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
Micro Focus Caliber (discontinued)
Score 1.3 out of 10
N/A
Caliber by Micro Focus (formerly Borland Caliber), is an application requirement management offering. It has been discontinued, but similar capabilities are supplied by Micro Focus by Dimensions RM.
While working on a complex project it is important all the needed change requests are handled in an effective manner, this tool helps us do exactly the same, it had great features to manage those change management tickets, making sure to merge the change with existing workflow, prioritize the requests centrally so there are no duplicates. Easy to collaborate across different teams and colleagues across the aisle.
I personally would prefer other products on the market right now such as Microsoft Team Foundation Server and Test Manager. I think having a product like Caliber that can only do requirements without integrating with a another system makes things a little more time consuming.
There are a couple of areas where IBM Rational DOORS is quite strong. First, it is part of the IBM CLM solution so the artifacts developed in this module can be easily available for other functions like development and QA. They can link with their stories and test cases and team leads and managers can use traceability matrix to find out where there are gaps in coverage.
Comprehensive configuration management functionality (concept of multiple streams and global configuration) is available, which can be helpful if you need to implement configuration management scenarios for your product or project. For example, a certain version of a requirement can be linked with one story and another version of same requirement can be linked with another story. This is the unique feature which other current tools in the market don't provide.
It's highly customizable so you can configure the project areas based on your need. You can have your own requirement types, and you can define templates to speed up the process. Comprehensive review functionality is there as well.
Borland Caliber tracks functional and non-functional requirements pretty easily. You can easily add a requirement and attach a spreadsheet or a picture if needed.
Moving the hierarchy of requirements is fairly easy by just dragging and dropping.
Assigning users to approve requirements is simple by the fields included when adding a requirement and then submitting for review.
Too complex for projects or businesses that don't really need the detail. It is basically overkill.
If you are new to IBM Rational tools, it may be a medium learning curve. You'd also need lots of training from your people, since, as usual, this tool shouldn't be managed alone.
It may seem old fashion compared to Jira and the current control tools used in IT industry.
I think Borland Caliber visually needs to be updated. It looks very out of date compared to other products on the market. The text box has a notepad feel to it and it's hard to make it visually catching.
Borland Caliber needs to be easier to integrate with other testing and development products on the market.
Having fields more related to URS and FRS would be helpful to auto-link to a document. So enter in a URS or FRS document ID at the beginning of a project in Caliber and then auto-assigning requirement IDs to link to pieces of code or test cases and having the user be able to decide a naming convention.
Borland Caliber needs a specific table for linking to a document ID and then each requirement could auto-generate a sub ID for each requirement to make the process of filling in User Requirements and Functional Requirements more efficient. Then the user should be able to modify the sub ID if the naming convention needed to be different.
One of the downsides for us was the capabilities of the native build tools were lacking. The project management and work item tracking capabilities are great and I would recommend the tool to anyone. There is a definite learning curve with RTC as a source control system, and the streams are a concept unique to the product
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.
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 tiers as their customers. Jira has problems in that growth. Jira has more features compared to IBM Rational DOORS. For example in cloud support, IBM Rational DOORS relies on improved external services while Jira abstracts in the most modern way. Jira experts have a different professional background compared to that of IBM Rational DOORS. They are indeed from different engineering generations. There is little interchange in personal and ideas.
I think Borland Caliber is better than Atlassian Confluence and has way more options for ease of use and reporting. Team Foundation Server is my personal choice as it comes as a package for developers to link to requirements easily and link to test cases. Borland Caliber is visually the least attractive of the three systems I have used. If you need just a requirement manager for tracking and reporting then Borland Caliber is a great choice.
RTC helps automate incident management workflow which improves our work efficiency. With the integration with Geneos and GSD, we can one click create RTC incident tickets from Geneos with most of the information copied from Geneos automatically and then link the details to GSD for privilege account management if needed.
RTC provides a holistic view on ad hoc production activities. We use RTC for production management. Whoever needs to get access to production due to non-planned activities (planned change is managed in GSD) has to raise an incident ticket or service request ticket in RTC so as to get production privilege accounts.
RTC is also being used to review and approve the usage of privilege account which help us to meet audit requirements. For example, if a user made some database change using privilege account under incident number xxx, an entry will be added in RTC and sent to account owner or production support manager to review and approve.
