could you please let me know the link in JAZZ.net where I can download the standard template like IEEE, DO178, DOD with template for SRS, SDD, STP etc for CLM 6.0.2 Requirement management / Rational DOORS Next Generation? VaniB - Thu Oct 27 00:10:25 EDT 2016 |
Re: Standard Template in RDNG There is another forum for ng. Why in the world are you working with crippled ng. |
Re: Standard Template in RDNG DOORSHAM - Thu Oct 27 07:58:03 EDT 2016 There is another forum for ng. Why in the world are you working with crippled ng. Hijacking the thread. DOORSHAM, I'm interested to hear why you think DNG is so crippled ? I get there are issues with DNG, but so are there with DOORS. We are looking to go to DNG primarily for the use of global configurations. We struggle to manage long system (10 years) lifecycles with multiple builds and variants to include the interrelationship with test planning/verification reporting. The biggest weakness with DOORS 9 is the inability to manage that in DOORS 9 without heavy use of DXL (We try but struggle with DXL as we are a systems engineering shop, no coders/developers here.) |
Re: Standard Template in RDNG Jim Wetzel - Mon Oct 31 08:19:37 EDT 2016 Hijacking the thread. DOORSHAM, I'm interested to hear why you think DNG is so crippled ? I get there are issues with DNG, but so are there with DOORS. We are looking to go to DNG primarily for the use of global configurations. We struggle to manage long system (10 years) lifecycles with multiple builds and variants to include the interrelationship with test planning/verification reporting. The biggest weakness with DOORS 9 is the inability to manage that in DOORS 9 without heavy use of DXL (We try but struggle with DXL as we are a systems engineering shop, no coders/developers here.) Proof is in the pudding -- if you try NG and like it -- you are good to go. A suggestion to you is this: when you try NG make sure it is loaded with multiple users; It doesn't take many users running concurrently to bring NG to it's knees.
If it doesn't work for you then you SOL. |
Re: Standard Template in RDNG DOORSHAM - Thu Oct 27 07:58:03 EDT 2016 There is another forum for ng. Why in the world are you working with crippled ng. I don't know the configuration you tested with but it It's not correct to suggest the tool is crippled.
We have many happy users of DNG and many happy users of DOORS. If you wish to stick with DOORS then go for it. IBM has no intention to attempt to force people from one system to another.
We have many customers looking towards configuration management as the differentiating functionality to choose DNG rather than DOORS for the exact same reason given in this thread. DOORS is a fantastic tool, made better with DXL. DNG on the other hand has the expectation that users do not wish to produce on mass customizations.
As the product manager for both tools I'm clearly biased. I have been "scoring" both tools for myself and I feel that with the 6.x releases of DNG the product now moves ahead of DOORS in terms of the end user benefit it provides. |
Re: Standard Template in RDNG Richard_Watson - Tue Nov 01 04:25:55 EDT 2016 I don't know the configuration you tested with but it It's not correct to suggest the tool is crippled.
We have many happy users of DNG and many happy users of DOORS. If you wish to stick with DOORS then go for it. IBM has no intention to attempt to force people from one system to another.
We have many customers looking towards configuration management as the differentiating functionality to choose DNG rather than DOORS for the exact same reason given in this thread. DOORS is a fantastic tool, made better with DXL. DNG on the other hand has the expectation that users do not wish to produce on mass customizations.
As the product manager for both tools I'm clearly biased. I have been "scoring" both tools for myself and I feel that with the 6.x releases of DNG the product now moves ahead of DOORS in terms of the end user benefit it provides. Your statement avoids what is needed i.e., a statement of what each tool provides and a statement that they don't provide the same benefit or product.
If someone uses doorsng and expect to get similar results as traditional doors then it would truly appear that doorsng is crippleware. And if somone wants to throw a 100 engineers at a project using doorsng then again they will preceive doorsng as crippleware. And if someone wants to get help with doorsng and looks for an ibm forum for help they again will percieve doorsng as crippleware.
And if someone wants to automate some task for requirements management they again will perceive doorsng as crippleware. Some people don't want to do every task using the mouse and keyboard and they again will perceive doorsng as crippleware. |
Re: Standard Template in RDNG DOORSHAM - Tue Nov 01 05:42:13 EDT 2016 Your statement avoids what is needed i.e., a statement of what each tool provides and a statement that they don't provide the same benefit or product.
If someone uses doorsng and expect to get similar results as traditional doors then it would truly appear that doorsng is crippleware. And if somone wants to throw a 100 engineers at a project using doorsng then again they will preceive doorsng as crippleware. And if someone wants to get help with doorsng and looks for an ibm forum for help they again will percieve doorsng as crippleware.
And if someone wants to automate some task for requirements management they again will perceive doorsng as crippleware. Some people don't want to do every task using the mouse and keyboard and they again will perceive doorsng as crippleware. Hi DOORSHAM,
With the anonymity this forum provides this is a debate I can't have in a public thread. I can say that I have done the analysis you describe and it is from that analysis that DNG scores higher than DOORS. There will always be functionality local to both products that we don't expect in the other.
Richard Watson Product Manager, IBM DOORS & IBM DOORS Next Generation |