IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) Reviews

We suggest to the clients that we do the R&D from our side. So if we feel that it's a stable version, and after monitoring multiple things, then only because it's the best version for the customer, along with the fix-panel, if any is required.

For most of the customers, we recommend the latest version. Because in the latest version, it will be day by day, it will keep on giving updates. And we'll see the performance increase. That's why we do the initial R&D, and then if we feel it's really stable, we only recommend it to the customer.

Maybe there should be more integration—the possibility with the third-party tools.

Looking for more integrations specifically with third-party tools that customers can easily access to perform automation without affecting the system. 

Additionally, some improvements to the user interface (UI) would be helpful, such as exposing more services to make it easier to customize to the needs of each customer.

In the next releases, I would like to see the ability to customize reporting without having to rely on a separate tool. So currently, for any customization with respect to reporting from the tool, we still depend on the reporting tool called the publishing engine. So, instead of depending on the publishing engine, we must have a capability that should be available in the next coming version.

I have been using this solution for seven years. I'm involved in all aspects. That includes implementation, using the product, and providing consulting services, handling everything.

I am currently using version 7.0.2.0.7.

I would rate the stability of this product a nine out of ten.   

I would rate the scalability of this product a nine out of ten. It is very scalable and can handle large numbers of users and transactions.

I have clients of all sizes, from small businesses to large enterprises.

The customer service and support are responsive and helpful, but there have been a few times when it has taken a long time to resolve an issue.

Positive

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy. 

It's easy, but it takes time to learn the initial level. It is easier and makes it more comfortable when it comes to compliance.

The deployment model depends upon the customer. If they want to maintain the cloud, we'll deploy it on the cloud. If they want to the on-prem, then we'll deploy on-prem.

The time taken depends on the topology of the deployment. For a vanilla deployment, it can be done in a day. For a complex deployment at the global level, it can take a week or more.

It's the way the tool the user uses it. And how he gets benefits out of it. So, I would rate the pricing of this product a six out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. It is not the cheapest product on the market, but it is not the most expensive either.

I would recommend this product.  

I would suggest working on all the major collaborative platforms where the entire project people want to collaborate and work at one location and want to store the data in one place and share it.

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

I work as Q&A engineer in addition to supporting CALM management. I use it for daily, day-to-day user activities.

It certainly helps from the requirement management for the deployment phase. Starting with the requirement engineering the customer requirements certification and then to the system requirement analysis, the designing. The tool is quite collaborative. There is no need for overhead in getting the requirements from the requirement management side. 

There is a clear picture between the requirement and the development. The development is done in the Rational Team Concert. The resources are being maintained in addition to the work item. It gives us a clear picture of what needs to be developed and what the risks are.

Once the development activities have been frozen they can be moved to the development or to the testing team, the testing team can get to the common data system, but that's for integration. They then log their test cases, the test functions, and can get feedback in terms of any defects or any risk. At the same time, if you're working from the architect or the designing team, it's quite easy to manage the resources online. It helps us in our day to day activities of maintaining the development lifecycle. 

Abilities to share ideas in terms of tasks, lifecycle traceability from requirement to development to testing and designs gives a clear understanding of the system.

Support for working with traditional methodologies must be extended if IBM wants to expand horizon in the System engineering domain. You cannot really work in the traditional way of development. In the automotive industry here we tend to follow the Agile methodology.

The designer manager is uncivil. The design manager is clearly really unstable.

In the next release, I would like to see traditional methodologies working within the tool and a traditional planning book in the toolbar. 

Stability depends on the tool. The Rational Team Concert is quite stable, Rational DOORS Next Generation is stable, and Quality Manager is somewhat stable. Rational Design Manager isn't even 25% stable. I would rate the overall stability as 7.5 out of ten. 

The tool is quite scalable, from the deployment side or be it be from the tool functionality side. If you are a part of the development teams it helps you. But I'll say there is room for improvement that could help us. For example, in regards to DOORS and Rational Team Concert, the development with respect to the Java script is limited, while for Java, the capacity is quite huge.

It's scalable but you need a lot of background knowledge if you want to scale the solution.

In my company, we have four or five locations in total, so all together we have somewhere around 500, 600 users. 

The deployment and maintenance only require two to three people but they don't work on it full time. 

We did have plans to increase usage in the past. Recently, we have had some struggles with our events. We had some problems with Rhapsody Design Manager. It took me six months to get it stable and I still struggle with it. I don't think that we'd increase the userbase anytime in the future. 

The technical support is good but there is too much of hierarchy. It takes a lot of time to get to the right person. 

The initial process of setting up the environment I wouldn't say it's complex. But depending on the consideration, like the requirements, if you're going into enterprise-level of full deployment, you need to keep in mind certain inputs there's certain room for enhancement available within the tool. Although, it's quite straightforward. 

Deployment took two or three weeks.

It's a good solution. It's comprehensive. The support is good. If you want to develop your own customized use cases there are better solutions than this one, like JIRA. 

I would rate it between a six and seven out of ten.

We use IBM Rational ALM for processing. We are following a real process. As part of that, we can configure features and the stories and schedule release plans. If there is a backlog of stories, we can configure it properly. 

IBM Rational ALM is a very good tool. I like the management and traceability features and the test management tool. The latter is not linked with the stories and fixed management. It is really useful, and we can create test plans. We can also test some metrics related to QA.

In the next release, we expect a traceability metrics configuration where we can configure the user stories. We also expect them to improve or simplify the query process.

I have been using IBM Rational ALM for the last four years.

IBM Rational ALM is a stable solution.

IBM Rational ALM is a scalable solution. We have almost 3,000 people using this solution.

Technical support is very helpful.

I worked with HP ALM on a project before using IBM Rational ALM. HP ALM and IBM Rational ALM are similar, but HP ALM is a little easier to use, understand, and navigate. There is a dependency on HP ALM, and it works only with Internet Explorer. IBM Rational ALM does not have any specific conditions.

Both solutions can do the same thing. That means testing business requirements, mapping, and releasing mapping hierarchically. There are so many options in HP ALM concerning business and project users. They can generate reports.

We can get all the details and conduct some analysis. In IBM Rational, we have to set up queries and provide the correct information to receive accurate results. 

I would tell potential users that they can implement IBM Rational ALM. It is scalable, usable, and reliable. It is also user-friendly and can be used with any browser.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give IBM Rational ALM an eight.

We use the solution for engineering requirements and tests.

All the features are valuable. Everyone in a team can work on the same platform and share the same information.

The product must be more user-friendly.

I have been using the solution for more than ten years.

I manage 500 people who use the product.

Administrators do the initial setup.

The solution is not cheap. It is worth the money, though. The proof is that people have been using it for more than ten years without switching to a different product.

I recommend the tool to others. Someone with a team of more than 20 members must use the tool. I'm a consultant. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I use IBM Rational ALM in my daily work to verify the engineering tools to see the visibility aspects in different CLM facilities.

It's easy to use.

The stability of IBM Rational ALM could be improved.

I have been using IBM Rational ALM for two years.

IBM Rational ALM is not that stable, at least in our company, it has several issues.

IBM Rational ALM is a scalable solution. It is used by everyone in our organization. We have thousands of users.

I have not contacted technical support. We have a team internally that does everything for us.

I used Jira, a long time ago. I have not used it for two years.

We switched to IBM Rational ALM because Jira was not a complete Application solution for ALM.

We have a contract, but I am not aware of the details.

If it is used the way it was designed to be used, it could be a higher grade, but it depends a lot on how people are using it.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

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

IBM Rational ALM is mainly used for configuration management and version control. We use it in the automotive sector, which it has a lot of use in, and is certified.

The tools for requirement capture we have found very useful.

I think nowadays people are getting into Jira and other tools. What is happening is, this solution is becoming more traditional, whereas Jira and other tools are more attractive for the new users to learn and start using because of the graphical interfaces. All the traditional users are continuing with this solution, while new users they are preferring Jira.

The solution could improve by providing an entire engineering life cycle management solution. When we want to use the solution we feel that it could be better because currently, we use SAP for a lot of our engineering life cycle management obligations, and IBM Rational ALM is only for mainly software management applications. It should be extended and provide more coverage from end to end, which would be helpful.

I have been using IBM Rational ALM for the past 10 years.

The solution is stable.

We did not have any problems with scalability.

The support from IBM was very good.

The installation is not difficult, and the whole process, such as practicing, and onboarding, took three months.

The price of the solution could be reduced. Many of our customers are not using all the features and this could be why our clients feel the price is too high.

I have evaluated other solutions, such as Jira.

I rate IBM Rational ALM a seven out of ten.

We use the on-premises deployment model of this solution.

It helped us contain critical things, like source code and several documents, which is very important to us.

Of course, it would be related to customer experience. The solution is not user-friendly at all. It needs an expert to use it, although the reporting feature was okay.

I'm fine with the tool. From my point of view, it's all about usability. It should be simplified and it should be more user-friendly.

Its stability is perfect.

The scalability of this solution is good. 

Currently, the IT and software development departments are using this solution. I believe that is about 50 people.

The initial setup was too complex. The installation process was the responsibility of one of our system administrators. It can't be easily installed by normal users. They have additional materials on how to install it, but I believe it's too complex.

The decision was made, because we are partners, so we could do the installation ourselves.

When giving a recommendation, I would say that if you are looking for stability, you have to go for this product. If you are concerned with usability and simplicity of the product, I would recommend Microsoft Team Foundation or JIRA instead.

The problem is the complexity of the installation and it's not user-friendly regarding the usability.

I would rate this tool as six out of ten, with a low rating due to the usability issues.

The cataloging is a very valuable feature. For a lot of enterprises, they end up not knowing which applications do specific features. The cataloging helps with this. It's not that verbose but it still gives you allowances to put in more detail. 

The cataloguing needs some improvement. It needs to be a bit more in-depth.

It's an application that is supposed to do more governance around the application lifecycle. The features should be more intuitive. If I'm looking for something, its location should be easy to locate.

I'm impressed with the solution's stability. 

The solution is pretty scalable.

Technical support is good. If you run into issues, they can always walk you through what they recommend you do and work with the documentation. IBM's dedication has always been documentation versus actual. 

The initial setup is easy. It's just a few clicks. Deployment only takes a few minutes. It does come down to how you are implementing it, however. If it's a more complex deployment, it may take longer.

I implement the solution and I'm an IBM partner as well.

For those considering implementing the solution, I'd advise when they're doing their planning, that they begin with the end in mind. Before they even start to consider the software, they should first know what they plan to achieve. They have to have a clear goal that they hope to achieve with the solution. Then they can build the tool. It will make it easier to implement and use.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.