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 Fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Considered Both Products
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Verified User
Team Lead
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.
Projektspezialist bei Steffen Jäschke EinzUnt Physik, Berechnungen
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 …
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.
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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, …
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.
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 …
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.
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, …
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.