IBM FileNet Reviews

All of our customers are using it to ingest, process, and retrieve their documents on a daily basis.

Automation is definitely the most important thing for large enterprises because they can't process many documents without it. Our clients are definitely planning to expand the use of automation. The more automation they get, the happier they are, because they don't want to spend too much time and have large overhead for processing their documents.

There are different stages of automation. For scanning, our clients use Datacap and, once everything is configured and fits their needs, they scan and process all their documents automatically. They don't need to do a lot of extra steps to get all their documents into the system.

After that, they need to search and retrieve those documents, which is also really nice in the way it is automated. There are different options. They can use Records Manager to create records automatically and keep them for, let's say, seven years or ten years and, after that, they can delete them, but not before that.

We have a customer that was using an obsolete system from 1990-something. They switched gradually, business-unit-by-business-unit, to FileNet P8 and that changed their way of handling everything. It changed the time it takes them to do their jobs and it also completely changed their end-user experience because of all the new technology and all of the automation. It completely changed their business process.

It definitely has reduced our clients' operating costs. It also saves our clients time.

FileNet has also definitely helped them with compliance and/or governance issues. That's another thing that is specific to IBM. They're the best in the business for compliance for all kinds of regulations, laws, state law, etc. They know how all that works. Out-of-the-box, it's really easy to configure according to whatever state they live in and the specific requirements they have. Everything is already in the product. They just need to select and configure it, but doing so is really easy and, once they set it up, they just use it. There are no issues there.

There are a lot of valuable features, but the biggest advantage is that this system is stable; it's always online, it always works. In addition, there are not too many changes or updates that cause issues. It's both the system and the environment around it that are stable. For large and enterprise customers, it's the best solution because, once it's configured and running, we don't need to touch it and constantly make changes to it. It's a low-maintenance platform.

While the system is stable, at the same time, the end-user interface, the Content Navigator, gets updated frequently so that it can match the requirements from the end-users. That way it provides new features and makes sure that everybody is happy.

To summarize, the back-end of the system always works and at the front-end you have an application that gives the best user experience. It's a great combination.

I would like to see support for different databases, like MySQL. I believe it's a good thing to have options. I don't think that there will be a lot of customers doing that, but nowadays people like to have options.

There is room for improvement in the scanning solution, Datacap. It's improving all the time. But since it's more an end-user software, the end-users are constantly improving their processes, and I believe that sometimes we're not catching up with their requirements.

The stability and usability go together. The backend and the front-end are separate but they work together. Still, we can handle them separately, from a technical point of view.

The whole solution is based on IBM WebSphere, which is basically a complicated website. So all the applications are running on that IBM software and you can create a cluster, more than one server which is handling all those requests. So you can scale it up to as many servers as you need, which increases the performance significantly. Also, you have redundancy in this case. If one of the servers doesn't work, the rest of the servers automatically handle the workloads.

I use IBM's technical support all the time. They're extremely responsive and very helpful. They always ask all the questions. They give us all the information upfront. If we need them to join in a call, they always do so really fast. That's been my experience for the last seven years. Every time I need help from IBM, I get it immediately.

If a customer is using legacy software that they want to move away from, the primary reasons in the decision-making process that they decide to go with FileNet are the stability and, at the same time, a really nice end-user experience. Also, out-of-the-box, they have all the government and state requirements. The whole solution gives them everything they need.

With a lot of other solutions, you get some of the features but not all of them. So you need to compromise and probably build your own end-user experience or add something on top of it. With FileNet, you get everything you need out-of-the-box.

The initial setup is really easy. If you're going to use all the features out-of-the-box, you just install it and it starts working. You don't need to do anything.

We have customers that have their own end-user solutions or very specific needs, and then we have to spend a little bit more time with them, but that's because they have their own software on top of it that they like to use it. That's more an issue of end-user software and not the actual FileNet system.

Our customers integrate it with other solutions. A lot of the time it's their own software that they have developed in-house. They use FileNet to connect to other platforms such as FileNet Image Services, which is the older product. But there are no issues because FileNet has an API and they just connect to the API and use it. It's well-documented, easy to use, and they don't have any issues.

I'm more of a systems engineer so I work on the technical side. I don't see the numbers.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using this solution is that every solution is unique. In general, out-of-the-box, it can meet up to 80 or 90 percent of the requirements, but you still need to gear it a little bit differently for different customers. Every business has its own requirements.

My advice would be to make the right choice, which is IBM. It means less trouble for the customer and less trouble for the engineer installing it.

In terms of the usability of the solution, once we configure and set up everything according to the requirements our customers have, they are really happy with what they get. That's why we spend a lot of time working with them every time there is an upgrade or whenever we implement it for the first time within an organization, to make sure that every single business unit gets all it needs. The solution is used by everybody in the company and they find the solution usable.

I would rate FileNet at ten out of ten because it's great for the customers and it's great for all the engineers involved in the process. It's great for everybody.

Our primary use case was to have our complete documentation digitized and provide secure access to it for all employees in our organization. Along with that, we were to develop a workflow for check-in and check-out of the documents.

We are currently using FileNet but for a limited purpose. We have just one workflow configured in it. It's only used for document scanning and retrieval.

FileNet has not improved any of our organization's processes or functions. Our aim in 2013/14 was the same. We wanted to have complete automation, a paperless-office scenario. But that aim has not been fulfilled. 

The basic and fundamental point about FileNet is that the interface is very bad. It's just not appealing so people are reluctant to use it. Nowadays, when you go to any web application or mobile application, the interface is very appealing and very intuitive. These aspects are not available in FileNet. People are very reluctant to use that kind of application, one which has a very plain UI.

It should also provide different APIs to interface with multiple applications. There are some connection services for SAP but we have found the extent of such connections is not usable for our needs. We want a side-by-side type of a scenario where we can open an SAP transaction on one half of a screen and on the other half we should get a document from FileNet. That functionality is not in the version we have right now.

In addition, it needs a very smooth storage and retrieval process. 

Along with that, the workflow should be very simple to configure. Currently, we are capturing most of the information in Excel and then interface Excel with FileNet. That should not be how IBM FileNet works. They should improve on how the workflows can be automated with minimum effort on the programming side.

The product is very stable. We don't have much of a problem as far as the stability of the technology and the product go.

We awarded the contract to another party and they outsourced it to somebody else. So it wasn't that easy for us to implement FileNet. It took a lot of time for us to implement and install. 

The plan was that once everything would be digitized and we had a paperless-office scenario implemented, we would have high-availability, to have complete redundancy of the applications. Whenever one application would fail, another would take care of it automatically without the end-users knowing about it. But that wasn't set up properly. We then managed with Microsoft Cluster between the two nodes. That also wasn't that successful. So there were issues.

We are now looking at another DMS which will have a better look and feel and be easier to operate.

We are an Indian company and the skillset available in India for FileNet is very small. We wanted to to resolve some technical issues and we faced a lot of problems from Indian tech people in supporting us. IBM needs to increase the expertise of FileNet in India wherever possible. They should open training centers or schools in India where people can get exposure to FileNet.

We have SAP ERP for our business applications. We have mail and messaging from Microsoft. We have different productivity applications developed for our own environment, for our own business and business cases. Specifically regarding RPA, we have not developed anything as of yet.

We provide the content management platform for the company for official and unofficial records for all business processes.

We consolidate the content management. We've become a central repository for the company and are able to migrate content from our business units into the central service, especially as we acquire other companies. Thus, we can simplify our technology portfolio.

The standard spaced interfaces and features that any content management platform would provide, plus the API's extensibility. 

We are also moving into using the newer user experience provided with the product.

We would like to have more automation of rollout solutions. We've done some of this on our own. We've created what we call a repository builder that will build out a standardized solution meeting the needs of most of our customers initially. This has saved us a tremendous amount of time. We did this using the APIs the product provides. They just don't always provide those same sorts of tools. 

The user interface is also extensible through programming. Although, it's not easy to set up, so some improvements along these lines would be good too.

At its core, it's stable. In its basic implementation, it's stable.

Scalability is where we run into some challenges because we use it to scale where most customers don't. Therefore, we sometimes have unique problems or find some product limitations that other customers don't.

They're always very responsive. Though, sometimes we have to dig a little to work through the layers of technical support in order to get the people with the right level of expertise.

It was a fairly straigtforward implementation. 

Though it has so many options, we have to be discerning about what we will deploy because each option will require additional support for our customers.

We have also looked at Documentum, OpenText, and SharePoint.

I would recommend the product with the its core and standard interfaces.

We purchased our product directly through IBM.

Our company continues to reassess what it's doing with content management. We're involved enough in the sort of richness of the feature set that it would be difficult to replace.

It is our integrated document repository that we use in conjunction with Connections. It performs extremely well for us and has been very successful.

It has given us a whole new environment to do document management and document storage. Before we used heavily used file servers and file shares, and now we are promoting the use of Connections. This has made Connections more successful for us.

The integration with Connections, where it is basically transparent for the end users, and very seamless. They can go ahead and store multiple tiered folders of documents in multiple tiered folders without any technical assistance of any kind. It is very user-friendly and easy for them to use.

Continuous work to continually refine and improve the user interface a bit, but it is basically pretty good. Therefore, I do not have any strong impressions of things that need to be changed.

A lot of people are familiar with the Microsoft interface and Windows. It becomes more intuitive if it somewhat mirrors Microsoft characteristics, but it is very usable as it is.

I am not aware of any recent issues. It is very stable for now.

Scalability is one of it strengths. It is growing pretty rapidly. 

We have not seen any interruptions, and I am not aware of any scalability issues right now.

I have not personally contact them. I am sure there are some other people in the company that have, but I have not personally contacted them.

We were using the native files capability of Connections, and it was very limited. So, we were informed that this was an option, and it has pretty dramatically changed our use with the original Connections files option. We probably would not have seen adoption so strongly without it.

I would advise a little on the product early on, but I did not actually do the setup of the product.

The initial setup was a bit complex, but it is a very elaborate application. The people that I talked to said it was not extremely difficult. It took some work, but it was worth it.

I was involved in the decision-making process.

It may be a little complex to implement and take some effort, but with the integration the way it is, it is worth the effort. Once it is in place, it is very stable.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: 

• Stability
• Credibility.

We are using a lot of IBM products across our company. For the most part, they have a strong track record with us already.

FileNet is a really robust and powerful tool for document management environments. It's very well designed, especially on the storage side, and also on the application server side. It's really powerful, robust, and highly available. In our environment, we store more than six billion documents. Some of these documents are more than 1,000 pages.

We also have other FileNet environments – FileNet Image Services environments – and we have federated these image services to a FileNet P8 environment, first as a federation. Then, we have successfully migrated all our old documents to the FileNet P8 environment without any demolition of the documents. It was a nice project.
Also, the elasticity of the APIs IBM provides us is powerful. We are also using IBM WebSphere as the application server. We are hosting our FileNet P8 services on top of WebSphere. It serves as a powerful tool.

Troubleshooting is very proactive. We can easily monitor the system, and we can easily define the problem and take action on it.

ECM is our heart on branches, for example if you cannot check the id and signature of the customer, you can do nothing. Also it’s very vital for us to predict how long does the the operation take for each customer. These makes stability as one of our major concerns Based on 9 years of experience with IBM ECM solutions; I can say that, the power of IBM products comes from stability predominantly. Both FileNet Image services and FileNet P8 are five-nines percent successful on this manner.

Document management is a new concept for some managers, and some kind of innovative concept, also. When you have content, when you get the documents, then you can fetch the data from that document. You can do analysis, business analysis, predictions with that data, especially in banks, mostly because of regulations.

We have buildings we use for physical documents. Some of them are photographs, images; some of them are computer output data; some formatted, some non-formatted. With FileNet, especially by creating our services for capturing solutions, we can easily store and analyze these documents through the FileNet environment. It's a huge benefit to us. Our response times are no more than 300 milliseconds. We have so many branches all around Turkey. Some of them are more than 500 kilometers away, and we have this response time also in those locations. It's also very fast, and for customer satisfaction, it's a nice feature for us.

It's a big tool. It's heavy, really heavy. Because of this, and with it being highly available and robust, it's not so easy to manage. It's not like the new, light technologies. You cannot stop it in seconds, stop and restart it in seconds. That takes minutes. This can be improved, I think.

For example, WebSphere has a new application server named Liberty, especially in the front-end layer, with so many new technologies. IBM is construing it with Content Navigator, but we might not use it. Both parts have options that can be developed.
Management is an issue because the tools are so complex.

We moved to P8 six years ago.

It's very stable; no downtime, especially in the daytime because there were some. Think about if you are in a branch, you're an officer, and there's a queue; they're waiting; and the system is down. That was happening beforehand, but now, it is available five-nines percentage, almost no downtime. Response times are very fast, and we are keeping track of the number of operations the clients have done, and those numbers have significantly increased.

Actually, high availability and scalability are related.

There is no longer a document limit. We can easily scale both the systems and storage areas, no problem, without any performance degradation, without any high-availability degradation. We can easily scale.

We have the AVP premium support. They are very fast for first response, and they are very productive providing right solution in the right time.

We were previously using FileNet Image Services. It was a natural progression to move to FileNet P8. It has direct interaction, with a CFS tool, content federation services tool. We can easily integrate it and migrate our documents without any problem.

We did the initial setup because we have experience, but we worked with IBM and our local partner on the design. For a WebSphere-experienced application administrator, initial setup is very straightforward and very fast; we did it without any issues.

We considered other vendors. There are two factors for us. We have so many documents, billions of documents. Performance is one of the hot topics; fitting into our environment, fitting into our architecture because our architecture is generally based on WebSphere. Also, it was easy to integrate with FileNet Image Services. These were our major concerns. On top of that, high availability is a really important feature for us. These were the reasons we chose FileNet P8.

The decision-making process took more than 3-4 months because we did all the PoCs. We did a stress test; we set up a small environment. It took more than 3-4 months.

We also considered building the whole solution in-house, and we are doing it for some type of documents; non-critical, but agile documents. Performance is the first concern for that. We are only using disk storage, and then a single interface before the storage. Without any sub-tiers, we can directly reach the document, but there are some concerns about security, backup, and high availability.

We are not considering replacing FileNet P8, but using that for different use cases.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with are adapting new technologies, and being the leader. IBM is the leader in this area.

See the product on the road, so to speak. Set it up and do a PoC and see the architecture; see the design.

My rating for this product is because of the high availability, scalability, robustness, adaptability, being the leader in the sector. These are the major reasons. I have not given it a perfect rating because it is not suitable for smaller environments and it could offer more features for different use cases. Consider, for example, on the database side, there are non-SQL databases and SQL databases. The big one would be providing both SQL and non-SQL together in the same environment. P8 is robust and for the heavy side, that is OK, but for the light side, it is not. Maybe they can add a light environment; work in it can be better.

We are considering employing IBM in cloud, hybrid, or box solutions, but in Turkey, using cloud, especially if there is customer data in the environment, is restricted by regulations. It's not clear. If this issue is solved, we will seriously consider it, including in the document management environment; not a public cloud, but maybe a private cloud, also. We are waiting for these regulations for it, but we are considering the technology, so that we do not fall behind.

We have some mobile applications; we are also providing documents to mobile applications. Our clients can also scan and submit some types of documents. They are inserting some type of forms, for example, credit card application forms, through mobile devices, but it's our own solution, not IBM's Content Navigator or other solutions. Nonetheless, in the back end, we are using FileNet. For the front end, our architecture decision is to use our own native applications because it's easy to build and customize. For our needs now, it's the best solution. Maybe in the future, we don't know. Technology is rapidly changing. Maybe we won’t have to create everything ourselves or invent everything from scratch. Maybe a surprise will occur in technology and we can use it, but now, we are using our own solution.

There are new analytics and content management services that we are able to provide for our organization. We have our own solution on the content analysis side also. Our R&D department have developed a project. They are doing human-made documents. These are unformatted documents and free texts, sometimes handwritten; especially faxes, for example. They are fetching the data, doing ICR on faxes. With an NLP-like algorithm, they are deciding which document it is, which department should be responsible for it, and sending a task to that department. The analytic operation is done in our own environment.

Since we implemented FileNet, there are services that we're now able to provide better. Before FileNet P8, we had another document management system, FileNet Image Services. It had some pitfalls, including, for example, a number of documents limit. We have overcome this after implementing FileNet P8. Also, the response times severely decreased. There was no high availability; it was an active-passive cluster on Image Services. After FileNet P8, it is an active-active configuration. These are huge benefits in terms of high availability, and customer satisfaction, also.

The experiences of our internal and or external customers both have changed because we implemented FileNet. External customers generally use internet banking, mobile devices, etc. Before making the document management environment highly available, we couldn't provide, for example, credit card statements as a document to the clients. We were only providing data, and they could see their statements, for example, for only the previous six months, not earlier. They were only seeing the data, not the exact statement I sent them. Now, we are providing exact statements. They see everything in it. They see the benefits we provide with this statement also. Yeah, that's a huge benefit for the clients. Even if it's more than 10 years ago, they can see that statement. For example, sometimes they can need it for legal issues.
Also, for our internal clients, there is no downtime and fast response.

As far as the usability of FileNet, our customers don't have any direct interaction with FileNet. We have our own applications. They don't see FileNet; any FileNet screens. They only see the document.

The people actually using FileNet, they only feel the response time and availability. That's easy and strong for them.

We use FileNet as an enterprise content management storage for our underwriting policies and our claims documents. The major products of FileNet that we use are Content Manager and ICC for SAP.

It's very robust. It's very good at document retrieval and storage, as well. The solution that we deployed is really good and it works fine.

FileNet provides secured facilities, which helps a lot.

A few products that we use in FileNet that really help our organization a lot. For example, Capture Pro and ICC are the important products that we use. They save us a lot of time.

We also use Image Services, which is another strong product from IBM. That also has a lot of features. It helps a lot to do annotations and then print services. The other features on that are excellent.

My thought process is that, we use a lot of FileNet products, and with the new versions that come from IBM, we were expecting IBM to provide some extended support for the products that we use at the customer's level. To make sure when we go to upgrade, we should have enough time to do any kind of upgrades or migrations.

I attended an IBM World of Watson conference to find out what new products they have. For example, we need more data analytics than we have now.

Some days, stability’s really good, especially with the product running with AIX and DB2. We have never had any bad experiences; it runs very well along with that operating system and that database.

For scalability, we have a load balancer and the AIX systems, which really help us to handle the volume and the user input also.

Technical support is 10/10.

It has been there for many years; they've been using it in our organization for more than 12-13 years.

They have been using a few products, but definitely the features and because it is an IBM product. We are basically an IBM shop, so we just prefer to use IBM products. That's why we are moving towards going to the ECM solutions from IBM.

Over time, initial setup has become more simple. Initially, with previous versions, it was harder. Now, it's getting very simple, because IBM has come up with a new hardware architecture, which helps a lot to simplify upgrades and installations.

They do have SharePoint for a few applications, but that doesn't really solve what the business needs. IBM FileNet is the right solution and we are currently using it. We'll be adding more features and more products into it to make it better for our customers.
We also have custom developments on top of FileNet.

The decision-making process takes about 6 months. We have a process to be followed. It takes a minimum of about 6 months to go through all the approvals; the business as well as our directors have to approve it.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is most likely the complexity. When there's any kind of situation with any architecture being introduced, that's when we need to have IBM or anyone to be involved directly to help us out.

Depending on the business needs, I would suggest FileNet and the architecture, as well as the features that it has. I would definitely recommend it.

According to my experience, over time, it has become perfect. The early versions had a lot of issues. It was running on different platforms, which had some issues. We had terrible outages in a back in 2008-2009. Over time, the new version upgrades really helped out a lot. With the current versions that we use, it's really great.

We are considering using IBM cloud, hybrid and box solutions. Those are leading features that IBM is coming up with. We definitely look forward to utilizing those products in the future.

We have a few analytical products, Hadoop and a few other products. They be working with a different group of teams, so they are definitely looking forward into it.
There aren’t really any existing services that we're able to provide better than we were before.

We do not have any plans to include mobile at this moment.

Most of our customers are in Dunwoody and external customers only use very few applications. We provide external login access to them, which helps a lot. We mainly now use FileNet to store the policy documents and the underwriting and claims documents. From a retrieval point of view, it's very fast. The security is very good.

We have about 6,000-8,000 users and there are no complaints from the usability perspective. With some other products, such as Case Manager, when the new thing comes out, we need to make sure that the users are comfortable using it. Then, we look forward to switching to that.

FileNet P8 Content Manager is the primary platform we use. We use it essentially just as a document repository. We don't currently do any business process with it. We use it purely for storing and retrieving documents. The most important features would be the flexibility in which it can store the metadata, the flexibility in which you can search on the metadata and the scalability.

We have millions and millions and millions of documents and we have to put them somewhere. That is where they get put. A user can go to the FileNet system and pull up a document within a matter of seconds. Rather than, if you had no ECM system, you would send a request somewhere, someone would walk through old paper files somewhere and you would get your file in a day. That was thirty years ago. I don't think anyone does that now.

The particular aspect that I would like for us to improve on is the ingestion of new documents to data capture. We're looking at ways to more automate our document capture, more automated categorization of documents.

We were looking at the Datacap product. We're currently using Kofax. We're looking at Datacap to see if that might do it better. We don't know the answer to that yet.

It does what it's supposed to do well: you start a document on it; it pulls the document back; it displays the document. For what we use it for, I can't think of features that it's lacking. Now, there are other aspects of it that we don't use. There's a whole BPM system that's tied into it that we've never used.

Going back to data capture, that is not part of the FileNet P8 system. You have to have something to pull the documents in. IBM’s solution is called Datacap. Cofax is another company who we've been using. I went to a recent IBM conference hoping that they had the Datacap products smarter; all the talk there was about Watson and how smart it is. They have a new version of Datacap called Datacap Insight Edition. I was hoping that it was actually really smart; you could give it a bunch of documents, it could understand what the documents are, sort them out for us and extract relevant information. It's not there yet. The hype exceeds the reality.

At first, the customer experience was pretty rocky. A lot of that is just because when you give them something new, they liked the old thing. You give them something new and there's some good features and some bad features, but they're only going to complain about the bad stuff.

From an internal point of view, we had some big improvements in maintenance. The access management – the customer account management – moved from being entirely separate management on the old system to something that was integrated with our Active Directory system. Requests for passive resets and so on went from 100 per day down to zero.

We've standardized on an HTML 5-based viewer. We’ve gotten over some of the problems with being reliant on Java installed in all the various browsers. Functionally, the end customer experience is about the same. It looks a little bit different but there have been a lot of improvements in reduced maintenance costs and trouble.

It's been rock solid. Once you get it going and you get over the initial hump of the initial installation, it's solid.

Scalability is good.

FileNet tech support is wonderful. Sometimes, they prioritize according to whether the issue is a casual question or an emergency? If it's an emergency, they're right there; they'll have somebody there. They will get it fixed. If you ask them a low-priority question, it might take a while, but it's a low-priority question.

Also, once you find a document on their website, it's generally very good. The problem I've always had is that their website is sometimes horrible to find things on.

Our FileNet P8 system is an upgrade from an older FileNet Image Services system, which we've had for 14 years, I think. We're trying to obsolete that. Everything we're doing on the P8 system is really a mirror of the old Image Services system. We really haven't got around to trying implementing anything new yet.

I was involved in the decision to upgrade to the FileNet P8 system; I've been pushing for ten years.

FileNet P8 system installation is complex. I don't know how complex it is to similar products but it is definitely complex. It's not something you want to do unless you're an expert in it. You want to make sure you have somebody that knows how to do it.

I was not involved in any comparison to any other system. I don't know exactly what was done. I'm a lowly developer. I can't really compare the FileNet P8 system against any of its competitors.

When I’m selecting a vendor to work with, the most important criteria for me are: that they're going to exist in the future; their product is good; and their documentation is good. I like to be able to go out, find the documentation, and have it be nicely organized; I can find what I want; I can read about what I need to read about and do a deep dive into the nitty gritty details.

It is not my position to consider employing IBM on cloud, hybrid or Box solutions. There's been some conversation about what would be the economic benefit of having stuff moved to the cloud versus hosting it internally. The conversation has only been, “I wonder what the numbers are.” We don't know.

There are no plans of doing mobile in relation to the FileNet P8 system. The FileNet P8 system we use is entirely internal. There are no external, customer-facing applications. There are other departments that do mobile applications. We're a bank, so they have the bank mobile application. They do some FileNet documents but they call an ESB service, which then calls FileNet. We don't do anything directly with it.

I have no complaints regarding the usability of FileNet. I've seen other similar systems and it's comparable. It's kind of boring stuff: you pull up a screen; you put in some query conditions; you find some documents and you look at your documents. It's nothing exciting.

Primary usage is storing content for content management.

We are the consultants, who provide the solution to our clients.

We mostly use ECM solutions from IBM, not database.

While business users are happy with the solution, trends are changing. We need to catch up to them.

The solution helps with governance, especially with PII or PHI, and then with some redaction capabilities.

It has had a positive effect on the decision-making for the business users in our organization.

The solution has improved business process management and case management in our organization.

It provides better content management for security content: both storage and archival.

It is pretty robust and user-friendly. 

We have integrated this solution with other solutions, and the integration process is seamless.

The new software and trends with the cloud solution is a little slow. I would like them to move toward more cloud-based and microservices rather than a SaaS model. This is where the industry is going and what customers are asking for.

The usability is a lot better than it used to be.

It is pretty stable.

It is scalable.

The technical support is pretty knowledgeable and good.

The industry is changing. Competitors for the clients are growing faster, so they need to catch up with them. We need to deploy processes to make them more efficient, interactive, and faster.

The initial setup is complex in the sense that there are server dependencies, installation issues, and compatibility issues with the existing environment and software. Then, the hardware and software have to be managed.

We are the consultants for the deployment.

The solution increases productivity and reduces operating costs. With a few customers, it has reduced costs by 30 percent from the legacy systems to the new system.

It saves our customers time by 30 to 40 percent by eliminating the time to process paper.

We work with the competitors, as well. While the solution is good, it needs to catch up to the average.

Depending on the customer's needs (requirement) and how they have they have laid out their environment, I would recommend the product.

The product has improved over time through automation.

We plan to expand automation into machine learning, artificial intelligence, and analytics.