IBM Rational ALM Reviews

We use the solution for engineering requirements and tests.

All the features are valuable. Everyone in a team can work on the same platform and share the same information.

The product must be more user-friendly.

I have been using the solution for more than ten years.

I manage 500 people who use the product.

Administrators do the initial setup.

The solution is not cheap. It is worth the money, though. The proof is that people have been using it for more than ten years without switching to a different product.

I recommend the tool to others. Someone with a team of more than 20 members must use the tool. I'm a consultant. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use IBM Rational ALM for processing. We are following a real process. As part of that, we can configure features and the stories and schedule release plans. If there is a backlog of stories, we can configure it properly. 

IBM Rational ALM is a very good tool. I like the management and traceability features and the test management tool. The latter is not linked with the stories and fixed management. It is really useful, and we can create test plans. We can also test some metrics related to QA.

In the next release, we expect a traceability metrics configuration where we can configure the user stories. We also expect them to improve or simplify the query process.

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

IBM Rational ALM is a stable solution.

IBM Rational ALM is a scalable solution. We have almost 3,000 people using this solution.

Technical support is very helpful.

I worked with HP ALM on a project before using IBM Rational ALM. HP ALM and IBM Rational ALM are similar, but HP ALM is a little easier to use, understand, and navigate. There is a dependency on HP ALM, and it works only with Internet Explorer. IBM Rational ALM does not have any specific conditions.

Both solutions can do the same thing. That means testing business requirements, mapping, and releasing mapping hierarchically. There are so many options in HP ALM concerning business and project users. They can generate reports.

We can get all the details and conduct some analysis. In IBM Rational, we have to set up queries and provide the correct information to receive accurate results. 

I would tell potential users that they can implement IBM Rational ALM. It is scalable, usable, and reliable. It is also user-friendly and can be used with any browser.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give IBM Rational ALM an eight.

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.

The cataloging is a very valuable feature. For a lot of enterprises, they end up not knowing which applications do specific features. The cataloging helps with this. It's not that verbose but it still gives you allowances to put in more detail. 

The cataloguing needs some improvement. It needs to be a bit more in-depth.

It's an application that is supposed to do more governance around the application lifecycle. The features should be more intuitive. If I'm looking for something, its location should be easy to locate.

I'm impressed with the solution's stability. 

The solution is pretty scalable.

Technical support is good. If you run into issues, they can always walk you through what they recommend you do and work with the documentation. IBM's dedication has always been documentation versus actual. 

The initial setup is easy. It's just a few clicks. Deployment only takes a few minutes. It does come down to how you are implementing it, however. If it's a more complex deployment, it may take longer.

I implement the solution and I'm an IBM partner as well.

For those considering implementing the solution, I'd advise when they're doing their planning, that they begin with the end in mind. Before they even start to consider the software, they should first know what they plan to achieve. They have to have a clear goal that they hope to achieve with the solution. Then they can build the tool. It will make it easier to implement and use.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

IBM Rational ALM is mainly used for configuration management and version control. We use it in the automotive sector, which it has a lot of use in, and is certified.

The tools for requirement capture we have found very useful.

I think nowadays people are getting into Jira and other tools. What is happening is, this solution is becoming more traditional, whereas Jira and other tools are more attractive for the new users to learn and start using because of the graphical interfaces. All the traditional users are continuing with this solution, while new users they are preferring Jira.

The solution could improve by providing an entire engineering life cycle management solution. When we want to use the solution we feel that it could be better because currently, we use SAP for a lot of our engineering life cycle management obligations, and IBM Rational ALM is only for mainly software management applications. It should be extended and provide more coverage from end to end, which would be helpful.

I have been using IBM Rational ALM for the past 10 years.

The solution is stable.

We did not have any problems with scalability.

The support from IBM was very good.

The installation is not difficult, and the whole process, such as practicing, and onboarding, took three months.

The price of the solution could be reduced. Many of our customers are not using all the features and this could be why our clients feel the price is too high.

I have evaluated other solutions, such as Jira.

I rate IBM Rational ALM a seven out of ten.

I work as Q&A engineer in addition to supporting CALM management. I use it for daily, day-to-day user activities.

It certainly helps from the requirement management for the deployment phase. Starting with the requirement engineering the customer requirements certification and then to the system requirement analysis, the designing. The tool is quite collaborative. There is no need for overhead in getting the requirements from the requirement management side. 

There is a clear picture between the requirement and the development. The development is done in the Rational Team Concert. The resources are being maintained in addition to the work item. It gives us a clear picture of what needs to be developed and what the risks are.

Once the development activities have been frozen they can be moved to the development or to the testing team, the testing team can get to the common data system, but that's for integration. They then log their test cases, the test functions, and can get feedback in terms of any defects or any risk. At the same time, if you're working from the architect or the designing team, it's quite easy to manage the resources online. It helps us in our day to day activities of maintaining the development lifecycle. 

Abilities to share ideas in terms of tasks, lifecycle traceability from requirement to development to testing and designs gives a clear understanding of the system.

Support for working with traditional methodologies must be extended if IBM wants to expand horizon in the System engineering domain. You cannot really work in the traditional way of development. In the automotive industry here we tend to follow the Agile methodology.

The designer manager is uncivil. The design manager is clearly really unstable.

In the next release, I would like to see traditional methodologies working within the tool and a traditional planning book in the toolbar. 

Stability depends on the tool. The Rational Team Concert is quite stable, Rational DOORS Next Generation is stable, and Quality Manager is somewhat stable. Rational Design Manager isn't even 25% stable. I would rate the overall stability as 7.5 out of ten. 

The tool is quite scalable, from the deployment side or be it be from the tool functionality side. If you are a part of the development teams it helps you. But I'll say there is room for improvement that could help us. For example, in regards to DOORS and Rational Team Concert, the development with respect to the Java script is limited, while for Java, the capacity is quite huge.

It's scalable but you need a lot of background knowledge if you want to scale the solution.

In my company, we have four or five locations in total, so all together we have somewhere around 500, 600 users. 

The deployment and maintenance only require two to three people but they don't work on it full time. 

We did have plans to increase usage in the past. Recently, we have had some struggles with our events. We had some problems with Rhapsody Design Manager. It took me six months to get it stable and I still struggle with it. I don't think that we'd increase the userbase anytime in the future. 

The technical support is good but there is too much of hierarchy. It takes a lot of time to get to the right person. 

The initial process of setting up the environment I wouldn't say it's complex. But depending on the consideration, like the requirements, if you're going into enterprise-level of full deployment, you need to keep in mind certain inputs there's certain room for enhancement available within the tool. Although, it's quite straightforward. 

Deployment took two or three weeks.

It's a good solution. It's comprehensive. The support is good. If you want to develop your own customized use cases there are better solutions than this one, like JIRA. 

I would rate it between a six and seven out of ten.

We use the on-premises deployment model of this solution.

It helped us contain critical things, like source code and several documents, which is very important to us.

Of course, it would be related to customer experience. The solution is not user-friendly at all. It needs an expert to use it, although the reporting feature was okay.

I'm fine with the tool. From my point of view, it's all about usability. It should be simplified and it should be more user-friendly.

Its stability is perfect.

The scalability of this solution is good. 

Currently, the IT and software development departments are using this solution. I believe that is about 50 people.

The initial setup was too complex. The installation process was the responsibility of one of our system administrators. It can't be easily installed by normal users. They have additional materials on how to install it, but I believe it's too complex.

The decision was made, because we are partners, so we could do the installation ourselves.

When giving a recommendation, I would say that if you are looking for stability, you have to go for this product. If you are concerned with usability and simplicity of the product, I would recommend Microsoft Team Foundation or JIRA instead.

The problem is the complexity of the installation and it's not user-friendly regarding the usability.

I would rate this tool as six out of ten, with a low rating due to the usability issues.

We began using this product in 2014 as a work management tool. After that, we gained knowledge of the Agile framework and implemented these features in Rational. We now have five scrum teams, all of them using this solution for scrum planning. This includes dashboards and the Kanban view in order to support them.

The most valuable features are the customizability, workflow, and Kanban components. You can customize the board according to your needs.

The reporting functionality needs to be improved. They have developed a reporting model but it is not available out-of-the-box. It is especially important when we are talking about Kanban and KPIs. We have some metrics related to lead time and throughput, but we cannot produce them out-of-the-box.

There are two features called the Program Board and Quick Learning that need administrator access to use. This is risky and it is not good practice to have more than one administrator on the tool, so the problem is that we can't give this level of access to normal users and it is an obstacle in the way of using these features.

We have been using IBM Rational ALM for about six years, since 2014.

We are happy with the scalability, although it is related to licensing. We have different types of licensing including concurrent floating and stakeholder. I think that we have 12 concurrent licenses and a total of 50 users who are assigned to these different concurrent pools.

To this point, we have not needed to scale. If we extend the functionality and integrate it with the DevOps tool, with respect to continuous integration and continuous deployment, then we may increase our usage.

We normally rely on our local vendor for support. We did contact IBM in the Dubai office one time. They were responsive and we were happy with the support.

We did not use a similar solution prior to choosing this one.

The implementation is easy and the initial setup is straightforward. Having knowledge of the Agile framework and the scrum practices help very much when it comes to setting it up. Without this knowledge, you will not be able to maximize the benefit of this product.

We have a local vendor who assisted us with the deployment.

My advice for anybody who is implementing IBM Rational ALM is to have the right balance of trained people. They need to know about the Agile framework, using the tool, and how to customize it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.