The areas of Polarion Requirements that have room for improvement include usability, and the user interface, which was a little bit poor. The user configuration had some issues; you need to know all the details, so it's not really friendly for those who are not IT savvy. Someone who has a good IT background would be able to use it, but a regular person who just knows more or has always been dealing with Microsoft Word might find it difficult to use that system.

Users need skills to work with this solution and also need to have some foundation of why those technical integrations and cross-referencing have to be done in such a way through systematization, which makes it difficult and not straightforward through the visibility of the user interface.

We encountered numerous challenges, such as issues with requirements, project management, timing, and planning. The main problem with Polarion at the outset, I believe, was our limited understanding of the planning phase. During that time, we were more focused on change management related to requirements. Recognizing the importance of planning has been a key realization for us.

Another mistake we made was not comprehending the need to document these requirements to manage all the work items effectively. Now, we understand the significance of this documentation. As a result of these insights, we have started to see a growing number of competitors from Polarion in this field. One potential improvement could be enabling Polarion to export work items not just to Microsoft Office but also to other office tools

In my opinion, the main area for improvement in Polarion Requirements is its user interface. It should be easier for engineers to understand how it works, as many features are not very easily understandable for end-users. 

Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually. 

Generating tables and establishing traceability can be challenging at times. For instance, I must select individual test cases to generate a test run if I want to test protocol for a specific customer requirement. This poses difficulties. Additionally, an area for improvement is in bulk editing. Currently, customization in bulk editing is impossible for more than a hundred test cases, whether for an automation tool or manual tests. So, if you want to go beyond a hundred cases, you have to select manually. This makes it a rigorous task. The usability of the solution should also be improved.

Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language. Polarion Requirements would be improved with the ability to import configurations from other platforms. In the next release, Polarion Requirements should add features for risk analysis and the FMA.

One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration.

At the product level, they are constantly improving things in the latest versions. 

The risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management. 

Also, for requirement tracing, some additional alerts would be useful.

Its user interface could be more user friendly. In addition, a lot of features are missing for test management. It should have the test case ordering feature.

The product could be improved if the NTS solution worked more quickly, it's sometimes very slow. As a starting point, I'd like to see more requirements.

An additional feature for the next release would be to include a better import option from the data requirement solutions.

This solution has its limits. If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable. For example, if you are trying to use a finance book then the loading times will be so long that you will time-out. This means that you have to sign in locally with a desktop and work on it there, although it is still slow. We spoke with Siemens about this and it cannot be improved. Even with more memory and more processors, it would still be the same.

This solution is not as handy as it could be, and it would benefit from improvements to the dashboards.

The import feature should be improved and made more like IBM Rational DOORS because there are too many things to set up.

The one thing I would mention is the license policy is a little bit difficult. For different roles, you will need different license models. That seems a little bit difficult for us. Especially when you introduce such a complex system, you want to know the right way is to do licensing. It's not clear what that best way would be. The solution will be here for a long time, and I just think it could be more clear.

There were some stability issues due to shared licenses. So sometimes people were dropped because of someone else using the same code. The interface was not very intuitive; some practice was needed.

The platform's review process for the documents could be better.