"In terms of meeting business challenges, it helped to shorten the dev/testing cycle by identifying requirements gaps early in the process, by having models shared within the development team. It helped increase test coverage and reduce the number of issues experienced by clients/customers."
"The ability to create models/diagrams at multiple levels (nest/embed them) helps in taking models from high-level business requirements and building them into detailed requirements models and test models. Plus, it helps reuse lower level models. It also allows maintaining models at appropriate levels, even for very complex systems/solutions."
"The support that we get from Broadcom is great."
"Measuring test coverage helps in one of the most challenging tasks. It has logic that can help to select the right set of scenarios and know what coverage it will provide."
"Integration with TDM, test data management tool, provides the ability to generate data or use identified (preset or parametrized) test data. It allows significant expansion of test coverage and flexibility, without creating new tests and needing to maintain them."
"Integration with automation is one of the reasons we started to consider moving to this tool from our original tool for implementing test modeling. ARD appears to have better integration with Selenium. It also has the ability to record scripts/flows using Selenium Builder and import them into ARD, which will then create and optimize a model based on that."
"I like the way we can simply link requirements with one another and with test descriptions and then automatically produce reports that are required to show compliance to our customers. It is a combination of requirements management and reporting that I like, but I really have very little to do with the reporting part of it. I don't know how easy or hard it is to create those reports."
"Starting to use the solution is pretty straightforward. There isn't too much of a learning curve."
"Very customizable and can be as powerful as you want it to be."
"It is a mature product that is stable."
"The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"Makes good work of prioritizing and planning product delivery."
"What I like about DOORS is baselines, it's easy and I use the capability of multiple users. The traceability or links between different levels are very nice. Additionally, it is used by all of our suppliers, which brings us commonality."
"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."
"It would help if it would save different subsets of test cases, use cases, etc., of a given diagram, for different purposes and provide an easy way to name those subsets."
"Needs improvement in aligning models so they look clear and readable without having to move boxes around."
"The solution could improve security and authentication."
"The web application DOORS Web Access doesn't have the same functionality as the standard client, so it's not a real substitute. For example, web Access only provides writing requirements, but you can't do much more with it."
"There are problems with communicating between DOORS and Microsoft Office."
"It would be nice if it could be scaled-down so that it could be installed and implemented without much learning or training."
"There needs to be quicker access to tech support. When I have a two minute question that takes two minutes to answer, it shouldn't take me 45 minutes and/or a few days of callbacks to get to the right technical support person. It's unnecessary and frustrating for the user."
"One thing that I would like to see is a lower-cost version of it that we could use for smaller projects. Sometimes, we do projects for commercial customers who would benefit from something like DOORS, but it's just so expensive. It's just a monster, so a lower-cost version would be the thing that we'd like to see."
"IBM should integrate some solutions they already own toenhance the utility of the product further. Specifically import and export to Office products is more difficult than it needs to be."
"The user interface for the Change Proposal System could be improved."
"The software and GUI is very outdated."
More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 6th in Application Requirements Management with 2 reviews while IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 2nd in Application Requirements Management with 13 reviews. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 8.0, while IBM Rational DOORS is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer writes "User-friendly with great UI but could offer an easier setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Rational DOORS writes "Has given us a means for improving the way we proceed through solution development". Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Cognizant ADPART, TFS, Conformiq and Jama Connect, whereas IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Jira, Polarion Requirements, Jama Connect, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and Inflectra SpiraTest. See our Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. IBM Rational DOORS report.
See our list of best Application Requirements Management vendors.
We monitor all Application Requirements Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
