IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) Reviews - Page 21

Easy to use and track. used to track epics, stories in a sprint. Items can be assigned a priority Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Have to custom cteate queries to track things. Some of these should be provided by default. Email notifications doesn't work properly Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Very neat layout. Allows for a well-organized work. It was always convenient to use it. User-friendly. Was an employee of CIBER (a IT service company), and we used to sit at a different location than Highmark. For every new project we used to receive requirements and it was very clear what the Highmark needs. The entire testing process was made easier. Made a good installation choice. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Actually I didn't dislike this tool as it was very user-friendly. Used this tool for two years on multiple projects and felt the most comfortable receiving requirements, perform testing, and submitting back the work. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Easy of mapping, Tracing, import and data management Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The Export needs to be improved. For a large scale industry with lots of data as part of a project, export is often frozen and the tool gives up on the export. Even loading seems to be slow. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like the link to the requirements tool. We used to use RequisitePro and now we use RDNG. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The interface is frustrating: it bounces around as one makes entries, there are side panes that slide around until you figure out how to pin them, if you can. Navigation can be idiosyncratic from screen to screen, sometimes requiring one to place one's cursor in a field and tab to see the fields that extend off the screen.

The interface for reports is horrible.

The underlying structure that supposedly allows re-use of test cases is apparently flawed in that you can re-use a test case but you can't update it without overwriting the originally recorded results. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

RTC allows team members to fully own their work, progress, estimates, etc. This ownership removes the extra time and miscommunication that is associated with communicating status to a PM and the PM then entering your status and tasks in a plan and communicating it back to the team.

RTC also provides the ability of the team and each individual to create queries and charts to help them better understand the progress of their team and any issues that might be present. The dashboards are very visually pleasing, easy to set up and understand.

Keeping track of your own work and updating progress on it is very easy in RTC. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

RTC's navigation model is difficult to understand for new users. It is not very intuitive and the UI is inconsistent in some cases which adds to the confusion. Once the user has spent a few months using RTC, this confusion is resolved, but it takes a little time.

RTC does not allow a central way for a PM or a manager to manage work allocations of team members. I hope that this is resolved by an enhancement in the future. We have found that it is not effective approach to rely on each team member across a large organization to keep their allocations up to date at all time. Access to their allocations allowed to their manager would be great. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Very functional. We use DOORS for almost everything documentation related. The collaboration tools allowing multiple people to work on a document at once are helpful. Sandbox feature for documents or folders is very helpful in drafting documents without creating official versions. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Since it does so much, it can be hard to get used to at first. The layout isn't the most simple and takes time to master like many other IBM programs that I hadn't used before (LotusNotes, etc.). Sorting tools are very powerful as well, but not intuitive at first on how to get them to work. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I liked the best is that you can manage your entire testing process directly within the tool. It gives you the capability to write your entire test plan, test cases, test scripts and import requirements from ReqPro all within the tool. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The reporting mechanism. The reporting needs a lot of work to be able to view the data within the tool much better. It's kind of frustrating. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The feature to mange test in hierarchy.

The feature to integrate with task tracking system and requirement management system

The feature to execute test in place Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

nothing I really dislike. There are some complex concept which I never used. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Intuitive UI, very modern and web-based. A huge improvement from it's predecessor (Rational TestManager). Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

API has a steep learning curve. Integration not always straightforward. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

RQM integrates well with tools that support other disciplines such as requirements management and configuration/change management. For example, Rational Requirements composer (RRC), Reqpro, Rational Team Concert (RTC) and ClearQuest. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

RQM is slow to load on web browsers which could be due to poor scalability. RQM's performance also tends to become slower with more users. Furthermore, RQM is relatively expensive to purchase. The pricing appears to limit the adoption of RQM by smaller teams that don't have a robust budget. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.