System Engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5
2024-04-12T16:13:40Z
Apr 12, 2024
IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation has room for improvement compared to other tools like Polaris and Jama Connect. These tools offer more flexibility and options for developers, which IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation lacks. For example, you can define your link rules in Jama Connect, but you can't do that in IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation.
Senior Technical Product Manager at a engineering company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
2023-12-26T09:38:56Z
Dec 26, 2023
IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is not a very user-friendly product. From an improvement perspective, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation needs to be made a very user-friendly product.
Project System Engineer at a aerospace/defense firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2022-12-13T15:04:27Z
Dec 13, 2022
It does have a tendency to condense the requirements. It kind of puts them in a tree format. Sometimes those trees are a little difficult. Unless you're used to using it daily, how it truncates everything and kind of rolls things up can be a little bit challenging. That said, I don't know if there's an easier way to do that.
The user interface of IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation needs to be improved, there is a lot of scope with this. Even though there have been improvements from versions five, six and seven, the UI still has a lot of bugs. There is room for improvement in the APIs that they have exposed for integration. The solution relies on OSLC for integration APIs, but those APIs do not support all the capabilities.
System Engineering Manager at a wholesaler/distributor with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2022-08-18T20:26:02Z
Aug 18, 2022
I would say the only additional feature would be if it had dynamic linking to other MBSE tool sets or industry-leading tools. That way you could have that link and not have to do a manual insert or translate the data to an Excel-based product and then use the Excel to load into DOORs.
Technical Sales Specialist at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2022-01-04T21:37:00Z
Jan 4, 2022
This solution is currently having some performance issues because they changed the data storage in the back between version 6 and version 7, so it needs some performance improvement. The data storage is the relational database in the background, and it has changed and needs performance improvement. Performance is a very big thing that is needed when people are writing requirements. They have to wait too long for the page to return and then they don't like it. They are looking for different ways to do and complete their work. Good performance is very essential in this tool, same for DOORS Classic. There is also a lot of possibilities to improve reporting.
Software Engineering Consultant at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Consultant
2020-06-18T05:17:47Z
Jun 18, 2020
It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor. A lot of engineers do not use it, primarily for two reasons. First, it is very abstract and hard to understand. Second, the operation seems to be very complex. For example, the setting is distributed in a lot of section and it is not easy to find where to configure it. The baseline is not as good as it is in DOORS because you can't create a baseline for a module. Rather, you can only create on for the project. The speed of technical support needs to be improved. The DOORS Web Access (DWA) is not stable.
Associate Director Systems Engineering & Safety Assurance at AECOM Technology Corporation
Real User
2020-04-02T07:00:10Z
Apr 2, 2020
I find the tool clunky, user experience is very dependent on the configuration of the tool for which you require a facilitator, and the setup/configuration fees can be expensive. Overall, it seems like DOORS Rational and DOORS NG, have been written by software developers for software developers. They haven't thought about the standard project team that is actually going to use the system. In comparison ComplyPro it's completely different. ComplyPro interface is easier to use, it's almost like using a spreadsheet and is more intuitive. The whole layout of DOORS could be improved, it's too rigid and requires professional support to change. DOORS is very difficult for novice users to use. For example its common to export requirements to a spreadsheet for designers to insert verification / validation evidence and then import the data, this creates extra work for our requirements management team that could be avoided. DOORS needs to be a more intuitive product. It needs more spreadsheet-like features. The DOORS team need to understand how real world users are using the tool and make configuration and data entry easier.
CEO at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2019-12-04T05:40:00Z
Dec 4, 2019
The tool is quite new, so it may not be a mature product, but I haven't spent enough time with it to have a list of improvements that it needs. When you are in JIRA or Confluence, you have some freedom in how you type in the text. That's also a weakness of Confluence, however, as it opens the doors to sloppy work. In DOS Next Generation, the text is very rigorous, but it might be difficult for people who don't have the discipline. Having a way to quickly enter requirements could help. It might already be in there, but I don't know. I don't have enough experience with the tool yet.
CIO at a comms service provider with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
2019-08-12T05:55:00Z
Aug 12, 2019
An area that could be improved is user interface which is not very intuitive. Product is also Java based and we have a lot of issues with performance (at beginning). Resolution of all problems takes a lot of time. ALso upgrades of product are from our experience very painful.
IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS Next (DOORS Next) is a requirements management (RM) software designed to help organizations manage engineering project requirements throughout the development lifecycle. It offers a central location for capturing, defining, and organizing project requirements, facilitating collaboration among stakeholders like engineers, system designers, and customers. Key features include requirements traceability, version control, and impact analysis. DOORS...
IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation has room for improvement compared to other tools like Polaris and Jama Connect. These tools offer more flexibility and options for developers, which IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation lacks. For example, you can define your link rules in Jama Connect, but you can't do that in IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation.
IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is not a very user-friendly product. From an improvement perspective, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation needs to be made a very user-friendly product.
It does have a tendency to condense the requirements. It kind of puts them in a tree format. Sometimes those trees are a little difficult. Unless you're used to using it daily, how it truncates everything and kind of rolls things up can be a little bit challenging. That said, I don't know if there's an easier way to do that.
The user interface of IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation needs to be improved, there is a lot of scope with this. Even though there have been improvements from versions five, six and seven, the UI still has a lot of bugs. There is room for improvement in the APIs that they have exposed for integration. The solution relies on OSLC for integration APIs, but those APIs do not support all the capabilities.
I would say the only additional feature would be if it had dynamic linking to other MBSE tool sets or industry-leading tools. That way you could have that link and not have to do a manual insert or translate the data to an Excel-based product and then use the Excel to load into DOORs.
This solution is currently having some performance issues because they changed the data storage in the back between version 6 and version 7, so it needs some performance improvement. The data storage is the relational database in the background, and it has changed and needs performance improvement. Performance is a very big thing that is needed when people are writing requirements. They have to wait too long for the page to return and then they don't like it. They are looking for different ways to do and complete their work. Good performance is very essential in this tool, same for DOORS Classic. There is also a lot of possibilities to improve reporting.
It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor. A lot of engineers do not use it, primarily for two reasons. First, it is very abstract and hard to understand. Second, the operation seems to be very complex. For example, the setting is distributed in a lot of section and it is not easy to find where to configure it. The baseline is not as good as it is in DOORS because you can't create a baseline for a module. Rather, you can only create on for the project. The speed of technical support needs to be improved. The DOORS Web Access (DWA) is not stable.
I find the tool clunky, user experience is very dependent on the configuration of the tool for which you require a facilitator, and the setup/configuration fees can be expensive. Overall, it seems like DOORS Rational and DOORS NG, have been written by software developers for software developers. They haven't thought about the standard project team that is actually going to use the system. In comparison ComplyPro it's completely different. ComplyPro interface is easier to use, it's almost like using a spreadsheet and is more intuitive. The whole layout of DOORS could be improved, it's too rigid and requires professional support to change. DOORS is very difficult for novice users to use. For example its common to export requirements to a spreadsheet for designers to insert verification / validation evidence and then import the data, this creates extra work for our requirements management team that could be avoided. DOORS needs to be a more intuitive product. It needs more spreadsheet-like features. The DOORS team need to understand how real world users are using the tool and make configuration and data entry easier.
The tool is quite new, so it may not be a mature product, but I haven't spent enough time with it to have a list of improvements that it needs. When you are in JIRA or Confluence, you have some freedom in how you type in the text. That's also a weakness of Confluence, however, as it opens the doors to sloppy work. In DOS Next Generation, the text is very rigorous, but it might be difficult for people who don't have the discipline. Having a way to quickly enter requirements could help. It might already be in there, but I don't know. I don't have enough experience with the tool yet.
An area that could be improved is user interface which is not very intuitive. Product is also Java based and we have a lot of issues with performance (at beginning). Resolution of all problems takes a lot of time. ALso upgrades of product are from our experience very painful.