We use Jama for Centralised requirements administration of sectorwide projects and developments, so we can achieve sector-uniform way of working.
Pros
Quick marking (and solving) question and issues through comments
Intuitive Review module (peer as well as approval)
Free Stakeholder licenses help showcase (Jama) Requirements management to involved stakeholders
Cons
No build-in Company Dictionary/Glossary
No easy-to-use visual traceability (e.g. tree-graph)
Likelihood to Recommend
Jama is well suited for just about all situations. Beside missing some minor functionalities (which are missing in just about all other requirements tools as well), there is nothing to complain about. Support is good and the company is still improving Jama every month.
VU
Verified User
Professional in Quality Assurance (Oil & Energy company, 5001-10,000 employees)
We use JAMA for projects requirements to allocate the requirements to different departments
Pros
Having List view and reading views
Import from Excel and word document
Powerful API to integrate JAMA with other tools
Relatively stable system
lots of good functionalities
Cons
Export/Reports are not easy for the end users. the templates are too complicated
In my opinion, JAMA does not cope well with large volume of data, e.g. only first 100 in user group are displayed
defects reporting is complicated
Report of new features can be done , but with different login info and not the same as reporting defects .
Likelihood to Recommend
JAMA is good when a organisation is doing either product development or project delivery. JAMA functions are not so great for very large system ( e.g. for more than 10-20k requirements)
