IBM FileNet Reviews

IBM FileNet was supposed to be the organizational system for all our content. A lot of departments used it for their files. We were trying to do records management, but people did not really want to put in the effort to do the RM part. They used the solution as a shared drive. We also used it for simultaneous edits, just like SharePoint.

IBM FileNet was more scalable. We were not limited, and we could have one repository as opposed to all of the chaotic websites we have with SharePoint. As records management administrators, we could have a broader overview of the organizational content. However, it's all over the place now. I feel we had better control with IBM FileNet. It was more controlled because of how we had set it up, and we had it in-house.

We knew how much we were using in terms of storage, and we didn't have to panic whenever there was a price increase. We could also control the changes whenever the vendor put in new rules. We could do the upgrades, test them in DEV and UAT, and ensure that when we release something, it is tested and communicated. Now, it happens, and we know only when users start complaining.

The solution’s pricing could be improved.

I have been using IBM FileNet for ten years.

We faced issues with the solution's stability. Sometimes, our guys could fix them, but often, they had to open a ticket with IBM and troubleshoot.

IBM FileNet is a scalable solution. We had a lot of data, and the searches were fast. We never had an issue with the solution's scalability.

The technical support team was responsive, but sometimes, they took a couple of days to fix an issue.

I rate the solution's technical support a seven or eight out of ten.

Neutral

We are moving away from IBM FileNet to SharePoint. People didn't like IBM FileNet's interface, which could be because of how we deployed it. SharePoint was more user-friendly. Everything was easier in SharePoint, and there was a less steep learning curve.

The solution's initial setup was not easy, and we needed specialized staff for that.

IBM FileNet is an expensive solution.

We use a taxonomy. We had standard metadata. We had a file classification scheme, and we organized the categories by retention and with the triggers. We had some standard security that you could choose for the folders depending on what the folder was about. It wasn't really enforced. Nobody was looking at the compliance.

We are moving away from IBM FileNet because Microsoft gave us a good package. When we purchased Microsoft Outlook, they gave us a suite of products that included Word, all the Office applications, and SharePoint. We did not want to pay for another product when we had SharePoint.

The solution's maintenance was not complicated. Some of our team members cleaned it up once a month and also performed the upgrades monthly.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

IBM FileNet is an enterprise content management solution. We use the solution for document management in the legal, insurance, and banking sectors.

We're implementing an on-premise solution. We're handling the installation of the product and customizing it to build a customized application addressing specific use cases. We use all kinds of documents including audio, text, images, and office documents.

The product is robust and can process a lot of documents for enterprise content management.

The user interface of IBM content management, including the ability to customize screens without the need for coding, could be improved. Customers can use it to split the screen, enhancing its suitability for office use cases.

I have been using IBM FileNet for 20 years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

The product is one of the best products that can handle high availability. It can work with distributed content and servers around the globe on the same cluster of content engines. We cater the solution to medium-sized businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

The professional services are not familiar with the product. They take too much time to handle a case. They need more knowledge.

Negative

The initial setup is very easy if it is containerized. It takes a few days to complete.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten for containerized installation and six out of ten for standard installation, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The product is expensive. The price was 30% higher than what we needed to pay for IBM.

I rate the product’s pricing a ten out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We have created document types for various types of documents, such as invoices (both incoming and outgoing), and normal posts in German. This involves automatic content detection, where the content itself goes via scanner to the content store. Links are then sent to the user, where they can find the documents.

IBM FileNet as a solution is very good for midsized companies and offers a compact solution where content can be stored in an IBM DB2 database. It requires minimal management effort, provides alerts when the database exceeds a certain capacity, and offers a control center over the ECM system.

FileNet provides a compact solution for midsized companies. It allows content to be stored in IBM DB2 database blocks with minimal management effort. Additionally, there are alerts to monitor the database capacity and ensure a manageable space. FileNet also provides a control center over the ECM system to monitor states and transcripts.

IBM does not do very good marketing for FileNet. Initially, after IBM acquired the product, there was good marketing support, but this has dwindled as IBM has lost personnel. More could be done to highlight the benefits to customers. Additionally, there are no visually appealing interfaces or apps for the product, which can influence customer buying decisions.

We have used IBM content management solutions since the year 2000.

We have not experienced stability issues with IBM FileNet. The database and the product itself have been stable for our needs.

Most of our customers do not want to move their sensitive internal data to the cloud. However, the solution's scalability within the IBM cloud has been very well maintained, and clients do not face issues.

Customer service is very good. I would rate it between eight and nine out of ten.

Positive

The setup process of IBM FileNet is straightforward and well-documented. There is a good online interface to configure parameters.

As IBM partners, we typically handle the deployment process for our customers as they may not have the required expertise.

Content management has been a cornerstone of our company since we started with IBM solutions, making it difficult to quantify the direct return on investment given its integral role.

It depends on the business partner providing the solution to the customer. We have an ESA contract with IBM which allows us to offer the solution at a competitive price, providing added value when combined with our expertise.

In anticipation of AI solutions becoming more prevalent, it is necessary to manage content storage efficiently to enable effective use of such technologies. We advise customers to consider a consolidated content store approach.

We use the platform for the automation of business digitalizing documents. We can turn the digital content into workflows for automation and monitoring processes.

It is a superior product based on Gartner's classification. It provides good stability and scalability for huge enterprises as well. One of the valuable features is the ability to digitalize documents, including enterprise content. We can store the information in video and audio formats. It provides efficient security. Only authorized users can view and edit the stored documents in a role-based user group. Another form of security is redacting documents, where one can view only selected parts of the document. It allows us to share crucial documents like contracts by ensuring that confidential information is redacted.

The platform's price could be better than other products in the market. It could be simpler to use, considering multiple use cases. We could deploy it easily with some training as well.

IBM offers distinct features through different products, such as IBM Enterprise Records for record management, IBM Datacap for document scanning, and IBM Business Automation Workflow for complex workflows. They could include all the features into one application, similar to other vendors.

We have been using IBM FileNet for eight years.

IBM FileNet can add and manage processes for a minimum of five and 1000 users.

The initial setup and maintenance are complicated. It requires authentication to be able to deploy and maintain the certificate. We need to configure different protocols for different user groups. We require an administrator to conduct the deployment as large enterprises involve several roles and lengthy processes. We first deploy it in a test environment. Once approved, we implement it in a production environment. It requires a month to complete.

The product generates a return on investment.

We evaluated Alfresco. It offers a community edition free of charge.

I rate IBM FileNet an eight out of ten. I recommend the product. I advise others to go for it if they have the budget. It is a mature product with enough resources and support partners in various regions.

I have been working remotely for an insurance client and I use IBM File Manager.

The most valuable features of IBM File Manager are workflow, content, and process capabilities.

IBM File Manager should improve the UI. There should be more customization based on the user.

I have been using IBM File Manager for eight years.

I have found IBM File Manager to be stable.

IBM File Manager is scalable and it is easy to do.

We have approximately 100 users using this solution.

I rate the technical support of IBM File Manager a three out of five. They could improve by being more responsive.

The rate of initial setup complexity of IBM File Manager a two out of five. Whereas five is complex.

We have two people for the maintenance and support of the solution.

I rate the technical support from IBM File Manager a three out of five.

I rate IBM File Manager a seven out of ten.

The primary use case for IBM FileNet involves document automation.

Using IBM FileNet allows for easy and fast access to documentation, which supports compliance and regulatory requirements.

The integration feature of IBM FileNet is most effective for document management.

The setup process is very complex, and I would prefer if it were easier. A modern interface would also be an enhancement.

I have been working with IBM FileNet for about ten years.

I would rate the stability of IBM FileNet as ten out of ten.

IBM FileNet is very scalable, deserving a ten out of ten rating.

The customer service and support from IBM are rated as six out of ten. They often lack the necessary knowledge to provide adequate support.

Neutral

Before using IBM FileNet, I used other IBM products. It seems some Robotic Process Automation products were used prior.

The initial setup of IBM FileNet is very hard. It took around five days to complete.

The deployment typically requires two people: one for installation and another for setup, particularly covering configuration.

IBM FileNet provides financial benefits through easy and fast access to documentation. However, the speaker did not mention a specific return on investment.

I recommend IBM FileNet due to its excellent integration capabilities.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use it to document content management. We have a payment system for every corporate payment that goes through our bank, it has to go through our application. We use it for the business process management data where multiple things have instability for that transaction.

They do validations on it to see if the transaction is valid and next we use it according to the guidelines of the governments of countries like Singapore, India, and the USA. Every now and then countries impose sanctions on different countries and they have to make sure that the payments do not go in or out from those countries.

We use it to audit.

I like the security and also the configuration. It is easy to configure and most of our business use cases have everything just with the configuration itself.

Developers like us have an upgraded interface. That interface does not work in the process that we have today. It hangs and is not user-friendly.

I have been using IBM Case Foundation for the last five years.

It is stable. There were a few bugs. They should release the fixes for the bugs a little more quickly, maybe within a month instead of waiting six months. I think they do it quarterly now. If possible they should release small patches again.

It is scalable.

In my previous company, we had an issue with one of their products. We could not find anything on the data documentations or on their website. We approached them and they accepted that there is a problem with the product itself and so we got in touch with them and they tried to fix the issue. 

The initial setup is quite complex, not straightforward. 

Deployment takes around two hours roughly. Depending on the setup, it can take half a day. 

We used consultants for the deployment. 

My advice to someone considering this solution is that there are a lot of open-source tools available. Other than going for IBM FileNet you should look into other options too because even we are not using the full potential of FileNet and we are paying a huge amount of money for it. 

I would rate FileNet a seven out of ten. 

There are many aspects that can be improved in this product. We're doing a lot of projects with customers. It would help if there was a summary of the products. They should be able to do more upgrades of the product or offer new versions. They could also improve the user experience.

They have to think about how to make the environment over. Make it in some containers, for example. The complexity of installation can also be improved. They should re-imagine the way that they install products. 

The solution is very stable.

The solution is very scalable.

We use various solutions that aren't really similar, but are in the same field. There are lots of products that pretend to do enterprise content management. I have sample projects with SharePoint, and Microsoft Checkpoint among others.

In terms of the initial setup, you have to have some requirements. I am technical specialist in finance, so I can do installation as well, but it's not easy for everyone to handle. 

You have to know it takes time, you have to be very careful and know exactly what you are going to do. You need a good knowledge of the production system, middleware, application services, servers databases, etc. It's not as easy as other products.

How long it takes to deploy the solution depends of the requirements. It can take from six months to two years. It depends on a lot of factors including the modules, because you want a summary, and which remodels are the customer needs. The solution is modular, so you may have lots of modules. 

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.