in an agile way, then DOORS Next is definitely not for them. It is too complex and does not really support agile working. In that case, Jira Confluence with the right plugins is probably a perfect match.

When I say industry standard, if we take an average listed company that has some embedded products, perhaps a car manufacturer is too big, but if we say something in the elevator industry, such as a company that Hitachi, Kone, or Schindler represent, they probably are best off with Polarion or Jama Connect. Those are the mid-range tools. They are web-based, they can support a large amount of data, you can create nice reports, and they work up to a certain scale the best. They are also easy to use because the user interface is not full of complex buttons and features.

I would rate IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) eight out of ten overall, but it is of course difficult to tell compared to what. If it is compared to tools for advanced requirements management, then it is even higher. However, if it is compared to the general industry average needs, then it is probably too much. My overall review rating for this product is eight out of ten.

Most of my primary use cases involve the combination of IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) and DOORS, including both Classic DOORS and DNG. I bring these tools together with data exchange, graphical exchange, and a lot of customizing for testing, linking, analysis, and document generation.

The most valuable feature is how IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) allows me to present to the customer what the actual software, even hardware, will do. It helps them gain an impression of the complexity of the functionality and find an easier way to decide whether to implement it. A picture says more than one thousand words, which is why I work with the combination of ELM and the specification of DOORS. The automation capabilities I built use column-based scripts for analysis to search, fetch, and transfer information. When I open modules, it automatically analyzes the changes since the last opening by me.

Improvement is needed in bridging DNG and Rhapsody and vice versa for better data exchange from both sides with some trigger technologies. This would provide a visual reminder of changes in a module, allowing direct access to the Rhapsody module and optimizing requirement definitions. The complexity of Rhapsody and the lack of user-friendliness compared to competitors like Enterprise Architect is notable. Additionally, the interaction between Classic DOORS and DNG with Rhapsody lacks an easy-to-understand structure.

I have been working with IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) for more than 20 years.

There were some difficulties with the deployment due to the complex structure demanded by clients. The combination between Classic DOORS and Rhapsody runs fine, but the interaction between Classic DOORS and DNG in cooperation with Rhapsody is not straightforward.

No support was available concerning Rhapsody's compliance with industry regulations because most clients work with Enterprise Architect. The technical support was mainly focused on programming, especially concerning customizing and finding different functions in the source code.

Neutral

I have observed that competitors like Enterprise Architect, which is more user-friendly, offer some intelligent models to use and customize according to needs. This tool is more flexible compared to IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM).

The initial setup was not easy. It relied on personal contacts and sharing code snippets with IBM colleagues for successful customization and setup.

Regarding pricing, IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is not competitive compared to Enterprise Architect. In the past, I couldn't specify in detail, as I bought a whole package for eighteen thousand Swiss francs. A change in IBM's licensing model could improve this.

Competitors like Enterprise Architect from Australia, which is more user-friendly, offer some intelligent models to use and customize according to individual needs.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) between five to seven. It is essential for IBM to focus on integrating its various tools into one cohesive tool to prevent losing customers. I would recommend IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) to others because, at the end of the day, the IBM tools were not bad. However, IBM needs to change the perception that customers are only cash cows, as it is detrimental to their relationship. If IBM doesn't address this, it may lose more customers in the future. I am a registered developer and have been working as a managing director for six years.

On-premises

We use IBM Rational ALM as part of our overall application suite for our manufacturing company. It is used by our engineering team to capture requirements, perform testing, and manage defects. Specifically, my test team uses this tool to capture test cases, raise defects, and map requirements to test cases.

IBM Rational ALM has made it much better for business teams to track everything in relation to requirements. It saves time and provides management with a central view on the overall status and dashboard. It also has reporting capabilities.

The transition to a SaaS-based solution is a distinct advantage. Additionally, its integration with other IBM tools, such as IBM Doors, is beneficial for capturing detailed requirements and mapping those to test cases, aiding teams that handle intricate requirements documentation. It's also cost-effective compared to other tools in the market. Its reporting and dashboard capabilities add another layer of value.

The user interface requires significant improvement as it is overly complex. For business users with no experience in IT, it can be particularly challenging to understand the UI and create test cases or scenarios. 

Simplifying the technical terminologies and breaking it down to simpler terms would be beneficial, especially for users involved in user acceptance testing.

I have been using IBM ALM for close to three years.

Overall, IBM Rational ALM is a stable solution.

IBM Rational ALM offers good scalability capabilities, working on the number of seats available to users.

Customer support from IBM could be improved. There is often a delay in receiving responses when requesting support for some topics. I would rate the support at six out of ten.

Neutral

IBM Rational ALM provides value for money, especially when considering that it replaces previous practices of using Excel sheets. 

It offers better tracking and connectivity with requirements, saving time and providing comprehensive status views and reporting capabilities.

The licensing cost of IBM Rational ALM is relatively less expensive compared to other tools available in the market.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Public Cloud

Other

The team of 15 to 20 software engineers uses IBM Rational ALM and Jira for testing. They coupled different online packages together because the Duration Enterprise was impossible to use.

IBM Rational ALM did not help the organization and we ended up moving to another solution.

The most valuable feature is that the solution is Cloud-based.

The word emulation and importing is good.

The interconnectivity between packages is a major support problem and can be improved.

I would like to have better trace matrix ability in the solution.

I have been using the solution for almost two years.

I give the stability a four out of ten.

I give the scalability a seven out of ten. We had hundreds of employees using the solution.

The organization transitioned from IBM Rational ALM to Atlassian.

The initial setup is complex and requires around 15 people to deploy.

The implementation was completed in-house.

I have not seen a return on investment with IBM Rational ALM.

I give the solution a four out of ten.

I do not recommend this solution.

Public Cloud

IBM

We have three modules. The DOORS module is for requirements. RTC is for storage planning and workflow planning. We also use the module for quality. We use IBM Rational ALM as the main tool to plan development.

The solution is customizable. It is quite strong in compliance and auditing. The audit trail is quite good. We can link everything together.

We have some special needs. The product does not support our needs perfectly. The GUI is a little bit outdated. There are not many diagrams that help us organize or plan the work for the team.

The reporting capabilities are the bare minimum. There might be a more sophisticated setup, but I do not know about it. I believe Jira could provide a lot more. Planning is not that easy. We can’t plan for sprints. The product is missing a lot of features.

The compliance and auditing features are not easy for the users. We need to push the users to use ALM. Otherwise, they do not use it. The GUI must be improved. If we create a story from an epic, there’s always a new window opened. It doesn’t help our workflow as a PO to create stories and keep the overview. The way users are guided through the system must be improved.

I have been using the solution for around five years.

Sometimes, loading backlogs take several minutes. Sometimes, it gets stuck while loading. The tool is a bit slow. If we change something in the backlog, we have to reload the whole backlog. Otherwise, we get an error. I rate the stability a four out of ten.

The tool is scalable. We have 15 users on our team. There are more than 100 users in our organization.

The solution is hosted on-premise.

I am currently evaluating Jira.

We do not create software. We started two years ago. We have separate disciplines. Our internal support team escalates things to the external support team. I'm not happy with IBM Rational ALM. People who want to use the product must compare functions and prices before they choose it. They must test it properly. Overall, I rate the product a five out of ten.

On-premises

We suggest to the clients that we do the R&D from our side. So if we feel that it's a stable version, and after monitoring multiple things, then only because it's the best version for the customer, along with the fix-panel, if any is required.

For most of the customers, we recommend the latest version. Because in the latest version, it will be day by day, it will keep on giving updates. And we'll see the performance increase. That's why we do the initial R&D, and then if we feel it's really stable, we only recommend it to the customer.

Maybe there should be more integration—the possibility with the third-party tools.

Looking for more integrations specifically with third-party tools that customers can easily access to perform automation without affecting the system. 

Additionally, some improvements to the user interface (UI) would be helpful, such as exposing more services to make it easier to customize to the needs of each customer.

In the next releases, I would like to see the ability to customize reporting without having to rely on a separate tool. So currently, for any customization with respect to reporting from the tool, we still depend on the reporting tool called the publishing engine. So, instead of depending on the publishing engine, we must have a capability that should be available in the next coming version.

I have been using this solution for seven years. I'm involved in all aspects. That includes implementation, using the product, and providing consulting services, handling everything.

I am currently using version 7.0.2.0.7.

I would rate the stability of this product a nine out of ten.   

I would rate the scalability of this product a nine out of ten. It is very scalable and can handle large numbers of users and transactions.

I have clients of all sizes, from small businesses to large enterprises.

The customer service and support are responsive and helpful, but there have been a few times when it has taken a long time to resolve an issue.

Positive

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy. 

It's easy, but it takes time to learn the initial level. It is easier and makes it more comfortable when it comes to compliance.

The deployment model depends upon the customer. If they want to maintain the cloud, we'll deploy it on the cloud. If they want to the on-prem, then we'll deploy on-prem.

The time taken depends on the topology of the deployment. For a vanilla deployment, it can be done in a day. For a complex deployment at the global level, it can take a week or more.

It's the way the tool the user uses it. And how he gets benefits out of it. So, I would rate the pricing of this product a six out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. It is not the cheapest product on the market, but it is not the most expensive either.

I would recommend this product.  

I would suggest working on all the major collaborative platforms where the entire project people want to collaborate and work at one location and want to store the data in one place and share it.

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

Hybrid Cloud

I use IBM Rational ALM to provide solutions to various customers for their end-to-end development, like requirement gathering. The solution's RM tool is used for live traceability.

We have something called the GC (global configuration), which is a unique feature compared to any other competitor we have in the ALM space.

IBM Rational ALM should remove the features not used by the customers and keep this product as lightweight as possible.

I have been using IBM Rational ALM for maybe the last ten years.

The solution's stability is really good unless the server goes down.

IBM Rational ALM is a scalable solution. More than 1,000 of our customers use the solution.

IBM Rational ALM's technical support team could be faster because it takes a little more time to get a solution from them.

IBM Rational ALM's initial setup depends upon what kind of solution you are expecting. If you're looking to use the solution on a small scale, its initial setup is very simple. However, on a bigger scale, its setup is going to be a little bit complex.

Although we have scripts, we manually deploy the solution because we can't implement the scripts across the customer place. Manually deploying the solution takes two to three days, but it could be done faster with scripts.

IBM Rational ALM has both monthly and yearly licensing options.

We have around 300 developers already working on this product.

IBM Rational ALM is the best tool in the market for anyone looking for an end-to-end solution for the ALM platform.

Overall, I rate IBM Rational ALM a nine out of ten.

We used the complete suite of IBM Rational ALM for development and work with the infrastructure to put the application right. I'm in charge of the team, that is working with the tools, and this solution is one of them. I work with the team and approve or not to go to live with the application and modifications to the application.

One of the key advantages of IBM Rational ALM is its workflow capabilities, which enable seamless collaboration between development and production teams and ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the progress and readiness of the solution. Additionally, the solution is good for integration.

The solution can improve in the development area and the customized applications.

I have been using IBM Rational ALM for approximately two years.

IBM Rational ALM is stable.

IBM Rational ALM is scalable. 

We have a large team of 30 people using the solution.

I have not used a similar solution prior to IBM Rational ALM.

The implementation took approximately three months to launch the application, with two of those months dedicated to implementing the technological changes at the company. We utilized various tools, such as IBM Rational ALM, and followed the CMMI model for improvement. The teams are responsible for different areas and were tasked with implementing the applications and procedures to utilize these tools.

We worked with a consulting partner of the vendor.

We have approximately 12 specialists that maintain this solution.

The application is good, but it requires a team with a clear concept to successfully implement it. It's not easy to just launch it without a clear direction. The tool itself is good, but it's important to have a team that understands the client's needs and has a clear plan for the development process in order to set up the application according to those needs.

I rate IBM Rational ALM an eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

We are a software development company and I am a tech manager. My role includes managing the IBM ALM and GitLab tools. We have IBM ALM installed in a virtualized environment but not on the cloud.

The features for creating workflows are flexible and powerful.

The integration with Git works well. We use Git for code versioning, and it is integrated with ALM. The combination of these is good because ALM is better for the process and the requirements, whereas Git is better for version control.

The user experience is something that can be improved. People ask me about getting a more modern and more innovative user interface. One of the complaints from users is that they have to click buttons too many times for just a simple task. Changing this would lead to a better user experience.

ALM should use Git for code versioning but it doesn't. Instead, we integrate it with Git instead. IBM should buy a Git company such as GitLab because that would greatly improve their version control capabilities in the CI/CD pipeline.  With respect to DevOps, both GitLab and GitHub are better than ALM

It would be helpful if it were easier to set up. This would save us money because hiring an expert to do it is a little bit expensive. If we could instead do it ourselves then it would save this cost.

I have been working with IBM Rational ALM for ten years.

This is not a very stable solution. We have to reboot frequently.

I don't know how scalable this product is. We have approximately 6,000 users but whether it might support 10,000 or 12,000 is something that I don't know because I haven't tried it.

It runs inside a mainframe computer that has a lot of power. However, even with 6,000 users, it is not very stable.

Technical support for this product is good. They are very helpful.

We are currently using version 6 and plan to migrate to version 7.

The initial setup is hard to do. We required assistance from the vendor.

We paid a full-time IBM employee to work with us and set it up. This was needed because the setup is not very simple to do.

This product is a little expensive and we had to pay extra to have them set it up for us.

My advice for anybody who is considering IBM ALM is that it's a little expensive, but it's good. It's very flexible and powerful for creating workflows. In fact, it's the best solution available for creating workflows. On the downside, the instability requires that you reboot it, once or twice per week. If this were improved then it would be great because this product is very good for implementing processes in your company.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

On-premises

I use IBM Rational ALM in my daily work to verify the engineering tools to see the visibility aspects in different CLM facilities.

It's easy to use.

The stability of IBM Rational ALM could be improved.

I have been using IBM Rational ALM for two years.

IBM Rational ALM is not that stable, at least in our company, it has several issues.

IBM Rational ALM is a scalable solution. It is used by everyone in our organization. We have thousands of users.

I have not contacted technical support. We have a team internally that does everything for us.

I used Jira, a long time ago. I have not used it for two years.

We switched to IBM Rational ALM because Jira was not a complete Application solution for ALM.

We have a contract, but I am not aware of the details.

If it is used the way it was designed to be used, it could be a higher grade, but it depends a lot on how people are using it.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

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

Public Cloud