IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management vs. Zenhub

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.

Incentivized

If you have more than 2 developers this thing is basically a requirement within github to manage sprints if you use agile methodology. Why use a different website entirely when you can run your entire board right from github itself? I've tried other solutions but basing everything on github issues makes it so no duplicate work has to take place. If the UX quirks and mobile were fixed this would be 10/10 for me! If you're only one or two devs on a team it may be overkill to use, but if you're going to scale it's better to put the process in early.

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

• ZenHub has a lot of basic functionality, so that limits the complexity of the application
• The ability to provide user defined labels and customize pipelines provides flexibility
• The integration with GitHub provides a seamless process

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

• Additional communication/collaboration inside the platform would be helpful
• Integration with additional systems like Slack would be a plus
• sometimes web pages load slowly, but for the most part things are alright

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

Once it's up and running it's easy to use. It needs a little consideration to get set up perfectly for your own needs, but that is the same for any feature-rich software.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

Support is good, but quite honestly, I haven't needed any support since 2015. As I remember, I was required to open a ticket and had to wait a few days for resolution. I give it a rating of 8 because of the lag in getting a solid resolution, but it was resolved adequately.

Incentivized

No problems

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

I have used Workfront in the past, which in my experience, is best with a traditional waterfall methodology, similar to Microsoft Project and the other more traditional project management software projects. ZenHub is truly designed around the agile methodology. Other products that claim they are agile oriented seem to just be adjusting and tweaking their traditional product to include a few agile features.

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

• No official review done.
• Saves developer time knowing what needs to be done next.
• Saves leadership time to easily plan sprints and review work done.

Incentivized