IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Score 6.1 out of 10
N/A
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is an end-to-end engineering solution used to manage system requirements to design, workflow, and test management, extending the functionality of ALM tools for better complex-systems development.N/A
Pricing
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Free Trial
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Considered Both Products
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Unfortunately, this IBM ELM installation predates my tenure, and the project and client have become entrenched in it with no viable way to move off of it. There are better products capable of doing individual workflows well. ELM's attraction is that it does a lot of things OK.
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
The established experience contained in most IBM Rational DOORS installations is only compensated by the high flexibility of Atlassian JIRA. The markets state that Jira is less expensive in the setup. There are many manufacturers that support IBM Rational DOORS to have the big …
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
I would choose IBM Rational DOORS over any other requirements management tool out there. Polarion tries to do too many things and is great for some things but as far as requirements management IBM Rational DOORS is the best tool on the market.
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
DOORS is the legacy and leading tool for requirements management. It is widely used by the Aerospace industry.
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
It was easier to do all the change management-related activities, even configurations were handled very effectively. New process definitions and initiatives made it easier for better project deliverables. Effective resource allocations and better reporting and defect …
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
DOORS is not a suite nor an integrated tool like HP ALM or Rally. It only does one thing and cannot hold defects or accommodate sprint planning. It is older, takes longer to connect and load, and has an inconvenient timeout. It does do a basic job and can be customized to show …
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Although JIRA is getting popular in DevOps team, it does not work well with ITIL model as RTC does. RTC is still widely used for production management in our company.

CA Service Desk Manager (GSD) is integrated with TPAM which is being used for privilege account management in …
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
To me, DOORS is like a super version of Excel and Word combined with a relational database. I have not used too many database softwares before, but DOORS does a very specific job well enough. It is so powerful that some of the tools just go unused. Some parts of the software …
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Requisite Pro (and Rational Requirements Composer, it's successor) is more simple and focused on requirements. Is like a part of DOORS and can be suitable to smaller projects. IT people on the other hand prefer agile tools like JIRA. Of course if the project is big enough, …
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
My organization was already using it when I joined the team.
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
It's well integrated with IBM products so it provides better coverage across the lifecycle with first class integration. Other producst are stand alone with limited integration with ALM tools.
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
I found [them] to be more flexible and with the possibility to create [an HTML format].
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
An alternative which I have very briefly used is Atlassian's JIRA, which is very similar to IBM RTC, although has a modern UI, feels light-weight and is faster to respond and additionally has seamless integration with Bitbucket, which is a Git platform, and other Atlassian
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
JIRA is simpler and much more intuitive, especially when bundled with Confluence. TFS is obvious choice if working with Microsoft technologies and has superb API.
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
This product had many of the same features, was easier to use, which would result in less training, and had a lower price tag. Logic and reason do not always figure prominently in a decision. Sometimes there are intangible characteristics that alter the flow. In my observation, …
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
I have worked on different agile project management tool like JIRA, Teamfoge and RTC. RTC is simple and has a nice UI.
Chose IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
It is easy for the organization to identify what kind of problems there are in the project and how many change requests have been resolved and how many are pending. Thereby the employer can pro-actively arrange the meetings and address the issues to the team members.
Best Alternatives
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Small Businesses
Polarion ALM
Polarion ALM
Score 9.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Polarion ALM
Polarion ALM
Score 9.8 out of 10
Enterprises
Polarion ALM
Polarion ALM
Score 9.8 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Likelihood to Recommend
3.0
(22 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.0
(6 ratings)
Usability
4.0
(5 ratings)
Support Rating
5.0
(3 ratings)
Implementation Rating
10.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Likelihood to Recommend
IBM
The software is robust enough to handle highly complex software development or other product development and can be used well beyond the range to do what a client needs. However, because of the inability to hold its users to proper best practices, things can get wildly out of hand and cascade over the years, creating unnecessary technical debt. The system has a lot of usable features, but they don't funnel users toward the correct processes and practices.
Read full review
Pros
IBM
  • Open Services supporting Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC).
  • Required definition management and managed capabilities enabling.
  • Rational DOORS Web Access for local on the test field presence.
  • On-sites established reporting system.
  • Approved linking requirements to test plans
  • Engineering Requirements Management DOORS traces requirements thereby eliminates manually processes and spreadsheets, for improved productivity.
  • Returns the investment efficiently.
Read full review
Cons
IBM
  • I feel like it is too heavy sometimes and updating is not very straight forward. For example, if I want to change an incident ticket (IN) to a service request (SR) and add some comment for the change, I have to first change the IN to SR, then click refresh which takes a few seconds, then add a comment. If I forget the refresh step, my comment will be discarded without warning like my ticket is not in the latest status. This also happens when somebody else changes the ticket during my edit as I can not lock the ticket exclusively.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
IBM
At the moment we are required by contract to continue to use the IBM DOORS software for our current client. Given that it can be expensive, if we were to use it after our current client's needs were met, we would have to secure other projects in order to justify the continued use of the software.
Read full review
Usability
IBM
The UI is terrible and not intuitive. Users need training in order to complete tasks. Much like SAP, it's not the clearest tool. The tracing feature is especially complicated because you must write the scripts yourself. There is a learning curve. Also, even the setup, installation, and logging in each time takes a considerable amount of time.
Read full review
Support Rating
IBM
It does a basic job and has the potential to complete some robust reporting tasks, however, it really is a clunky piece of software with a terrible user interface that makes using it routinely quite unpleasant. Many of our legacy and maintenance projects still use DOORS but our department and company use many alternatives and are looking for better tools.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
IBM
No problems
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
IBM
It was easier to do all the change management-related activities, even configurations were handled very effectively. New process definitions and initiatives made it easier for better project deliverables. Effective resource allocations and better reporting and defect management. The overall cost of the tool is great too and well within budget.
Read full review
Return on Investment
IBM
  • It's part of CLM suite so it can be used to manage the whole lifecycle with tight integration with development module (Rational Team Concert) and quality module (Rational Quality Manager).
  • Comprehensive reports and dashboards provide better visibility.
  • License cost is on higher side.
Read full review
ScreenShots