Talk:Application lifecycle management

ALM First Attempt
This is my first attempt at creating a wikipedia entry. I was suprised to find that there was no entry for Application Lifecycle Management.

Let me know what you think - I appreciate that it still requires a lot of work.

whole lifecycle?
ALM implies also the end of life and related activities. However the definition and tool sets seams to focus only on the beginning of application life. Long story short - I am missing decommissioning and legal long term archiving steps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.248.249.57 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think a tool like Enterprise ARchitect, as good as it is, should not even be listed on this page. Sure, it used in a part of an application's life cycle, but it is not an ALM tool... Any plans on cleaning up this entry? Angeloh (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Similarity to Agile
Reads like this shares very similar concepts with Agile, should this be explored? 86.0.57.249 (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No one has responded to this yet, *but* Agile development methods are one particular approach to software development, while Application Lifecycle Management is a bit broader in scope, and while you could potentially use Agile methods within the scope of ALM, you could just as easily be using non-Agile methodologies (Waterfall, iterative, v-model, what-have-you). Wererooster (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
I have absolutely no idea why this is a candidate for speedy deletion!


 * Possibly because the vendor mentions are too prominent. But I agree it should exist. It's relevant to discussions we are having over in the ITIL area. Please look at other articles such as ITSM, IT portfolio management, and IT governance and try to start making this read more like those. It does need some work. Charles T. Betz 12:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the speedy deletion tag.Charles T. Betz 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for feedback Charles, I appreciate that it does require a lot of work - I will get cracking with it over the weekend. Much appreciated - I will be nagging you for more feedback once it has been revised!

Thanks Ben Logan


 * I am a little concerned about the number of whitepaper references and how much (or indeed what) has been drawn from whitepapers on this page. We need to be careful about copyright here.  I've tried to cleanup a couple of bits and will look at some more as and when time permits. Mark G 10:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright in Butler report
There is a fair use doctrine but it is important that the Bulter report stuff is not simply copied across and that it has been interpreted and ideally referenced with another source to avoid accusations of cpyrt problems. Mark G 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This entry is stale and needs modernization
The fact that there is an ALM entry in Wikipedia is great news. However the entry is a little too generic and not really helpful to anyone trying to obtain an informed opinion about the topic.

I'd like to take a stab at this so that it becomes an independent industry source that can be used for reference.

It would be a very bad thing if this became a billboard for vendors to ply their wares. Equally it would be far too overbearing if it became nothing more than the reguritation of analyst quotes. What is needed are comprehensive descriptions of the current thinking, best practices and practical application of ALM in the application development today.

ALM Guru 03:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC) ALM Guru, California 2007-03-14


 * One helpful addition would be to expand the the table (the section ALM Tools and Vendors) into a feature-set comparison, including, which are free-software, which are proprietary licenses, what OS the backend runs on, is the frontend browser-based or a native client app, etc, much like Comparison of Continuous Integration Software, Comparison of office suites or Comparison of web browsers. That way, the list could be preserved, and list entries that aren't notable (based on the list of references) could be removed accordingly.  Best of all, the rest of the article could remain, free of the mention of any specific tool or vendor (except for providing NPOV examples, not favoring any one in particular, of course) and it would  actually address the article title only. 65.112.197.16 (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What is ALM, anyway?
I can't tell from this article what ALM is. It appears to be an umbrella term that covers the tools and methodologies used to manage the software development process. Does it refer to a particular methodology? Or do all tools, processes, and methodologies used in managing the application lifecycle qualify as ALM tools, processes and methodologies?

Is ALM a standard? A metric? A protocol? An API? A discipline? If so, where can a reader get specific information about this standard, metric, protocol, API, or discipline?

This article refers to "principles of ALM" but it doesn't say what they are. It also refers to "the roles in ALM" without saying what they are.

If, for example, a student were to write a report on ALM for her software sociology class, what would she need to know about it? Is ALM more than simply an abbreviation for the self-explanatory words "application lifecycle management"? If so, what? (And if not, then what is ALM "2.0"?)

Mystified, RR 05:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the introductory sentence to answer the question "What is ALM?"

I think it's important to know that ALM is not an umbrella term or discipline in itself; it is a concept pushed by the vendors of certain software engineering tools. The concept seems to be that when all of your software engineering tools work together you can achieve a higher, more effective level of software project management. Vendors, along with for-hire journalists and consultants, are calling this concept "ALM".

There is certainly value in having all your tools work together; I think the Benefits section is not far off in describing that value. But until it cites sources, the Benefits section is just a sales pitch.

Frankly I think this whole entry should be renamed "ALM Tools". That is the phenomenon worth explaining. Software project management has always existed, and ALM is just another buzzword for it. But it's worth noting that a certain class of tools is now recognized as the backbone of software project management, and that vendors of tools in this class are competing madly in the marketplace. Each vendor claims that its tools do a better job of this thing called ALM.

Without these vendors and this competition, we'd never have heard of "ALM". Now, of course, even OS tools are embracing the term "ALM", using it in place of what used to be called "application lifecycle", "software project lifecycle", and "workflow". So the made-up term pitched by vendors is becoming an engeneering term after all.

But in the end, what ALM is is what you can achieve with all your tools working together. And what is that? Better software project management.

Tue18nov (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs more sources
This article needs more sources (what is ALM, benefits...). Faltenin 06:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like the only sources for this buzzword are people selling software. I'm dubious this even merits an article at all - it's just another word for software development, nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.249 (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tools and Vendors section
I cleaned up the Tools and Vendors section. Quite a few of the products/companies listed there do not have their own articles, and probably don't pass notability guidelines - other pages like this sometimes use that as a requirement. Thoughts anyone? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this. The list was Special:Contributions/GazRideGuide started by a spammer, and has grown completely out of control. We should restrict it to notable products, meaning products which have a Wikipedia article. I cleaned the list up according to this. Haakon (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Added MKS back in - understand that the notability dropped off with the demise of the product page in Dec 2009. I've repaired the product page and better cited within it to establish via what I understand to be reasonably reliable 3rd party sources to establish the significance of the product. Wererooster (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a cleanup once again. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION: I notice the recent addition of JIRA/Atlassian to the section and my first reaction was "they're not an ALM product" and it made me think a bit... maybe what is worthwhile would be to construct some sort of comparison chart that outlines functionality. As I understand it, JIRA is essentially bug & issue tracking software, which is only a fraction of the application lifecycle (i.e. no requirements management, test management, etc, etc.). For that matter none of the vendors listed address *all* of the functional areas as broken out in the categories section. Wererooster (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! I should have reread the Talk first. This has already been suggested, above. So? Haakon? Others? What about it? Wererooster (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I work as a software expert and browsing around Wikipedia for information, it struck me that the wiki page about this subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_lifecycle_management) is not up to Wikipedia standards:

- some of the tools listed therein are not generally considered Application Lifecycle Management platforms (e.g. Enterprise Architect is a UML modeling tool)

- certain widely used enterprise tools are missing from the list (Siemens Polarion, codeBeamer ALM, Kovair ALM Studio, Helix ALM)

- the notability of some of the tools mentioned can be challenged (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PractiTest_(software), a tool I had never previously heard about, only has two references, one of which is the vendor’s own website).

does anybody has any objection if I made changes on this page to make it more up-to-date? Reka Moksony (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are different issues here. If there are tools that are not ALM platforms, it's reasonable to remove them. If there missing tools and they have articles, they should be added. If there are tools that don't have articles, write the article first. If you're trying to change the consensus to include non-notable products (products without articles) please be clear on that. I suspect that you should start a new section specific to that concept. If you think that there are tools that currently have articles and they should not, follow Wikipedia:Deletion process. However, you should probably start by adhering to the article's definition of ALM provided in the article and sourced to  kovair.com. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

ALM is about integrating every aspect of an application's life cycle
Since the acronym stands for Application Lifecycle Management, then any ALM process or tool must facilitate the management of different aspects of an application lifecycle. Software Engeering suggests that an application goes through different lifecycle phases. These are requirements definition, design and coding, testing. defect and bug tracking, and change management. All these activities needs to be under the umbrella of project management. So, in my opinion, any process or tool that integrates all these activities is considered an ALM process or tool. Intgration here means all information is stored in one repository to facilitate tracing information from one component to information from another componenet. Many software vendor5s try to promote their products as ALM products while they are lacking these capabilities. For an example of such process and tool, see www.rommanasoftware.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magdyhanna (talk • contribs) 00:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

ALM doesn't require a single tool
There is a strong misconception that ALM equates to using a single tool to manage all the phases of an application. A single tool is helpful, but it isn't necessary. Any company or person who has created an application is involved in ALM like it or not. They may have not been aware that properly managing the lifecycle of an application can reduce its costs and improve the value of the software. ALM tools make it easier for us to perform all the tasks in managing an application's lifecycle. --Rodmoten (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

ALM is not Application AM
On March 1, user Timberlfake added text that says ALM is the same as AM and did not provide any sources to back up that claim. Timberlfake then added a series of paragraphs about Application Management which should not be on this page. i removed what Timberlfake added. - Dave Johnson (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Disadvatages??
The section on disadvantages seem to have beem written over a list of subcomponents. Requirements are not a disadvantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.120.20 (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

-Looks like that section was accidentally combined with the "Categories of ALM Tools" section in the March 1, 2011 revision. Fixed now, but the content needs review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethhauck (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

ALM Tools
Agreed with previous points that ALM is not specific to a methodology or a single tool but is more of a perspective on managing the lifecycle itself. Hence, any tool which forms part of an integrated suite can be considered part of ALM.

To this extent, I have added Endevor as a Notable Product as it is currently the leading tool for managing mainframe code relating to source control, build, configuration control and release for mainframe business applications. Given that this tool has API hooks to allow integration with any other ALM tool I believe that it qualifies a mention on the ALM page. The only competitor that I am aware of for this type of tool in the mainframe sphere is Serena Software's ChangeMan ZMF which has far superior product integration and functions but currently has less market share than Endevor. It would be good to see representation from the mainframe side, along with a map of what functions are provided by software / suites.

61.88.45.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC).

Updating and consolidating Microsoft ALM product entries in table
Hello! My name is Doug Erickson, and I am an employee of Microsoft in the Cloud+Enterprise division, making minor edits to clear up some confusion and accuracy with regards to the current Microsoft Visual Studio products. I'm requesting edits to the product table, as described below:

1. I consolidated the Team Foundation Server and ALM entries into one row entry. Having an TFS and ALM as separate entries is confusing -- TFS is part of our ALM offering. 2. I added Visual Studio Team Services. 3. I noted that TFS is the on-prem server offering and that VSTS is the corresponding cloud service offering. Both are part of the Visual Studio ALM suite of products.

If someone can review and approve these changes, and make the edit(s), I would appreciate it!

(As an aside, Atlassian's offerings are more than just Jira, and include Confluence, Bamboo, BitBucket, Crucible, FishEye, and Clover. . I'll leave someone without a CoI to make that update. ;-))

Thank you!

Doug

-- Some specialized software suites for ALM are:

DougE MSFT (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Table swapped. Thanks DougE MSFT --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There is still a lot of work to do about this table. Here my two cents:

 * More free and open source products.
 * Some products are NOT COMPLETE ENOUGH and need other products to "cover" the whole range of ALM activities.
 * Example: The Atlassian ALM stack is made up of JIRA (planning and issue tracking) + BitBucket (source code repository and version control) + some code review tool (FishEye or Crucible) + one or more collaboration tools (Confluence, Trello and HipChat) + Bamboo (continuous delivery) + Service Desk. Is there a way to emphasize this fact?
 * IBM should appear ONLY ONCE in the list. Rational solution for Collaborative Lifecycle Management is an "umbrella" marketing name encompassing four components:
 * DOORS (on-premises) and DOORS NG (cloud service) provide Requirements Management (RM). (RequisitePRO reached end-of-life, superseded by this.)
 * Rational Team Concert provides Planning, Change and Configuration Management (CCM), Automation and IBM Enterprise Platforms Development.
 * Rational Rhapsody Design Manager provides Design Management (DM).
 * Rational Quality Manager provides Quality Management (QM).

ALM tools provide several functionalities. These functionalities can be built-in or, provided via add-ons or, plug-ins. (It is irrelevant how they are offered but they must be provided.)

These are the two CORE areas (I propose):
 * Requirement Engineering: Specification
 * Configuration Management: Version control

Other DESIRABLE functionalities:
 * Requirement Engineering: Elicitation and validation (including prototyping)
 * Configuration Management: Building (manual or automated)

Other functionalities (related to software forging or DEVELOPMENT):
 * Design: UML, SysML, MDE, etc.
 * Construction: IDE.
 * Construction: Source code repository (it might include storage of other artifacts like designs, etc.)
 * Construction: Source code review
 * Testing: Plan and automation

Other functionalities (related to PROJECT management):
 * Collaboration: Forum, wiki, chat, etc.
 * Resource assignation and scheduling: Requirements Management, Design Management, Construction Management, etc. Example: Taskboard
 * Quality assurance: Issue tracking
 * Release Management
 * Maintenance

I think a tool must satisfy at least one of the following two criteria to make it into the ALM tools list:
 * 1) It implements the two CORE functionalities. Examples: codeBeamer ALM, Rational solution for Collaborative Lifecycle Management, HPE ALM Octane, StarTeam, DevSuite, Polarion ALM, Mylyn, OSEE, TopCased ALM, VersionOne, etc.
 * 2) It implements three or more functionalities (of any kind). Examples: Agile Central, Team Foundation Server, Visual Studio Team Services, etc.

It might be necessary to create ANOTHER LIST satisfying this criterion:
 * 1) Several products from the same developer/vendor represent an ALM stack but they are not marketed under some umbrella name. The name of the developer/vendor is listed, instead. Gartner does this when composing Magic Quadrants. The most representative tools may be listed next to the names. Examples:


 * Atlassian (Read above)
 * ThoughtWorks: Mingle, Twist, Gauge, GoCD and, Snap
 * CA Technologies: CA PPM, Agile Central, Service Virtualization, Flowdock,... ad infinitum, ha, ha, except Agile Vision, it was retired without any notice.
 * CollabNet: DevOps Lifecycle Manager + TeamForge + ScrumWorksPro + GitEye + Subversion Edge + TeamForge SCM + CloudForge + Clarive
 * Inflectra: SpiraTeam + Taravault + KronoDesk + Rapise + RemoteLaunch + Load Testing

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Lists of products should not be included unless they're notable, or in Wikipedia terms: have an article. We don't want every possible product, even those unmaintained, to be listed. See WP:GNG.
 * Your suggestions seem reasonable otherwise. Do you propose to have them as columns in a table, sections in the article or what? However, they all need to be referenced (WP:V) and ideally from a secondary source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right concerning "notability". The problem is that some products are really popular in academia and industry but they don't have a Wikipedia article... A real pity! George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's of interest to a small academic community, create a blog and list them there. Wikipedia is not a catalogue. If the subjects are not notable (have an article), they should not be listed. This is likely why this list has not been created. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well, when done, I'll make sure most products listed have a Wikipedia article. Would a 5/1 ratio (with article/without article) be acceptable for a table of this kind? I mean there are lots of red links in several Wikipedia tables. I could provide external links for the few products without an article. I think Gartner's Magic Quadrant is a reliable source to decide what products might be in the tables. What do you think? Any suggestion for other sources on ALM market share?George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Most? All. And be prepared to have them nominated for deletion if they do not meet WP:GNG. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

NO. Most will have a Wikipedia article. Only 20% (1/5 as I said) at the most would not have an article but one or more external links (rough estimation). This is my analysis about the products:
 * 1) My main source for the commercial products would be Gartner's Magic Quadrant for ADLM. So the candidates are (when a brand is used, it implies the whole stack, the products have looooong names): IBM, Microsoft, Atlassian (despite tha fact they do not have an official name for their stack), VersionOne, Collabnet (unnamed stack), Polarion ALM, Jama, HP, Inflectra (unnamed stack), PTC Integrity, Hansoft, Parasoft (Concerto + Development Testing Platform), StarTeam, Visual Paradigm (they merged their products but Wikipedia does not reflect this new reality), ALMComplete (by SmartBear), and codeBeamer.
 * 2) Some other commercial tools do not have Wikipedia articles, others have articles about their vendors or, not even that. I guess they should not make it into the list: DevSuite (by TechExcel), Orchestrated ALM (by Serena, but after acquired by Micro Focus, lost relevance), Kovair ALM Studio (we are "smart enough" to use their definition of ALM in this article but Wikipedia has no article for the product or the vendor, reciprocity?, anyone?, no one?), Team Productivity Center (by Oracle), etc.
 * 3) For the free, freemium or, open-source ones: Mylyn (or the whole Eclipse stack), Topcased ALM (supported by Airbus and the French government), Thoughtworks, workspace.com.
 * 4) Some of the items currently in the list SHOULD NOT be there: GeneXus (RAD and model-driven development tool, I would not classify it even as a software forge as it does not work as a code repository. Ca Plex is a competitor) and IBM Rational Team Concert (a component, not the whole stack marketed by IBM).
 * 5) Others in the list are rather software forges, issue trackers, etc. "on steroids" (IMHO) and I think we should vote about including them all or none: GitLab (if we include GitLab, then we must include GitHub as both offer repository, issue tracking, wiki, etc. Doing this opens the door to list Launchpad, Apache Allura, CASE Spec, FusionForge, TeamForge, and every "forge"... making the list larger than necessary); and, Secure Delivery Center (a tool-chain creator, what is the tool-chain has components from different vendors?) that appears in the list with its former name, Pulse.
 * 6) Some items in the list, I think, are less or as relevant as Polarion ALM and codeBeamer (but they have Wikipedia articles for them or their vendors): PractiTest, System 4 (by Protecode); and, the just mentioned, Pulse. I do not feel fine about it. But I guess those two will have to wait until someone takes a whole weekend and writes about them (not me!). It is obvious that Siemens and Intland, respectively, do not care any longer.
 * 7) Finally, (as a very personal note... again), CA and SAP products are notable because companies have to pay expensive licenses and not because they are massively adopted.

In SUMMARY, an ALM tool must allow the MANAGEMENT of the WHOLE SOFTWARE PRODUCT LIFECYCLE; or, at least MOST of it (the problem is defining "most"). Designing and constructing is NOT management. But, planning, monitoring and controlling the design and construction stages is management. If the tool allows designing and constructing, so be it, that will be welcome but it is not necessary. So, if only FEW of the aspects of the SPLC can be managed from a tool, that tool is something else (e. g., software forge, issue tracker, configuration management system, project management tool, project portfolio management tool, etc. but not an ALM tool.)

The ones I propose to be in the COMMERCIAL LIST are (in no particular order):
 * IBM, Microsoft, Atlassian, VersionOne, Collabnet, Polarion ALM, Jama, HP, Inflectra, PTC Integrity, Hansoft, Parasoft, StarTeam, CA, SAP, Enterprise Architect, Visual Paradigm, ALMComplete; and, codeBeamer.

The ones for the FREE and/or OPEN-SOURCE LIST
 * Mylyn, Topcased ALM, Thoughtworks; and, workspace.com.

Products in both lists allow the management of the whole or most of the lifecycle, no doubt!

Pending for VOTE list. Should we include products like these? (I don't think so):
 * Software forges, project managers and the like (including, code repositories, bug trackers, testing tools with extended or specialized capacities, etc.): GitLab, PractiTest, Secure Delivery Center, System 4, TestTrack, etc.

Your opinions are WELCOME...

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * After you incorrectly adjusted my indenting and responded with "NO. Most will have a Wikipedia article." I stopped reading. You do not understand. You cannot add non-notable products. I will remove anything that does not have an article. Do you understand that you? Unless you understand that, your other efforts will be a waste of time. If you want to create a list that tries to push non-notable products, you either need to get consensus first, or you can create the list on a WordPress or other blogging site. Wikipedia is not a place that acts as a means to advertise or promote products or classes of products, not a collection of external links which the list would have to be if the subjects can't be interdependently verified, and as I stated before, it's not a catalogue. Stop wasting your time doing this here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Compare to a page like Comparison of project management software. No redlinks although very few references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, something is going on here... Are you telling me that a product can be in the list just because it has a Wikipedia article? Are we not going to check other "merits"? Some products in the list have LITTLE market share, are NOT ALM tools from a technical POV, are NOT mentioned in other Wikipedia articles BUT they do have their own Wikipedia article; and, for this single reason, they deserve to be there? Example: There is a Wikipedia article about the vendor of System 4 (not even about the tool), therefore, it is fine to list it (nobody has proposed to delete it from the list), despite the fact it has NEVER made it into the Magic Quadrant, Capterra does NOT have a REVIEW about it, etc. AND... is NEVER MENTIONED IN OTHER Wikipedia articles... Not even ONCE!!! On the other hand, VersionOne has made it into the MAGIC QUADRANT, it has a Capterra REVIEW and, IS MENTIONED in SEVEN Wikipedia articles... but, as there is no article for it or its vendor, (for this "sin"), it cannot be listed as an ALM tool. This does not make any sense!!!
 * I think an ALM tool must have merits in one of two areas or both: Technical (Is it indeed an ALM tool? I've described previously what a tool of this kind is expected to do.) and, Market Share (How many people/companies use it? Even expensive products like the CA stack and SAP can make it into the list on grounds of their high technical features which compensate their lack of widespread adoption.)
 * Question: Which one is more notable? System 4 or VersionOne? If you tell me System 4, surely Wikipedia has become some asylum for nut cases... And, pitifully, I'll have to stop my work as there is NO WAY ANYONE can really publish an unbiased list that REALLY let people know who is who in ALM-land. If you tell me we must put System 4 in the list and put VersionOne aside, all this is WRONG... To be honest the current list is misleading, inaccurate, incomplete and biased. Some deserve to be there and are not; and, vice-versa. Wikipedia needs to address this situation. The problem is the rule set. Editors like me have no tools to bring real knowledge for everyone.
 * George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean with "something is going on here". Why don't you just try reading the links I've provided and raise your concerns there. You clearly do not trust what I wrote, so ask somewhere else. There are many places to ask the questions you are asking.
 * Again, your arguments are good if you want to write your own blog or set-up your own database to list the ALM tools out there, but it's problematic for Wikipedia. As I told you, you may be able to gain consensus to create such a list here, but not the way you're doing it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What I imply is exactly that. Why are there articles for tools with little market share, that are not relevant in academia or industry, that have no reviews by specialized sites and, nobody says anything? Why are there not articles for tools with a large market share, that are relevant, that have been extensively reviewed and, in the same vein, nobody says anything? I feel like I've gone "through the looking glass". It is all upside down. I have read all your links and that is why I think the problem is the rule set. If so, I have nothing to do here until someone escalates up these concerns to the proper governing instances of Wikipedia. I am afraid my time and efforts would be vain. Besides, nobody else has dropped by to say anything but you. It is like you are de de facto guardian of this page. If we are only two... and have so diametrally opposite ways to perceive what happens here... this will become an eternal fruitless chain of replies. This is what does not help Wikipedia to become more widely accepted as a really helpful encyclopedia. Bureaucracy kills everything it touches... I will not contribute to this article until more opinions are heard. I frankly do not feel well about this but I think it is the only fair thing to do.
 * George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see market share in WP:GNG. Do you? It must not be a requirement for notability. Are you reading the links I'm providing? Sorry you feel like you're Alice. Nothing is upside down here. Everything is clearly explained. The problem is you have a different idea as to what makes something important. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article..." We are out of sync. You talk about articles... I talk about products in a list... Products that have been extensively and independently review, etc. You have not answered my question. Is there any rule in Wikipedia against listing a product in a list if (1) it has been reviewed publicly by practitioners (software developers, computer engineers, software engineers, etc.) and positively described, (2) it is or has been widely adopted, (3) there are reliable sources to support these facts; but, (4) it has no Wikipedia article? Additionally, why is market share (past or present) not an important trait concerning notability of products and services? We are not talking about notability of people but of tools! Who makes these rules? This site needs some re-engineering ASAP...
 * George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We are out of sync. I pointed to the criteria for lists and it requires notable entries and then I pointed the notability criteria. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Table columns and groups of columns proposal
Anyways,... concerning the format,... a table with several columns and groups of columns is what I propose. This is the "FULLY-DRESSED" list that I use to assess and classify software forges (design, construction and, possibly, quality), ALM tools (requirements, configuration management and, possibly, quality) and, software project management tools:

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Project Management (PM)
 * Inception
 * Feasibility Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis
 * Budgeting: Function points, COCOMO, etc.
 * Planning: resource allocation, task management (WBS, taskboard, etc.) and, scheduling (PERT, CPM, Gantt diagram, etc.)
 * Monitoring
 * Controlling
 * Communication and Collaboration (wiki, forum, blog, news, chat, e-mail, IM, etc.)
 * Risk Management (risk assessment, change management, etc.)
 * Release Management
 * Maintenance
 * End-to-end Traceability
 * Requirement Engineering and Management (Req E&M)
 * Elicitation: observation reports, questionnaires, brainstorms, mind-mapping, use cases and, user stories.
 * Specification (e. g., IEEE 29148:2011)
 * Validation (also a QA activity): questionnaires and prototyping
 * Traceability (backward and/or forward)
 * Exchange (e. g., ReqIF)
 * Design
 * Architectural Design
 * SEI Views and Beyond
 * ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Rodney Maruri Game (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * AADL
 * ABACUS
 * Acme
 * Rapide
 * ByADL
 * Detailed Design
 * UML
 * SysML
 * Event B (Abrial's and, Rodin's versions)
 * MDE (umbrella term for executable modeling languages): MDA (Schlaer-Mellor Method; xUML/xtUML with UML Action Language and OCL; and, fUML with ALF), Umple, textUML, OOIS UML, etc.
 * Transformation (model-to-model)
 * Construction
 * IDE
 * Source Code Management (SCM): Source Code Repository (it might store any kind of artifact)
 * Internal Documentation (for example, Javadoc generates API documentation from source code comments)
 * Quality Assurance (QA)
 * Source Code Review
 * Testing: unit, integration and, deploy
 * Issue tracking: a. k. a. bug tracking (BT)
 * External Documentation (user and administration manuals)
 * Configuration Management (CM)
 * Version control (VC)
 * Dependency Management: Ant, Maven, Gradle, etc.
 * Building
 * Continuous Integration (CI)
 * Delivery and Deploy Management (DM)
 * Is this multiple tables, each level-one bullet representing one table, or is it one table with each level-one bullet representing one column and the points below it representing possible entries?
 * Are all of these referenced in reliable sources that are not associated with the subject? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You should move the work below to a draft page, not here. It's currently too wide, which is why I asked the questions here. It's also entirely unsourced and will be deleted per WP:V. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And while you're at it, look at yes and the associated templates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, I've got the knowledge of the field but not about Wikipedia rules. I hope some day I can read them thoroughly... George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Application lifecycle management. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sdtimes.com/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=31952
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.microsoft.com/global/applicationplatform/en/us/RenderingAssets/Whitepapers/What%20is%20Application%20Lifecycle%20Management.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Integrated Application Lifecycle Management
Significant overlap between the two articles AllyD (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Merge although I don't see where you state that there is overlap. The other article is poorly written, has no inline references, reads like an essay rather than an article, and so if we're rewriting, it might as well be here. Walter Görlitz (talk)
 * Support Merge. Not really, "urgent" (IMO), though. If they grow, we can split them in the future. Who's gonna do the merge anyway? (Lot of work!!!) George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Noting that the page is unreferenced (discounting the personal publication, which is not a notable source), so this is mostly a section redirect, ✅ Klbrain (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

ALM is related to software forging and, software project management.
I have added the Software Forging article, Forge (software), in the See also list but it gets constantly deleted by Mr. Görlitz. He has deleted this reference several times.

As I understand, we can clearly define three large and overlapping concepts (top-bottom):

1. Software Project Management: Heavily administrative and supervising from a top point of view: Business requirements, planning, budget, software product management (packaging, marketing, etc.) and the such.

2. ALM: A mix between administrative and operative activities: User requirements, quality (issue tracking), configuration management, release management and the like.

3. Software Forging/Development: The most operative level: Developer requirements, design, source coding, building and the like.

I propose we vote to determine if they are related or not. If so, these articles will be listed in the See also section.

Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by George Rodney Maruri Game (talk • contribs) 01:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Forge is a product and what you're doing is promoting one ALM product over others. That's why I reverted. (or at least, that's what I was implying). Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You just jumped into conclusions without even taking time to REALLY check. I still make mistakes because I do not know all the rules. One of my last ones was about copyright, you reverted it and I took no offense. And, up to that point, I considered it a genuine concern (despite the fact you had reverted three of my most recent edits). It seems you know the rules pretty well and I congratulate for that (but do not let that turned you into some Kal-El trying to protect the world from itself). I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2005 so I am not playing games here or, promoting any organization, product or service. Only two persons have reverted my edits (Codename Lisa was the first one) in 12 years. Anyways, I hope you learned something from this (I already have). Have a good time... George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I did check. I'm glad you learned something from this. I learned that you're a SPA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your Irish insulting slang only denigrates yourself and clearly shows your true colors. This is no place to call names or offend others. I will keep contributing (very sporadically) as usual (my busy schedule always gets in my way but now it has a challenger). George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your lack of solid responses is your problem here. If you look at your edit history you can see all of your recent edits are in a single area. And I'm not Irish nor do I use any slang so stick to the point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

ALM is NOT ONLY related to software forging and, software project management.
Software forging is part of ALM (design, implementation and part of verification (i.e. test), but Software forging is not ALM. ALM incluses Requirements Engineering, Requirements management, Requirements Validation, Design, Implementation, Product Verification, Certification, Confuguration Management, Change management, Project Management, ... ALM is (for System and Sofware engineering) an input of the PLM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.108.170.8 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Such removals can't be based on an editor's personal tests or opinion though, but should be based on the description of the applications and their functionality in reliable sources. If the exact inclusion criteria for this list are too vague, a clarification in more detail on top of the list would probably also be helpful. Lists on Wikipedia often suffer from unclear or vague definitions. Finally, entries in such lists are usually limited to Wiki-"notable" topics with their own article (WP:WTAF includes some advice as an essay). GermanJoe (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * if "Such removals can't be based on an editor's personal tests or opinion" why did you also undo/remove my edits without any arguments nor references to any user manuals? The tools I removed are objectively not ALM ; you can just read related wiki entries, JIRA for example. Now for "Polarion ALM / Siemens" and "ALM part of 3DExperience / Dassault Systèmes" that you also remove in a sneaky way, what are the arguments that they are not ALM ? ~ Pseudoassezduràlire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudoassezduràlire (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I posted an additional standard message about the reasoning for this removal on your user talkpage User talk:Pseudoassezduràlire - nothing "sneaky" about it, but maybe you missed this post. Please read this information and check the blue links for additional details. GermanJoe (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because unexplained blanking is considered unconstructive editing. If they are not ALM, that's one thing, however someone added them and has reason to believe they are.
 * Discussion should be happening here, not on a user talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Children rights
100000000 people and children don't have education and jobs why don't we all join donating clubs and donate give food to the poor😥😥😥  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutlwano seretlo (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)