PTC Integrity Reviews

Requirements management, verification testing management, historical tracking and versioning

Eventually it should help the organization precisely document the history of requirement and testing artifact development and use.

The GUI is archaic, the program has many levels of complexity, and the time and commitment required for implementation are extreme.

Six months

I am writing this review because I don't think there's a fair portrayal online of how cumbersome the GUI is, and how difficult the software is to use.

It is extremely configurable, and has many, many features, but many of those features (for example, outputting data and reports) are extremely complex. The marketing hype says that data/content can be exported easily to Word or Excel files, but it requires understanding a 100 page manual, configuring the server and exporter add-in, a thorough understanding of HTML, XML, CSS and much more. Similarly it is boasted that you can easily generate reports and charts, but configuring and modifying reports and charts requires a great deal of training and expertise.

No. The product is powerful and stable.

No, and we don't expect any. These are known product strengths.

General company customer service is poor, but Gold Level service (additional purchase) is very, very good.

Again, purchased tech support is Excellent.

No. But some of our employees have experience with similar products (such as DOORS). Their experience with other products was that they also were complex and difficult.

After 6 months we are still rather dependent. At the outset we did not understand that we would need a full-time admin for implementation, and we expect we'll still need at least half-time admin at the one-year mark.

Vendor rep. He had high level of expertise. After 4 months of learning and experience our primary software user left the company taking much of knowledge capital with him.

So far, way in the red.

I cannot divulge details. The software itself is a fraction of implementation and training costs so far.

Yes, and we had an outside company help evaluate the options also. I would argue that we were enchanted by configurability and range of features, and did not discover until too-late, the *surprisingly high* level of difficulty and steep learning curve.

I am not a person who normally would submit a review, but I have not been able to find any fair portrayals online of the level of difficulty involved. One programmer I spoke with recently exclaimed "Why did the company buy the software if it takes months of configuration and programming just to implement?"

I believe the manufacturer would be well advised to at least upgrade PTC Integrity to have features that would have been considered standard in 2007.

This solution is used for lifecycle management.

The tool is quite structured and has a good command set.

I would like to see better integration from the architectural side. It is difficult to use when it comes to linking models.

I have been working with PTC Integrity for the past five to seven years, and in the organization, it has been used for between ten and fifteen years.

It is a stable product.

We have approximately 1,000 people who are using it on a daily basis.

The technical support is very good.

We have our own dedicated support team for this solution.

In general, PTC Integrity is a good tool, although from a system perspective it is somewhat lacking.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We were evaluating PTC Integrity for the deployment for one of my clients. The major problem we faced regarding Integrity are the developments.

We found the requirement management and the version control features to be the most useful for our client. We missed out on the traceability part. For traceability, you need to develop a lot of scripts and you need a lot of background work.

The development environment is only on JavaScripts but other languages are not. For example, .NET platforms. It's not so customizable. Compared to other tools, defining user stories is a slightly more cumbersome process as an ALM engineer.

It is quite mature. 

I don't find it that scalable. Scalability is a concern for this particular tool.

The client that we have worked with for the department that we have deployed this particular solution has 120 to 140 members.

It's used on a regular basis. 

Technical support is excellent from PTC.

The initial setup was slightly complex. When we decided to have an isolated solution, PTC was not that user-friendly.

The complete deployment took around nine months to one year.

It requires four engineers for deployment and maintenance.

I head the complete ALM department at my organization. We have a team of ALM engineers across different tools, not only for PTC Integrity but also for IBM codeBeamer. 

Requirement management and software configuration management had better options. We found that they're more stable though they're not so scalable. During production time or during work time we don't have many production delivery issues.

My advice to someone considering this solution is to prepare yourself by having a good programming team that has good customization engineers. It requires a lot of programming skills.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

In the next release, I would like for there to not be so many scripts and programs to do workflow customization. It should be easily customizable.

Our primary use case is to develop tasks and controls. 

It's a good tool to manage software versions, update the status, and manage tasks. 

It's not easy to plan on this solution and it's not user-friendly. The interface should be more like a web interface. It's not easy to use. 

For example, if I need to attach pictures then relate items together, it doesn't work well. It doesn't look nice and it doesn't show you how it will look.

I have been using PTC Integrity for five years. 

It is stable.

It seems scalable but it's not really relevant to me. I only use it. 

I haven't contacted technical support. 

I would rate it a six out of ten. To make it a ten they should improve the interface.