Tag Archive for: IBM DOORS/Other Legacy Solutions

Tag Archive for: IBM DOORS/Other Legacy Solutions

What is DOORS and Why Does DOORS Software Fall Short for Requirements Management?

What does DOORS stand for?

DOORS is an acronym that stands for Rational Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System.

What is DOORS?

IBM DOORS, formerly known as Telelogic DOORS, is a legacy requirements management tool originally created in 1991 and is part of the IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS Family.

Why was IBM DOORS originally built?

Requirements management tools started to evolve more than 30 years ago when it became clear that document-based tools such as Microsoft Office did not offer the capabilities able to manage and analyze requirements traceability.

There was initially a limited choice of requirements tools including QSS DOORS (now IBM), Rational Requisite Pro (end of life), Borland Calibre RM (now Microfocus), as well as a few others.

Legacy requirements solutions may have been sufficient to handle managing requirements in the past but are failing to keep pace over time due to increasing engineering complexity and the need for modern software to be far easier to use.

Person standing in from of several DOORS in an attempt to find the right requirements management solution.

Why did teams originally invest in IBM DOORS?

Requirements management has long been accepted by the engineering industry as an essential discipline, no matter which process is used, or which type of system is being produced. IBM DOORS was typically selected as choices were limited. Organizations originally invested in a requirements tool to establish a standard requirements management practice and process that allowed teams to align on a single source of truth for requirements.

They invested in DOORS software with the goal of:

  • Encouraging and motivating teams to follow common requirements practices. 
  • Establishing a single source of truth for requirements to ensure teams were working off the same information. 
  • Creating minimal disruption to the business with an off-the-shelf solution that allowed teams to focus on their core business. 
  • Integrating requirements into core workflows and business without impacting how people work. 
  • Tracking the life of a requirement through development, test, and release.

Related: Buyer’s Guide: Selecting a Requirements Management and Traceability Solution

Why does IBM DOORS fall short for requirements management?

The past few decades have ushered in a new way of working — now teams are expected to work more efficiently and collaboratively across the organization and supply chain. Companies building highly regulated and complex products often rely on legacy tools such as IBM DOORS, yet as product development methodologies evolve, legacy requirements management tools have not kept pace.

Misalignment between what teams need vs. what legacy solutions provide can introduce increased risk in the product development process, leading to inefficiencies and lack of visibility that often result in missed deadlines, defects, compliance gaps, and rework. Companies that have migrated to a modern solution from IBM DOORS have achieved faster development times, greater efficiencies, and reduced expenses. As you plan your next move, we’ll cover everything you need to consider moving forward, including market challenges, how engineering teams are adapting, and why waiting to make a change will continue to expose you to greater unnecessary risks.

RELATED: Move to Jama Connect — A Modern Requirements Management Alternative to IBM DOORS

The Drawbacks of DOORS Software

You may currently be using a solution that was implemented with the intention of producing positive business outcomes. But over time, the market has changed and, as a result, your organization’s needs have changed.

If you feel like you’ve outgrown your requirements management software, you aren’t alone. Complex systems such as IBM DOORS have inherent drawbacks and have also had trouble keeping up with the innovation occurring in highly regulated industries. Continuing to use a solution that your organization has outgrown comes with a variety of challenges, including:

A cumbersome user experience. DOORS has a complex and challenging architecture and an outdated user interface. Existing users are losing the motivation to continue to use DOORS while new users are reluctant or refuse to learn. Users oftentimes refuse to use DOORS and wind up working in Word/Excel and collaboration is done in meetings and emails leaving decisions and details lost outside of DOORS.

A system lacking robust collaboration abilities and a single source of truth for requirements. With stakeholders reluctant to work within DOORS, “librarians” must enter information into the system to keep everything up to date, while the real collaboration happens outside of DOORS in emails or conversations. As a result, organizations lack the ability to perform robust reviews or examine the audit trail for requirements evolution. Additionally, teams using DOORS often must retain dedicated staff, a cost that is unnecessary in today’s competitive market where teams are being tasked with doing more with less.

Risk is introduced due to aging technologies. DOORS 9.6 is already outside of its original support window, which raises questions about how long DOORS will continue. Inevitably, IBM will at some point discontinue support for the DOORS legacy platform, and that leaves customers in a high-risk situation trying to protect their intellectual property. Additionally, a cloud option is not available, which creates challenges with remote working.

A high cost of ownership and reliance on customization. Organizations need to focus on their core business and using a bespoken RM tool interferes with that goal. Companies often struggle to achieve the benefits promised by DOORS without complex customization, and those customizations don’t transfer to IBM DOORS Next.

Stagnant infrastructure doesn’t support change. At rest, DOORS is working and has a low IT manpower cost of ownership. Changes are constantly happening and ignoring them creates additional risk. As the IT industry faces more demanding regulations, supporting the DOORS architecture is growing increasingly difficult.

Lack of vertical frameworks to support compliance. As industries establish increased regulatory and compliance rules, new and updated industry engineering frameworks have been created (e.g., DO178 A, B & C). Legacy requirements tools made early attempts at providing engineering frameworks, but these have not kept up with industry changes and are now mostly left to users to create for themselves.

Related: How to Overcome Organizational Barriers to Live Requirements Traceability

Risks and Costs Associated with Staying with DOORS Software

Tools that are difficult or frustrating to use — and require experts to operate — will not only slow down development but will also breed resistance and hinder adoption. As is the case with DOORS software. This creates fragmented processes that introduce unnecessary risks for organizations that must stay current with compliance regulations while developing integrated, complex products that sustain business and maintain market relevance.

The unintended consequences of a fragmented development process are critical functions such as requirements traceability, verification, validation, risk mitigation, product integration, and compliance can be fraught with information gaps, defects, delays, rework, recalls, missed requirements, and significant manual effort.

In the complex product, systems, and software delivery lifecycle, organizations can experience negative outcomes when using DOORS software, such as: 

  • Performance: Product fails to perform specified functions. 
  • Quality: Product defects are discovered by customers post-launch. 
  • Delays: Product release deadlines are missed, or costs are overrun. 
  • Fit to requirements: Product fails to meet the needs of customers. 
  • Compliance gaps: Gaps identified late and require extreme cost to rework and fix. 
  • Regulatory action: Product is not approved for launch or recalled post-launch.

This image shows the V Model of Live Traceability for product management.

Achieving Live Traceability™ with Jama Connect

Jama Software’s Live Traceability allows engineering teams to quickly and easily access the latest and most complete information for any requirement, no matter the stage of development or tools used. This real-time capability boosts productivity by ensuring teams work with the latest data and reduces risks like delays and defects by finding issues early. Research shows that issues found late can be much more expensive to fix, which is why Live Traceability is so important. Jama Connect helps overcome the limitations of older tools, leading to better results in many industries such as automotive, medical devices, aerospace & defense, and more. To learn more, visit Buyer’s Guide: Selecting a Requirements Management and Traceability Solution
Interested in making a change in your requirements management tool? There are a lot of solutions on the market, check out our requirements management buyer’s guide to cut through the clutter, Selecting the Right Requirements Management Tool. 

What is DOORS

In this blog, we recap our webinar, “Migrating from IBM DOORS: Learn Why and How Rockwell Automation Made the Switch” – Click HERE to watch it in its entirety.

Migrating from IBM® DOORS®: Why and How Rockwell Automation Made the Switch

As a modern alternative to traditional legacy platforms like IBM DOORS, Jama Connect® enables digital transformation with a more efficient and user-friendly approach to managing risk and compliance. And although the benefits are innumerable, some organizations hesitate to migrate to a modern platform because they believe it’s a painful, slow process.

You will hear directly from one of our customers, Rockwell Automation, about why they decided to migrate from IBM DOORS and how they were able to successfully move to Jama Connect.

In this session, the Rockwell Automation team answered the following questions, and more:

  • Why was now the right time to switch tools?
  • How easy was it to switch environments while preserving IP?
  • How did the Jama Software® team assist you in making the migration process as smooth as possible?
  • What are the drivers for continued and expanded use of Jama Connect?
  • What are the key benefits you have realized since the migration?

BELOW IS AN ABBREVIATED SECTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT ABOUT MIGRATING FROM IBM DOORS

Sheila King: Rockwell has some business units that have functional safety products with the 61508, and although it’s not widely used at Rockwell, teams have solved their traceability and requirements management at the business unit level using Classic DOORS. Other teams were using homegrown requirements tools and traceability, including Doxygen, and yet other teams were using Word documents and Excel spreadsheets and doing the manual brute force way of doing traceability and requirements. But then when the security landscape changed and we realized the vulnerabilities of industrial automation, the 62443 cyber security specification was invented and we decided that we needed to use it, so we needed a site certification and in the process we adopted the IBM CLM product with the DOORS Next Gen RTC for planning and RQM for test management.

Mario Maldari: What led you to consider making a switch away from the tools that you were using and why was that change needed?

King: We were already in the throes of adopting the CLM DNG tools and developing our product cycle in order to meet the 62443 certification, and we decided in that process that we really needed to up our game. We needed better planning tools for our test integration and continuous integration and delivery, and we needed better tools for requirements management. That included the ability to move data widely between products because that’s real life and in the current tools, the DOORS Next Generation (sometimes called DNG or DOORS NG) tools, we needed to use the ReqIF, which was really an administrative thing as opposed to people being able to move their own data. We also had the solution for DOORS NG and RQM and RTC and we hired a third party or we contracted a third party vendor to manage that and we decided we needed a better integration for that, for our vendor. For the tools themselves, we needed variant and configuration management and native real-time traceability.

RELATED: IEC 61508 Overview: The Complete Guide for Functional Safety in Industrial Manufacturing

Maldari: Can we spend a few minutes looking at the primary considerations you have for selecting Jama Connect as opposed to DOORS Next Generation?

King: Yeah. We actually created a grassroots working group to evaluate tools and we evaluated several. Our top two were of course Jama [Connect] and Helix. The tiebreakers were this, Jama Connect had functional safety-ready certification and anybody who goes through functional safety knows how much value that is for your audit. We needed a strong review center and Jama [Connect] has that. We needed baselines in order to be able to not have to use SAP for saving our documents. We like the rational database and the ability to configure different item types. We not only use Jama Connect for our requirements, but we use it for our threat models and our fault models, and we also liked a lot the structure, the permission structure that allows you to specify all the way down to requirement if you need to, how you’re going to protect your data in the tools. And with our fault and models or design for security and threat models, that is our business risk or business restricted setting.

Maldari: Thank you. We know the value of an organization’s environment is their data. You spend a lot of money buying tools and maintaining tools, but the real value is the data that you have inside of those tools. Can you share some of the concerns Rockwell had going into the migration?

King: First of all, we were going to having all our data in the cloud. And so we had our CISO team get involved in that and they did an evaluation because not only were we now putting requirements in the cloud, we were putting our source in the cloud with Git. We were putting our planning, our tests in the clouds, our anomalies in the cloud, some kind of scary stuff to have in the cloud, and so we had a CISO audit and they decided that it was very safe to do that. Secondly, when it comes to actually keeping our data safe, the truth is we asked Jama Connect to explain to us how they were going to keep it safe and they convinced us that they could, and so they’ll tell you how they kept our data safe.

Maldari: Maybe that’s a good transition to the next question. This is just a discussion around were there any specific steps you took to protect the data and IP?

King: Because we had such a short window for moving all the content over, we made backups as it was in our current tools and then moved them into the tools and we used the ReqIFs, the collections and all that stuff from DNG and just about every other way you can export data out of that and back it all up. And then once we moved it into Jama Connect, actually just handed it over to the Jama Software team and they imported it and then we migrated it and “Jama-tized” the data once we had it inside.

RELATED: Traceable Agile™ – Speed AND Quality Are Possible for Software Factories in Safety-critical Industries

Maldari: Maybe we could bring Preston into this as well. Can you and Preston share some of the details around the migration approach?

Preston Mitchell: Yes. I’ll go ahead and let Sheila start and then I’ll jump in after.

King: So just as I mentioned, we had six months to do it, so we had three phases that we started with. We worked with our stakeholders to identify all the content to be migrated, and then we again had the extremely tight window we elected, like I mentioned, to adopt, to bring it over into Jama Connect as is.

Mitchell: Thanks, Sheila. Yeah, the slide that’s being presented right now basically illustrates the standard migration approach utilized by the Jama Connect team and our partners. Every migration is going to have unique elements, needs, but in the case of Rockwell’s migration, this template married very well. As Sheila was taking care of the planning, we transitioned really seamlessly into analysis and discovery. During the discovery and proof of concept stages. We did come across a few issues, very common in migrations, so we required some customized tool development, but once we had validated the integration tools and the approach, the final stages was fairly straightforward process.

Sheila was generating all of the extracts from the legacy systems and she would transfer those to the Jama Software team and then we would load them into Jama Connect. And as Sheila said, in some cases we go through a cleaning of the data prior to migration, but again, given the short window for this migration, we just elected to bring all the data over from DOORS Next Gen, which in some cases some of the modules had over 170 attributes, which we were able to consolidate and clean down quite a bit later. But again, with a short timeframe, we just elected to bring everything in as is cleaning up afterwards and Jama Connect because they were coming up against a pretty critical deadline where they were losing access to their DOORS instance.

Maldari: That sounds pretty comprehensive. Sheila, now that you’re at the other end, how would you rate your experience around migration and user your satisfaction?

King: Oh, well, the team was just great. They worked really hard to integrate and migrate our data. Anytime we ran into an issue, we got the software group and I keep forgetting the name of the team, I just call them the software group because that’s what we are, software. Anyway, but they’d come in and they would write some code to add to their data exchange to manage the data that was coming out of the tools, and it just worked really very well. The Classic DOORS group had a hundred and I can’t remember, seven fields, and we were able to talk them down into just, I think it’s 10 now.

WATCH THIS WEBINAR IN ITS ENTIRETY:
Migrating from IBM® DOORS®: Learn Why and How Rockwell Automation Made the Switch

DOORS Next Generation or Jama Connect: A Side-by-Side Look at Requirements Management Platforms

Why Modern Engineering Teams Aren’t Using IBM DOORS or DOORS Next Generation for Requirements Management

If you’re currently using DOORS for requirements management, you likely know that moving to a different solution is necessary, and you might be considering DOORS Next Generation. However, fast-shifting market dynamics require a new approach to accelerate innovation. As a modern alternative to traditional legacy platforms, Jama Connect® enables digital transformation with a more efficient and user-friendly approach to managing risk and compliance.

To adapt to increasing industry challenges and complexities, innovative organizations are now requiring best-in-class software to scale development, reduce risk, save time, and ensure compliance to quality and safety regulations — and migrating to a new requirements management tool, will be a necessity to keep pace with the competition.

The leader in requirements management software, Jama Connect outranks IBM DOORS Next®
for implementation time, adoption, ROI, & market presence

 

Related: Why Migration Efforts from IBM Rational DOORS to DOORS NG Are Failing – And an Alternative Path.

5 Key Reasons Teams Are Choosing Jama Connect over DOORS NG

Considering choosing Jama Connect over DOORS Next? Jama Connect consistently stands above DOORS Next (for requirements management tools) in the G2 Grid® for overall satisfaction, performance, user experience, collaboration, reviews and approvals, implementation, usability, user adoption, and overall ROI.

Fastest Time to Market/ROI

  • Deploy in weeks, not months with easy updates and high performance
  • Pre-configured frameworks to satisfy industry regulations
  • Intuitive user interface and workflows that drive efficiency
  • Jama Software in-house industry-focused subject matter experts

Highest Adoptability

  • Intuitive design with a better UX and ease of use that enables adoptability across teams and disciplines
  • Lowest learning curve, minimal training required
  • Actionable visibility into status, progress, and risks
  • Permissions-controlled access for your entire organization

Maximum Collaboration

  • Designed for connecting remote / distributed development teams and disciplines
  • Real-time communication captured in context
  • Secure access for internal and external stakeholders
  • Delivers end-to-end Live Traceability™
  • Improves productivity

Lowest Total Cost of Ownership

  • Simple and straightforward administration
  • No need for custom scripting or continuous updating
  • Scales easily without big infrastructure investment
  • Unlimited no-cost access for extended internal/external stakeholders

Built for the Modern Engineering Stack

  • Jama Connect Traceable MBSE™ encourages and enables MBSE approach
  • Integrates with market-leading tools with open REST API
  • Teams can work in preferred tools with complete traceability visible in Jama Connect

Related: Moving from Modules to Models – Is it finally time to leave IBM® DOORS® behind?

See how DOORS Next stacks up against Jama Connect
in key areas below.

DOORS Next vs Jama Connect

Jama Connect is a proven IBM DOORS and DOORS NG alternative with flexible, scalable, and reliable migration solutions, including:

  • Operation in an IBM DOORS supply chain. Innovative companies leverage Jama Connect to get up and running fast with a modern requirements management process that tightly aligns with industry standards and practices that support regulatory compliance. Organizations can connect to customers and suppliers that use IBM DOORS through Data Exchange for Jama Connect.”
  • Integration services. Jama Connect provides integration with key product development lifecycle tools.
  • Coexists with IBM DOORS. IBM DOORS is embedded in many organizations and may take some time to migrate completely. Progressive teams and divisions can get started on Jama Connect quickly while the larger organization works toward replacing existing programs over time. This approach is supported through a mix of integration, migration, and exchange services.

DOORS has been a faithful requirements management tool that has served the product development community well for almost 30 years. But to stay competitive, it’s necessary to switch to a modern requirements management solution like Jama Connect.

Jama Software®‘s Live Traceability™ allows engineering teams to quickly and easily access the latest and most complete information for any requirement, no matter the stage of development or tools used. This real-time capability boosts productivity by ensuring teams work with the latest data and reduces risks like delays and defects by finding issues early. Research shows that issues found late can be much more expensive to fix, which is why Live Traceability is so important. Jama Connect® helps overcome the limitations of older tools, leading to better results in many industries such as automotive, medical devices, aerospace & defense, and more.

To learn more about making the switch from IBM DOORS or DOORS Next Generation to Jama Connect, download our datasheet.


DOORS for Requirements Management


Why Migration Efforts from IBM Rational DOORS to DOORS NG Are Failing – And an Alternative Path.

Why Migration Efforts from IBM Rational DOORS to DOORS NG Are Failing – And an Alternative Path.

IBM Rational DOORS was built in 1991 when it became clear that document-based tools such as Microsoft Office did not offer the capabilities able to manage and analyze requirements traceability. And while it was revolutionary at the time, not much has changed about the product in over 30 years.

Many teams are looking to switch away from Rational DOORS because of IT mandates, poor usability due to an antiquated user interface, lack of collaborative features, and a host of other reasons.

However, thinking that migrating to DOORS Next Generation is the easiest, most logical next step is a mistake. In this post, we’ll discuss why many migration efforts from IBM Rational DOORS to DOORS NG are failing, and provide a simpler, more modern alternative.

Considering a switch? If you want to move away from IBM Rational DOORS, you are not constrained by a specific path of migration.

Leaders might already understand the need to switch from Rational DOORS, but they aren’t sure of the next best step. Some lean toward switching to IBM DOORS NG with the assumption that it will be easier to learn and deploy than starting from scratch with a new solution.

However, the only thing that DOORS Next shares with the original DOORS is the name; otherwise, it’s a completely different platform that takes the same level of migration effort that any migration away from DOORS legacy would take. Any expensive DXL customizations — which can sometimes add up to more than a million lines of code — cannot be migrated to DOORS Next.

As you make your decision on whether to migrate away from DOORS or not, consider the risks associated with DOORS and the benefits of choosing a different option.

Risks may include:

  • Loss of control and employee frustration. Employees frustrated with DOORS work outside of DOORS, most often in Microsoft Word or Excel, which means that requirements are no longer maintained in a central system and a rigorous process is not followed. This leads to an inability for management to monitor key metrics for the end-to-end process to identify process risk patterns.
  • Increased operational costs. Continuing the existing path of using DOORS increases an organization’s risk and expense complying with ever demanding IT security regulations.
  • Disruption in business. New users are reluctant to pick up the antiquated user interface of DOORS, expecting software to be as intuitive as applications in their social environment. Not having the ability to move fast and scale business to meet innovative market demands will cost your business time and resources.
  • Missed market opportunities. Errors, defects, and omissions not found until the end of the process cause costly delays and overruns. A company’s long-term success can be hindered by delayed launches and missed market opportunities.
  • Increased exposure to risk in regulated markets. A requirements management tool helps you stay compliant and increase visibility in regulated markets. Limited customer and cross-functional involvement in the review and approval of requirements and a lack of stakeholder alignment create unnecessary risks. And, the absence of process exception tracking, which determines if requirements have been omitted or modified, creates additional exposure. With more stakeholders refusing to use DOORS, compliance is checked after the fact with the arduous task of tool admins importing data and then running trace analysis. Extended stakeholders who are using DOORS are only able to see any errors long after they have been introduced and eventually imported.
  • Distraction from the core business. An ineffective requirements management tool encourages organizations to create customizations rather than simply configuring a tool to meet process needs. Developing and maintaining ad-hoc customizations forces an organization to focus on how to create requirements management functions rather than focus on core business. A modern requirements management solution enables teams to work faster and more efficiently, leading to faster time to market.

Related: The Inside Story: Data-Model Diagnostics for IBM® DOORS®

Need more proof? Here’s what IBM says about migrating from IBM Rational DOORS to DOORS NG

Looking at Rational DOORS and DOORS NG Side-by-Side

It may sound like migrating from Rational DOORS and DOORS NG is just a click of a button, the two systems have completely different infrastructure, processes, and structure. It’s a very complex and manual process. In fact, migrating to DOORS NG will cause major architectural shifts that will impact performance and require extensive employee training.

DOORS

Related: Requirements Traceability, Does My Data Matter?

There are a number of data types, including historical data, that can’t be migrated at all. But don’t take it from us; IBM says it themselves.

Additionally, there is no upgrade path from Rational DOORS to DOORS NG

5 Common Migration Myths Debunked

Transitioning to a new solution doesn’t have to be challenging; however, there are some assumptions that mislead us into thinking that difficulty is inevitable. Consider the following myths:

MYTH 1: Migrating away from IBM solutions will be more expensive. The amount of work that goes into upgrading to DOORS Next or transitioning to a new RM solution is the same, differentiated only by the quality of the tool and services available to help with migration. An option other than the DOORS family is most often a better fit for your organization.

MYTH 2: Customization will carry over to DOORS Next. You spent a lot of time customizing IBM DOORS and may believe those customizations will transition seamlessly to DOORS Next. However, this isn’t the case and is the reason selecting a different solution doesn’t involve more work.

MYTH 3: DOORS is already deployed and cheap to maintain. Continuing the current path with IBM DOORS is an expensive option in the long term, and often requires dedicated personnel. Switching to an alternative RM solution can improve efficiency while saving money.

MYTH 4: Business disruption is too difficult. The right RM tool will empower teams to effectively hit deadlines, collaborate, and improve business outcomes

MYTH 5: The user experience will suffer., Many people refuse to use DOORS due to a challenging user experience. DOORS Next is a completely new tool with a new user experience. Adopting a user-friendly solution allows teams to collaborate far more effectively as team members can accelerate concepts, designs, and validations for faster times to market.

Related: Moving from Modules to Models – Is it finally time to leave IBM® DOORS® behind?

Migration Away from IBM Rational DOORS is Inevitable – Here’s An Alternate, Easier Path

The fact is, IBM DOORS is extremely outdated, and at some point, updates and support will inevitably end.

If you’re currently using DOORS, you likely know that moving to a different solution is necessary, and you might be considering DOORS Next. However, fast-shifting market dynamics require a new approach to accelerate innovation. As a modern alternative to traditional legacy platforms, Jama Connect® enables digital transformation with a more efficient and user-friendly approach to managing risk and compliance.

Customers agree, naming Jama Connect the overall leader (#1) in requirements management software on G2, outranking IBM DOORS Next for implementation time, adoption, ROI, and market presence.

Jama Connect is a proven IBM DOORS alternative with flexible and reliable solutions, including:

Operation in an IBM DOORS supply chain. Innovative companies leverage Jama Connect to get up and running fast with a modern requirements management process that tightly aligns with industry standards and practices that support regulatory compliance. Organizations can connect to customers and suppliers that use IBM DOORS through Data Exchange for Jama Connect.

Integration services. Jama Connect provides integration with key product development lifecycle tools.

Coexists with IBM DOORS. IBM DOORS is embedded in many organizations and may take some time to migrate completely. Progressive teams and divisions can get started on Jama Connect quickly while the larger organization works toward replacing existing programs over time. This approach is supported through a mix of integration, migration, and exchange services.

Are you considering DOORS for requirements management or considering making a switch? Learn more in our eBooks, Why Move Away from IBM® DOORS® Legacy, and Why Now? and Moving from DOORS Next® to Jama Connect® for Requirements Management

Achieving Live Traceability™ with Jama Connect®

Jama Software®‘s Live Traceability™ allows engineering teams to quickly and easily access the latest and most complete information for any requirement, no matter the stage of development or tools used. This real-time capability boosts productivity by ensuring teams work with the latest data and reduces risks like delays and defects by finding issues early. Research shows that issues found late can be much more expensive to fix, which is why Live Traceability is so important. Jama Connect® helps overcome the limitations of older tools, leading to better results in many industries such as automotive, medical devices, aerospace & defense, and more. To learn more, visit Buyer’s Guide: Selecting a Requirements Management and Traceability Solution

To learn more about the three flexible approaches to support companies moving away from IBM DOORS and how our migration team can help, download our datasheet.


DOORS for Requirements Management


Considering DOORS® for requirements management? There is a more modern solution.

Considering DOORS® for requirements management? There is a more modern solution.

If you’re considering IBM® DOORS® for requirements management, it might be because it’s considered a “safe” move, you’ve used it in the past, or because you’re unaware that there’s a significantly more modern and easier to use alternative to DOORS requirements management.

IBM DOORS was an amazing tool – when it was originally published in 1991, over 30 years ago. DOORS for requirements management has many capabilities for working in regulated industries, but the limitations far outweigh the benefits. It does not deal well with increasing complexity or the need for collaboration and seamless integration in existing tool ecosystems. Let’s have a look at some of the limitations of DOORS:

Traceability: DOORS has powerful traceability capabilities, but they are hidden behind a cumbersome interface. This leads to outdated traces. Users find traceability maintenance to be difficult with DOORS, and sometimes traces are created “after the fact” for compliance audits and nothing else. This is a missed opportunity. Having a more modern tool, like Jama Connect® with an easy-to-use traceability matrix creates transparency and confidence when reacting to change. Traceability also enables agility.

Related: What is Requirements Traceability and Why Does it Matter for Product Teams

Change Management: The traceability of DOORS does support change management, e.g., via suspect links in principle. Unfortunately, this information is hidden and hard to utilize. Compare that to the actionable traceability of Jama Connect, which proactively points out issues in the traceability matrix and suggests how to fix them, instead of doing this reactively, after-the-fact.

Compliance Reporting: DOORS requirements management allows you to report on virtually everything – but almost everything requires custom scripting with its proprietary scripting language, DXL. Unless you have a responsive (often costly) programmer on your team, you will have a hard time getting the information you need, when you need it.

Best Practices: Every “module” (document) in DOORS has its own fields, and without an in-house expert, users sometimes find themselves with little guidance on how to use the tool. This results in inconsistencies, which in turn results in confusion and lack of transparency. Consider two “system specifications” with inconsistent data values for “priority.” Likewise, standardized workflows guide users through their daily work. In DOORS, you need a programmer to provide this functionality.

Related: Requirements Traceability, Does My Data Matter?

Market Drivers Are Pushing Engineering Teams and Technology to Evolve Past IBM DOORS’ Capabilities

Today’s products and software have become more complex. This complexity, combined with rapidly evolving customer and market demands, is forcing engineering teams to change the way they work. Now, far more stakeholders need to get involved in the requirements, driving the need for requirements tools to be more collaborative and have functionality that is applicable to diverse users.

Organizations that successfully transform to support this new way of working understand that effective and optimized product and system development requires highly collaborative solutions and methodologies.

To reduce risk in product development while still accelerating system design and delivery, teams need access to real-time data and alignment across disparate teams as well as across engineering, business, and product management lifecycles.

Leading-edge companies who are successfully supporting transformation of their engineering teams:

  • Invest in new technologies and agile processes to continually improve product development: Engineering teams prefer to make their own decisions about which best-of-breed solutions support their specific discipline and optimization of their activities – one single tool will not fit all users’ needs. It’s no longer possible for a Prime Contractor or OEM to mandate a single product or vendor across supply chains, and in fact, standards such as ReqIF (Requirement Interchange Format) and OSLC (Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration) have come about to help products work better together. Modern development solutions prioritize integration across the ALM-PLM ecosystem.
  • Take a data-driven approach to product development: An organization’s investment in their data is far more than the investment they make in tools, and the primary focus now comes down to availability of data and how that flows across an engineering community (integration) and the value chain (exchange). What is required is a loosely coupled approach that ties together the necessary metadata across disparate tools in a way that connects the desired outcome (user and system requirements) to downstream activities – the digital thread. The digital thread is the best approach to reduce the risk of negative product outcomes while preserving engineering autonomy and productivity.
  • Support more formal processes to address increased regulation: As product complexity increases, so has the need for more formal processes and compliance with industry standards. Best practices for systems engineering have been prescribed in many industries. This formal process adoption started with the need to comply with aerospace standards such as DO178 or ISO 9001. Now we see engineering regulation or compliance needs increase across automotive, medical, finance, and other industries, which require the same level of rigor in their development process. Investment in tools that support the generation of the necessary proof of-process compliance to standards, most commonly: requirement validation, verification, traceability, risk assessments, and test results, are critical to supporting efficiency while reducing risk.

Related: What is DOORS and Why Does DOORS Software Fall Short for Requirements Management

IBM DOORS for Requirements Management vs. Jama Connect

Today’s product development teams must innovate and adapt quickly to changing market demands in order to remain competitive. Many find legacy solutions like DOORS are unable to adapt to support these needs. The following are the top reasons why some of the world’s most forward-thinking companies are electing to switch to Jama Connect:

Easy to use, intuitive modern user experience

Jama Connect supports multiple development methodologies and engineering disciplines to drive cross-team collaboration and alignment.

Flexible, scalable, and secure deployment models that provide manageable total cost of ownership (TCO)

Jama Software offers flexible license and deployment models with unlimited licenses for reviewers to promote collaboration across product development teams. Deployed in the cloud or on-premise, the solution ensures flexible access for distributed teams anywhere.

Open architecture to integrate with the tools teams want to use

Jama Connect enables integration with best-of-breed tools across the entire product development lifecycle. We provide a powerful network of options to get the right technology stack aligned to meet each client’s unique business needs.

Achieving Live Traceability™ with Jama Connect®

Jama Software®‘s Live Traceability™ allows engineering teams to quickly and easily access the latest and most complete information for any requirement, no matter the stage of development or tools used. This real-time capability boosts productivity by ensuring teams work with the latest data and reduces risks like delays and defects by finding issues early. Research shows that issues found late can be much more expensive to fix, which is why Live Traceability is so important. Jama Connect® helps overcome the limitations of older tools, leading to better results in many industries such as automotive, medical devices, aerospace & defense, and more. To learn more, visit Buyer’s Guide: Selecting a Requirements Management and Traceability Solution

Are you considering DOORS for requirements management or considering making a switch? Check out this webinar, Moving from Modules to Models – Is it finally time to leave IBM® DOORS® behind? Watch it here

DOORS for Requirements Management