Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Reviews

Our primary use case for this tool is designing our manual test cases.

CA ARD is a shift-left tool for us, toward BA, business analysts, where we actually create our requirements. We use it for creating our test cases and QC. Once we get the requirements from a client, we design our flowcharts in CA ARD and then it automatically creates our test cases and QC, because there's an integration in between CA ARD and QC.

We used to provide RTMs to the technical team or the testing team, but now, CA ARD is an extra helping hand. We can provide the exact scope of testing or development to the technical team. That enhances things at the organizational level.

CA ARD has some beautiful features which I haven't found anywhere else. For example, when designing or creating our test cases and doing scenarios, we are able to restrict our flows. If we take a data link between two processes, we can actually restrict it, so that in production, if our functionality breaks down, we can restrict that, and all the flows related to it will be removed from the test data set. That is something we can actually do from CA ARD.

We are using many tools in our projects, like Tosca, but CA ARD is a very closed tool. It doesn't provide integration with Tosca. The possibility of creating a test case and exporting it into Tosca is not available. Integration with end-to-end automation tools, like Worksoft or Tosca, is not provided by CA ARD as of now.

Although there are many integrations which are already available, like Jenkins for automatic performance testing, where we can actually build batches and all, still, there's room for improvement here which the CA ARD team can work on.

In terms of designing, it is very stable, but we are still exploring automation. We just started using the automation feature of ARD.

The initial setup depends on the kind of scenario you are working on. But I found it straightforward. I took about one-and-a-half weeks to study the tool and I'm fine working on it.

Deployment for our clients takes around 30 minutes. It's relatively quick. It generally takes one to two people for deployment. Once the system is up and running it takes two or three people to maintain it.

We have four to five people using the solution. We have an automation team of around 11 people. About half the team is using this tool.

I have to become more familiar with the automation part of CA ARD, and then maybe I'll come to the point of saying that it is a good tool which enables you to take your automation, the testing and development, from deployment and designing of your test case, to pushing them into your testing module - whatever tool you are using; that it is an end-to-end solution.

I would rate this solution at six out of ten. I'm working on Tosca, which is also an end-to-end solution for testing, and I see Tosca as a better option to use, except that Tosca is very costly compared to CA ARD. There are other tools as well, like RPA for process automation. CA ARD is lagging in competing with these tools. As an automation tool, it might not be the strongest.

I think it helps the communication between the testing organization and the requirements group. It helps us to simplify the work. Instead of dealing with individual test cases, you're working with a model. And a lot of people - and I agree with that - like the visual aspect of the modeling.

The modeling, without question. The modeling is a game-changer.

I think it's already coming, but more automation aspects involved with it. There is a tab for Automation, but I think it's not robust. I think that it's going to be a crucial element of the tool.

I have been playing with the solution for a short timeframe, two weeks. So far very good. I haven't tested the scalability of the solution, but so far, I would say very good.

I have not engaged technical support. As far as I have heard from other customers, the technical support is great.

We're using BPT from HPE ALM. It was not from me, the direction, but I think my leadership saw the opportunity of shifting to the model-based testing, and to have a more connected way to work the requirements. So that was the driving force to the shift.

It's a client install and we got it packaged very well within our company. So, I didn't have any problems at all with installing the client.

I would say it's an eight out of 10. It's a great solution for its purpose, but I think there are going to be more things which need to be added to it to make it a full-scale solution for the problem that we're dealing with. So, I give it an eight, but a strong eight.

The ability to provide developers information on how to design the request.

By using ARD it allowed junior developers to write code because they had all of the requirements in the business flow.

It could be quicker to use. Because we do so many things with it, sometimes it takes a long time to create a flow.

Two years.

At the beginning. I believe the stability issues have been addressed.

At the beginning they did not have a cost effective way to get a viewer in front of our developers without giving them a copy. Now there is a viewer that addresses that issue.

Techinical support is the best! Would give technical 10 out of 10.

It was just user stories in an agile environment. Not very good.

Moving the software between computers is challenging. We tend to get new PCs, or people leave our company and the migration to a new PC is not easy.

If you can speed up productivity the price is good. If not, it is pricey.

Just manual processes, like Visio. Not a good solution when compared to ARD.

Take a piece at a time. It can do a lot.

This tool improves our speed and automates our processes.

We can deliver software better and faster.

Most of our requests have been met, but I would like to see connection with RSS or maybe with Confluence.

It is pretty new, so together with CA, we improved it over the first half of the year. It was a partner deal, mostly to help them out.

The scalability is okay.

We worked with technical support in the development process. It has worked out very well.

Previous to this solution, we just used manual processes.

I was involved in the installation, which wasn’t so complex. Educating people is more of the problem. The education process is complex.

We were looking at HPE and we looked at homemade products. None came near to this solution. In this case, we didn't have any other alternatives. There was no other vendor which had these solutions, so there was no option to compare.

I would suggest buying this solution.