IBM DOORS Reviews

We have different generations of all products. It lets us select and see unique attributes for each release or generation. You can use attributes to define a selection area to see which equipments are for the old versions and which ones are for the new versions. This inbuilt view is what I like in IBM Rational DOORS. So, for a database and a set of requirements, it will select and show unique attributes for a release or a generation.

Complexity, performance, openness are the three areas that can be improved. The IBM architecture and specifically Jazz looks more complex. There are a lot of servers. It's quite complicated. 

The search capabilities lack in IBM Rational DOORS Classic for customers who have a database with a requirement of more than 25,000 records. For example, you can search easily for a module, but it's really difficult to look for keywords through the whole database because all the modules are separated into small components, which makes the search quite complex. This is something that's really annoying because when we want to make an impact analysis, we would like to analyze the product globally.

It's quite difficult to manage. The fact that you can interact externally with data makes it complex. The approach is complex and doesn't work as expected. For example, when I tried to experiment with exporting some records, the tool crashed, but I couldn't find out the root cause, that is, whether it happened because of Rational Windows or lack of memory. It was just crashing. Logs weren't very clear. 

IBM can try to use more recent technology for different aspects and make it easy. They can also provide free integration from DOORS Classic to DOORS. Currently, all the customization in Excel is lost, which makes it very complex. It would be a feature to make new versions compatible with features in the past versions.

Actively, I would say three years and non-actively, maybe five years. I was working in the QA department, and I was reviewing and validating the main equipment with IBM Rational DOORS. So, I know the tool, but it took a bit longer before I start to work much more actively with IBM Rational DOORS.

We discovered some tech stability issues with IBM Rational DOORS Classic and did not convert to IBM. I'm not really convinced about the solution. Basically, IBM doesn't really support or doesn't want to improve IBM Rational DOORS Classic anymore. However, there are still a lot of customers who have been using this solution for years, some of them even for 13 years or so. 

I'm not sure about the support for other solutions, but the problem is that they don't really want to invest any more in IBM Rational DOORS classic. It's quite easy for a technical person to customize and do benchmarking to identify the root cause and proposed solution, but I think that IBM is not going in that direction. So, I'm not really happy. 

They are quick at replying for sure. However, I'm not really convinced about the solution, so I would expect to have a technical person who is experienced and find solutions. 

When I discovered and reported a performance issue, I got a reply that it is a well-known problem. I never saw that issue in the report. It looks like some of the bug information is not accessible to everybody.

I managed to install it without any serious or issues, so it was quite okay. I had a lot of exceptions at different moments, but I managed to find solutions on the web. 

IBM is a bit too expensive in terms of pricing. Customers are paying a lot for the license, and the price is quite high for this kind of environment. It is quite high as compared to what we can get today with other solutions. 

I am validating this solution. I still have a lot of solutions that look promising, such as Jama and Polarion. 

I'm more concerned about the effort to extract the system and to train people. In the world of requirement management, usability is really important from a UAT factor. Some other solutions have a better user interface, and they are easier to understand than IBM Rational DOORS in general. Even though I have experience in IBM Rational DOORS and I'm quite familiar with DOORS concepts, I find other solutions, such as Jama or Polarion, easier to use.

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.

The most valuable feature for me is the ability to enter data into one table, or context, and link it across modules.

The GUI needs improvement in the following ways:

• The OLE embedding is not very user-friendly.
• The whole concept of having to lock and unlock, in order to switch the edit mode, is not user-friendly.

In the next release of this solution, I would like to see integration with other tools. For example, for change management, and with tools like IBM Rational ClearCase. I know that IBM has now linked ClearCase, ClearQuest, and DOORS, but we have an older version so I do not know how good the integration is.

This is a stable solution, although it depends on the network connection. It runs poorly on a slow network connection, so you need a fast connection.

In my opinion, the solution is scalable, but it is limited because you have to stay within one location. You cannot scale it across the whole world because of the dependency on network performance.

For this solution, we have several hundred users across several databases. In addition to the end-users, we have a system architect, system engineers who put in the requirements, functionality developers who break it down to the system requirements, software developers, and testers.

We have our own in-house experts who are quite helpful and responsive. I do not know if they have any experience dealing with the IBM technical support team.

We have used this same solution from the start.

We use predefined templates, so the setup for us was more or less straightforward.

Our in-house IT department handled the implementation of this solution.

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.

I run my own engineering office in Switzerland for training companies on a freelance basis. I have used the most recent version for several projects.

This solution is very simple to use.

I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL). I have developed a lot of tools and it is quite nice. For example, I have a tool that I wrote that can perform a trace analysis for automatic reporting. It only works on classic DOORS because it would have to be reprogrammed in JavaScript or another language.

The UML editing and reporting features are good.

There are problems with the communication between DOORS and Microsoft Office. It doesn't matter which version of MS Office is used. When trying to communicate between Excel and DOORS or Word and DOORS and vice versa, problems arise. I would like to expect a more professional application here. A tool to gradually import scripts into DOORS Next Generation (DXL to Java) would be very helpful. Merging classic DOORS with next-generation DOORS using a web client would be a great idea.

I would like to see a much more professional way to generate documents.

A tool to import scripts, step-by-step into DOORS Next Generation would be very helpful.

The merging of classic DOORS with Next Generation DOORs using a web client would be a great idea. 

I have been using IBM Rational DOORS since 1999, version 0.1.

I have never had any problems with DOORS for any of my clients. It runs fine.

I have worked on smaller projects in the past and everything has worked fine, including the requirements and visibility. My clients have been happy and this has caused them to grow by purchasing additional licenses.

That said, this solution does not scale as well as I thought it would, so improvements could be made with respect to scalability.

Before using this solution I did everything in Microsoft Word.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I have done everything myself over the years.

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 use Rational DOORS to define requirements during the software development process and share databases with our suppliers.

Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want.

Rational DOORS doesn't support the agile process.

I've been using Rational DOORS for over ten years.

Rational DOORS is stable about 70-80% of the time.

Rational DOORS is easy to scale.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We used a vendor team.

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

The primary use for the product is requirements management. That is essentially prioritizing and planning product delivery.  

What I like the most is probably requirement traceability in configuration management.  

Usability and user-friendliness could definitely be improved as far as ease-of-use. The documentation could also be easier to use, I would say. Maybe, in general, they need to see things more from an end-user's perspective in their future development.  

I am not using this product at my current company, but I probably have approximately 20 years of experience using DOORS (Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System).  

DOORS is a very mature and stable product these days.   

When it comes to scalability, I think it is a little bit expensive to get more users onboard. I do not think there are practical limitations to scaling the use, it just might be costly to take on additional licenses to scale.  

We have used the product's technical support for some issues and we did have a positive experience with them. They were able to resolve the issues that we had in a reasonable amount of time.  

It is not cheap. It is expensive to onboard additional licenses.  

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.  

The most valuable feature is the management verification and login.

The user interface is old and clunky and in need of some improvement. In order for DOORS to be as good as it needs to be, you have to be able to get normal people using it. The problem is that because the GUI is so bad, you either have to spend a lot of money customizing the interface yourself, or a lot of money on training. Because the users avoid it like the plague, you don't get the power out of it. You end up having specialists in the requirements world doing the work instead of using it the same way you would an easier application, such as Word.  

I have been using IBM Rational DOORS for about ten years.

This solution has always been very stable and doesn't really ever let us down. We do have Citrix problems because we are centralizing it but as a general rule, it is a solid tool. There can also be problems that are caused by other people's DXL coding, as people are modifying it to work for them. However, it is the modifications that cause the problems rather than DOORS itself. In this context, there are more self-inflicted stability problems.

I have not personally contacted technical support but the feedback that I have heard is that it is like all tech support. It is normally about relationships with the technical support people. The response time is pretty standard, being a couple of weeks. In Australia, they're 24 hours and normally pretty good in terms of responding quickly.

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.

I am a consultant and this is one of the solutions that my company uses to help our clients.

Rational DOORS is used to help our customers with system engineering. I use it to design complex systems like trains and cars. DOORS is used to collect all of the requirements for these big systems and then we try to organize the requirements. We make sure that the system functions in compliance with the requirements. 

Using this solution will streamline processes and generally improve the quality of them.

The most important feature is that it is able to manage a lot of requirements.

It helps to maintain global compliance during all of the stages of development. When you specify the functionality of the system, it is able to show that the system is compliant with the needs. Moreover, it is easy to maintain compliance based on the design.

This solution is able to manage a lot of data.

It is very customizable and easy to scale.

Implementing processes should be easier.

The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time. People like to have a nice tool that is up to date with the latest technology, and this is not the case with DOORS.

I have been using IBM Rational DOORS for more than ten years.

Rational DOORS is very reliable compared to the other tools that I have used. It works very well.

It is very scalable. You can start with a few sets of data and then add more as needed, so it's very scalable. It is also easy to customize and I am satisfied with it.

Depending on the project, we may have one or two people using this solution, all the way up to perhaps 50 people.

I have never spoken with anyone at IBM's support.

I have also used REQTIFY. 

The initial setup is complex, although it is linked to the complexity of the project.

If you have something very simple then the setup will be straightforward but if you have something complex then it will be more difficult. For example, if you are designing a launcher to send satellites into space then you want to have enough information about it before you start the system. These systems are very expensive to develop, so you want to demonstrate that it will be of good quality and be able to handle the operations required to achieve the goals of the project.

It takes between one week and one month to deploy, depending on the requirements.

I can perform the deployment myself, although sometimes we need to involve many people. There are engineers, quality teams, and validation teams. Many parts of the business can be involved in the deployment.

Because this is an expensive solution, if you want to realize ROI then you have to use it for big projects.

This is an expensive solution. Licensing fees are billed annually and there is no support included with what I pay.

There is another solution called Rational DOORS Next Generation that has a nicer interface and it is easier to use, but it is less scalable.

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.

Our primary use case of this solution is mainly to manage all of the requirements, from the user requirements to the system requirements to the sub-system requirements. Also to manage traceability, the baseline, and the different baselines of the requirement. 

Traceability is the most valuable feature of this solution. I like that is has the capacity to manage traceability from one level of requirement to another.

The HMI is difficult to use and the user interface should be better.

The program is very stable.

It's a bit difficult to say how scalable this program is, because you are driven by the number of license that you have. I can't remember the model we're using, but I believe it is a floating license mode. Eventually, if you have too many people connected at the same time on IBM Rational DOORS, the last one can't access to the program. So the scalability is limited by the license scheme. We have around 10,000 users currently. 

Our technical support is managed internally. We don't have access directly to IBM. 

I did not manage the setup of the program, but I believe it is quite straightforward.

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.