What advice do you have for others considering IBM Rational DOORS?

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.

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

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.

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.

Just to start working on it because I think it will simplify life. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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 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.

Even though it's old, it's efficient, so we are still using it and won't replace it anytime soon. On a scale from one to ten, I would give IBM Rational DOORS a ten.

I rate IBM Rational DOORS a nine out of ten.

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.

I would give Rational DOORS a rating of nine out of ten.

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.

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

I have using and promoting DOORS for more than 10 years. If you take it only as a requirement management tool, I think it is qualified in many fields. But from the ALM/PLM perspective or collaboration/integration view, in my opinion, I suggest you to try some lightweight ALM that contains Requirement managnement module.

Undeniable it is a indeed good tool, but I do not think that IBM has put so many efforts on it. There are a lot of complains from the end user, which lasts for years, bad user-experience, bad integration, unstable system(actually DWA alway crashes, and for it was deployed as a plugin, so seems a little bittle complex) and so on .

The other problem is that the technical support response is very slow, no local support team( only people from business partner),  and the support website(knowledge center, now called doc.ibm.com) has very detailed but messed knowledge about IBM software, the question is that for most customers/users, it was not easy to find valuable info from it.

I rate IBM Rational DOORS eight out of 10.

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.

For anyone wanting to use this solution, it's important to take the time to learn DXL. Don't take it for granted because understanding how it works will make a big difference. I rate the solution six out of 10.

I would rate IBM Rational DOORS a 10 out of 10. The main reason is that it's what our customers use and what we've been using for many years now, and I don't see any reason to change, frankly.

I would definitely recommend DOORS to people who need this kind of solution. You would probably need to have a reasonably large-sized project to use it because of the cost. But I can definitely recommend it if the need is there. On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate IBM Rational DOORS as about a seven-of-ten, I reckon. What would need to be included to improve that score is probably cloud hosting.

Although I cannot say with certainty, I do not believe my company has a business relationship with IBM. I do not know which version of the solution we are currently using. I would recommend the solution to other organizations. Overall, I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. While it's largely helpful, there are just a few things, like unresponsive technical support and difficulty with the general learning curve, which could make it more user-friendly.

Our organization does have some commercial agreements with IBM. We're more of a customer, however. We arent an IBM partner. Whether this would be the correct solution for a company depends on the installation and requirements. You'll need to prepare a specific environment for the company according to how it works. Therefore, it depends on the customization requirements. If they want it related to the environment itself or not, there may be some complexity in the setup that needs to be planned for. That said, I would recommend the solution overall. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's pretty good, however, it could improve its overall performance.

We are currently using IBM Rational DOORS on-premises but we are trying to migrate everything over to a Cloud service. IBM Rational DOORS is good for privacy, it's good for the management of software requirements, and also for keeping everything organized. It does a pretty good job. I would rate IBM Rational DOORS an eight out of ten.

My advice for anybody who is implementing IBM Rational DOORS is to start using it early in the program and use it consistently. In other words, don't let people do their own thing. Instead, come up with a standard process of what you do, which attributes you can use, consistent attribute naming, and consistent standard views. This way, everybody is using the same thing. There will always be custom things coming up later, but you need to have a core standard. For example, every program will have 10 standard views and 40 standard attributes, which enforces consistency. As you go from program to program, people can understand it. That's all part of the initial setup phase, where you make sure that everybody is doing the same thing. One of the things that I've been a big advocate for over the years is to remove the human from the process as much as possible. For example, I have to generate a file from DOORS to put in my configuration management tool for a formal release. This is usually a Microsoft Word file. The problem comes about when people edit the file after it is generated because they want to change the formating and other such things. When this happens, there is a risk of human error. Although there are ways to minimize this, I can't eliminate it. As it is now, I have no way of taking the human out of the loop completely. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Our requirement is not for a huge database, just around 30,000 records. It's a shame that IBM Rational DOORS Classic is so slow in accessing such a small number of records. It's really new to the data architecture approach from the past, that is, from Telelogic. In the new version, they no longer support Excel. So, we have to redo the whole configuration of the project, which takes a lot of time and energy. When I look at other solutions based on the results of the benchmark analysis, they look easier to work or install. I'm also looking into the capability to export, and I got several issues with IBM, especially with the OSAC interface. There are some questions on the IBM website to assess whether it will really work or whether it is a limitation. Because it is not a well-defined limitation, you have to try. When you try and spend a lot of time and energy and do extra work, you find the limitations in what you can do, which makes it very slow. In the past, IBM Rational DOORS was the best solution for me because it was the only one but today, people are not really attached to IBM Rational DOOR. They have to use it, but I'm not convinced that they're really attached to it. I would rate this solution a five out of ten. It is complex, doesn't work as expected, and isn't easy to illustrate. I would expect IBM to have something better prepared, better integrated, and more compatible with I could do in the past.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is that if you're looking for a relational database, then it's probably not the first place that I would go. People are going to use it because the client requires it, as in our case, rather than because you choose it. There are much better database setups out there, which are scalable for non-IT database people. The learning curve is much shallower because they're designed from the ground up to work as a database for normal people. Overall, DOORS is old and clunky but it does what it is supposed to do. The interface hasn't changed forever because there's no drive to make it easier to use. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The difficulty with implementing this solution is that you are asking the organization to change its processes. The important part is, however, that you are trying to improve the quality of the systems. You have to maintain the customer's vision and show that the goals will be reached, but done more efficiently. In the end, you have to give the customer every assurance that the work is done in its entirety. This is a solution that I recommend. If people need to write specifications in the context of engineering then I think that this is the best solution on the market. If on the other hand, you want to manage requirements, then I don't think that it is an appropriate tool. Similarly, DOORS is a good tool because you have to maintain compliance with all of the requirements during development. If you have a supplier with no needs or requirements then it is not at all an appropriate tool. Overall, it is a good solution but they need to update the user interface. If they also lower the price then it would be perfect. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

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.

If you have a high number of requirements to manage and if there is a need to sustain these baseline of requirements for a couple of years, it is the right solution for you. However, if you have a small project, it's not mandatory. In the next release of this product I would like to see a better user interface. I would like it to have the capacity to include drawing and to produce KPIs on the requirement baseline. Also, the kind of dashboard is not very convenient. On a scale from 1 to 10, I rate this product a seven.

The solution can be used in the studio environment, but you need to manage it correctly. I would rate the solution six out of ten.

My advice for anybody looking to implement this solution is to first get the processes right, and then look for the tools. The whole idea behind this solution is great but, the execution and the handling is old fashioned. It would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now. I would rate this solution a six out of ten.