IBM Rational Quality Manager Reviews

We use it to manage the testing. We have both manual and automated testing and we have many teams in DHL IT services that are designing some solutions. It's part of the whole life cycle. So they implement that and then test it. We adopt more and more Agile or DevOps practices, like Scrum or Kanban, and as a part of that, the work which is implemented is tested.

Historically we did a lot more manual tasks but more and more we are automating the tests and using the automation. We trigger some test automation tools from Rational Quality Manager. For example, we use Selenium or Micro Focus Quick Test Professional, or QTP. These aren't typical but we also trigger integration tests. For example, the Rational Integration Tester is triggered by RQM as well.

Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect.

I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement. It might be because of the complexity. They introduce some entities before people learn how these entities link to each other. It's not intuitive. Tools like JIRA qTest are much more intuitive, for example. Quality Center is simple as well.

I have been using IBM Rational Quality Manager for five years. 

It's very stable.

It's scalable. We didn't have any scalability issues.

We have contacted their support many times. The IBM support was good. It's not perfect, sometimes it's not so fast.

I would say the initial setup is not easy but it's not super complex. We have Enterprise Deployment Topology so we have mounted servers and it's not so simple to set up the whole infrastructure. Upgrading is quite complex. Compared to JIRA, it's more complex to set up. We had to use IBM to help us.

Consider the introduction of the tool in terms of the proper education of the teams who will adapt it. I think any introduction of such a tool requires proper training. It's not so intuitive that people can trust it. If you just give it to people directly, without any training, then they can get it wrong. Make sure to invest in training

Smooth integration with JIRA, but I think this is not realistic.

The IBM suite is kind of independent and it's getting more niche because it's not such a big community of users.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

The product is very fast.

It's very reliable as a solution.

The solution is well structured and you can customize it within your business workflows.

It's very fast coming from a banking interface tool, as far as the testing environment and the test tool are concerned.

Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly.  

In one of IBM's main competitors, Quality Center, the options are much more straightforward than what is offered in IBM. IBM's platform is too complicated and should be simple like Quality Center's. 

The integration and enhancement features need to be across all the testing tools and there needs to be integration between them.

The solution should simplify the import or export as well as support multiple extensions.

Overall, the solution is not user-friendly, and you need a very technical person on it in order to run it properly.

I've been working with this tool for a number of years, and with IBM solutions in general for about eight or so years so far.

The solution is very reliable and stable.

I believe the solution is scalable. 

We've been in touch with technical support. They are pretty good. However, I don't hear from the clients about how they feel about the solution's technical support in any way. We've found them to be good, at least for us, from our interactions with them in the past. 

Clients often ask about monthly licensing fees, however, I'm not sure about how IBM actually charges. For example, I'm unsure as to if it's a yearly or a monthly fee. It's unclear from my end how the solution actually contracts out its licenses. 

We've compared the solution to other tools such as HP's Quality Center. 

The main competitor of IBM's test management tool is Quality Center. I feel they may have a more user-friendly interface.

However, IBM offers a very good management tool and it's integrated well with the different tracking and design testing solutions. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

From a reliability and scalability perspective, it's a good tool. It's well-structured. If they did some upgrades to the interface, it would be just about perfect and I'd rate it closer to nine or nine and a half.

Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms.

The software lets users register their role and create task or test-specific teams, and it allows users to assign each other tasks and view the status of the assigned tasks.

Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach.

At least 10 years.

Few configuration issues on different browsers, not that serious.

Yes, I had some, but after sending requests to the IBM support team, some fixes were applied and we could keep going.

No, always thinking of sizing, we can keep the services online.

Very good, attention and velocity to understand and solve issues.

Very good, attention and velocity to understand and solve issues.

No.

For the CLM tools, IBM provides a good 'automatic setup', but on the WebSphere side, there is a lot of complex configuration to attend the services.

There were a lot of projects. Many of them through a vendor, some as an IBM employee and few as a consultant, in-house.

Always delivered with high expertise.

Good to high.

There are various licensing and pricing options available for the software, so organizations should be sure to contact IBM to decide which license best serves their needs. Each license includes 12 months of customer support. A free 90-day trial of the software is also available.

HPE Quality and some others.

It is a very good choice on ensuring the expected software quality for projects.

• Ease and clarity of the tool when using it. Easy web-based administration.
• Highly customizable
• Rational Quality Manager (RQM) when used with other CLM tools (provided by IBM) gives great traceability features.
• Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product.

• Instead of writing test scripts, we now use a tool which makes managing extremely easy.
• Testing can be linked with requirements, which makes traceability very easy.

Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve.

I have used it on and off until now (from 2011).

Yes, there are some bugs present in almost every release.

No.

Excellent. You always get the proper response.

No.

Setup is pretty straightforward. It can be a little too much for beginners, but the steps are not complex.

Never got involved in pricing, however the licenses of these tools (the whole CLM package) is very costly as compared to other vendors' tools.

We evaluated the whole package - IBM CLM, HPE ALM, and Microsoft TFS.

This tool would be great if it was used with a package (IBM CLM, includes DNG, RQM, and RTC, as major tools).

VF dashboard view looks okay. It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability.

Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed. As the number of test cases grows, it’ll be really difficult to maintain the test cases. The tool should be able to support and maintain the test cases in a folder-wise structure to identify the different module/phase-wise test cases.

Around three years.

No.

No.

Not applicable.

Yes. Customer requirement.

Not applicable.

I suggest to go for other tools. As the number of test cases grow, it’ll be really difficult to maintain the test cases. The tool should be able to support and maintain the test cases in a folder-wise structure to identify the different module test cases.

In the latest version, Global Configuration is the most promising feature as it allows the user to maintain different versions of the same artifact in different streams. Another feature that I consider important is integration with the automation tools.

Reporting on the QA activities as well as managing test execution cycles helped our organization to better manage the QA activities.

There are a couple of things that can be improved:

1. The user interface can be improved; it is the same interface that I have been seeing for the past so many years, whereas the other CLM modules changed significantly.
2. It does not provide inbuilt capabilities for managing the tasks and planning activities related to testing. For this purpose, you need to buy another module, i.e., IBM Rational Team Concert (RTC).

I have used this solution for seven years.

Recently, we encountered some defects related to the global categories. We opened the defects with IBM, and later on, they provided us with a fix pack.

There were no scalability issues.

Technical support is above average.

The setup was a bit complex as it requires some expertise.

Two types of licensing policies are available:

1. There is the Authorized license which is bound to the user, i.e., if the user is not using it, then others can't use it either.
2. There is floating one, which is a pool of licenses (if the user is not using it, then others can use it).

When I joined my current organization, they were already using IBM RQM.

Tweak your testing process. It is also better to align the organization in terms of how the tool works.

Integration throughout the complete product development process. Also, the integration of third-party automation test tools.

Easy collaboration between several development teams such as design, development, and testing.

• Management of artefacts
• Support of paramater needs to be easier
  

I've used it for three years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

It was easy.

It was done in-house.

Project realization has been carried out much faster. The integration of test automation tools.

Use workgroup licenses for smaller environments.

Plan the training and usage properly. Also, proper planning of the architecture and test execution artefacts needs to be dond.