IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS Next Pros and Cons

You are able to arrange and organize your events during a project in an orderly manner. It is easy to use and has a user friendly interface. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

There is nothng i found annoying about IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS Next. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

DOORS Next has a wonderful interface and looks good....however, many of the features that we had in DOORS Classic are missing. It is great to see, via the hovering, the information from another tier. The management of attributes and views is really good. Traceability via various link types is terrific. Some reuse of requirements has been beneficially to management of requirement specifications. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

DOORS Next is being features that have been standard in DOORS Classic. Things like layout DXL, the ability to combine information into an attribute, links across multiple tiers of requirements, etc are missing. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

DOORS and DNG provide the capability to interact with other MBSE tools such as Rhapsody, and RQM to name a few, which allows a comprehensive solution to requirements management and product design. Each tool has its benefits and its drawbacks, however both tools are well supported.

Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

DNG can improve on its usability, for example in DOORS it is easy to look at a hierachy tree, where in DNG it is not obvious, if its there ( i have not seen this). The ability to import and export is a bit clunky and when needing to make large scale changes this capability falls short, in contrast this is quite easy in DOORS, Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like the web client interface and its association with other web applications on the Jazz platform. I like the flexibility in adding more applications via OSLC. Traceability with other applications is also a big benefit. Going further all data being stored in a relational database and be referenced many times rather than copied is a huge benefit over classic DOORS. Add in the ability to configuration manage your requirements using GCM facilitate requirements reuse by reference across my entire product line. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

DNG has some hard constraints like not being able to move projects/component from server to server .... one must be near perfect in the partitioning of data. Linking constraints are an all or nothing proposition. Configuration of change constraints must be set every time you create a stream. The type system also has hard constraints that cannot be violated otherwise you will corrupt the type system (duplicates). Type system must be identical to clone and copy, otherwise you incurr data loss. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The Easy. linking with other documents Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The way to export in Word format Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

DNG provides the capability to add custom attributes for tracking and reporting on requirement metadata. I especially like that I can trace my requirements to User Stories in Workflow Management and Test Cases in Test Management to manage my large scale software development project. This traceability allows me to provide detailed reports to my customer that demonstrate that requirements have been implemented and fully tested. The interface is easy to use (for creating requirements) and the views allow me to query requirements by user defined attributes. You can easily generate a requirements document from DNG using the "module" feature. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

There is really no downside other than the licensing costs if you have a small project. I believe the cost are worth the full lifecycle capability of the full IBM ELM tool suite. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

This solution helps users and business get connected correctly with more clarity of data and reports. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

As of now I don't think there are any disadvantages using this. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The zero deploy web based applications are very cost effective. Sharing requirements directly with Test, and developers reduces misunderstanding, and versioning errors. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

DOORS Classic has a very large following, and user trained base. DNG requires a re-think of how requirements are managed. Some industries can adapt quickly, others, not so fast. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

This is an amazing tool to define requirements clearly and manage them. As project proceeds requirements can change and this helps keeping track of it.It is also really quick and responsive. DOORS made my work a lot easier when I was working as a requirement engineer for a project I was involved in. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

UI looks a bit old fashioned. Could be improved.Also, sometimes it is a bit heavy on server. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Variant management , audit history and webbased application features are some of them that our users love about it. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Read access issues and complexity of reviews within the tool is what hesitates us to use the tool to a complete extent. We also wish there was some kind of white paper/guidance on how change drivers work / should work in DNG in good detail. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.