IBM FileNet Reviews

We use FileNet to store all the medical records and information for a patient. 

We have business users utilizing it in the whole organization for medical records.

I work in information systems now. However, regarding the emergency medical records, research, and other parts of the organization, FileNet lets us have all these records maintained smartly and securely. Mostly, we can use this information in the future for research, if we ever want into AI solution or if we wanted to look for new ways to look at cancer, then it is all there.

The solution provides ease of access. It has affected the decision-making in our organization.

FileNet lets us store everything there for compliance. There is something legally about us not being able to delete stuff. 

The taxonomy is its most valuable feature. Everything is hierarchical and has properties.

I am doing practical coding. Therefore, I am very happy that they have extensive Redbooks and demos with the FileNet API.

It is really usable. There is a lot of support for it. You have the online components to trawl through the storage. I have a lot of fun with it.

I did hear that maybe there are some errors in relationship to another product that they offer, like SmartLock. There is something going on there which is not good.

It is stable.

It is scalale.

There are a lot of Redbooks, and there is the IBM knowledge that is sent there. There are some more obscure errors that get thrown when I'm coding, because I'm bad. 

All in all, the tech support is really good. They have a lot of support.

We were using image services. Now, we are migrating to FileNet. Therefore, we are storing patient records, so they can be used in research.

I know it took them seven months to convert, so the initial setup was, probably to some degree, complex.

We used enChoice for the deployment. Our experience with them was good.

It has reduced operating costs. We went from paper to image services to FileNet. We did that because it was cheaper and better.

The solution has saved us time.

I would recommend choosing IBM. Go for it. It is not like there is a better alternative.

The automation that we are doing right now is to check that all our systems are up and working. I wrote a program in C# which touches a whole bunch of boxes and services. It does a whole bunch of actions against FileNet that checks everything is going correctly. It saves us time and effort, and it works.

I know that they're releasing FileNet 5.5.3 at the end of the month, but I don't know what is in it.

It runs our document management and workflow systems.

We have been able to grow the product and its use through a large number of business areas.

Overall, it has worked well for our business partners and various user groups. We have done some customization from a customer interface standpoint. Usability-wise, it has worked out well for us.

It is utilized by business users in our organization. We have done a lot of customization. We use the product more probably as a back-end delivery mechanism, but that has worked out well for our business people.

We have made our service routes more efficient, as far as moving work through the system and being able to react to customer situations and needs better by improving things, such as, address and beneficiary changes. I know that we have definitely made improvements in the process.

There are regulations on the amount of time that you have to process certain transactions. We have been able to knock that SLA down significantly with some of the products that we have implemented.

We have stuck with the product and sort of expanded on it. It's firmly entrenched in what we do (with legacy and new work).

• Reliability
• Speed
• Extensibility

Some of the user interface stuff might be a little more complicated than it needs to be: the native user interface. However, we traditionally develop our own UI.

From a business resiliency standpoint, it has worked out well for us.

We have seen an improvement from some older products to the P8 version now, from a stability standpoint

It has scaled well based off the user community that we have.

If I had a concern, it would be that we are sometimes not getting to the root cause of the issues from a technical standpoint as quickly as we should. For the most part, it's good. However, when things get a bit dicey with more involved issues, we have had some delays in getting feedback. If I had a concern, it's around the technical support and their responses in regards to things like root cause analysis.

Prior to implementing the first version of FileNet P8, our customer service organization was totally paper-based. They were dropping stacks of service requests on people's desks, and people working directly off of paper. Since implementing FileNet, we have been able to use it as a type of a distribution mechanism. This cuts out the paper process, and we now have the ability to distribute and move work through multiple steps in a business process.

The old process was going around distributing paper, then moving that stack from desk to desk. The advantage of running FileNet is that we've been able to capture the documents at the point of entry. We have been able to distribute work, then based on rules that we have set up in the workflow, route that work to the appropriate people at the appropriate time.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. As we have grown the environment and done certain things, it has gotten more complex. However, my experience has been okay. With the newer versions, because of our environments have grown, it has become a bit more complex.

We have done some homegrown development. We have used a couple partners to help with some development. We have used IBM resources to help install the original base product. Therefore, we have soft of had a mixed bag in all the deployment experiences. For the most part, they have been pretty good.

We have probably cut out at least 40 percent of what the work process was by easing out that whole distribution of paper.

It serves our needs, and it is performing as expected. It does what we expect out of it. Overall, it is a very good product for what we need in the company.

We do some basic integration with Salesforce and maybe some integration with some of our homegrown applications, but nothing that is overly involved. It has worked out, but it was hard work.

We are not right now using this solution for automation projects.

Lessons learned and advice for others:

• Don't bite off more than you can chew. 
• Do things in smaller pieces. 
• Do your homework upfront with prep tests. 
• Take it slow (implement slowly). 
• Get your requirements upfront. 
• Understand the process your users are looking for. 
  

We use FileNet to store all our content. We have a quarter of a billion documents stored and it works great for us.

It has taken the manual work out of our billing process, and automated it.

We actually use it in conjunction with BPM to auto-bill our customers, based on when the bill gets checked into FileNet.

I would love it if single sign-on was a lot easier to set up. That's the most difficult part of it.

We have it load-balanced, so we don't really have outages. With HA it's very stable.

It could be easier to scale, but in our implementation we can build up a new server and a whole new environment in about a day and a half.

It would be nice if they could make it like containers are working in Kubernetes to auto-scale based on demand.

I've used it quite often. Technical support could be better, more responsive in a timely manner. I've learned to actually open up tickets earlier in the morning because you seem to get better help than if you wait until the afternoon.

We didn't have a previous solution. We went with FileNet as our content repository from the beginning.

When selecting a vendor we like to have somebody that can provide good support and a good business relationship; we like to build relationships with our vendors.

It's very complex. We have a lot of pieces that tie together with our FileNet, like  domains. So it's complex.

I would give it an eight out of 10. What it needs to be a 10 is easier to configure single sign-on.

I would recommend that when you are doing the initial setup that you use fewer metadata fields. The fewer you use the better off you're going to be in the long run, for performance.

We have some projects now with a university in Bogota, here in Colombia. We developed a correspondence process and some administration processes with invoices. We also have a government project where the main process is around the lifecycle of documents. We use FileNet to automate correspondence processes when our clients receive documents.

There a lot of legal requirements in Colombia and companies need to automate their processes around these requirements. We incorporate FileNet in the middle of the process and we collaborate to make our clients' processes more efficient.

We offer FileNet to our clients with IBM's RPA capabilities and help to automate processes.

The most valuable feature is when we combine FileNet with Datacap. We have a lot of client data here. We use IBM Datacap's capabilities to capture data and then we use FileNet's capabilities for filing, to create an archive of documents. 

We also use the check-in and check-out capabilities a lot to enable correct document security for users. 

In addition, we use a lot of workflow for document processing for our clients.

Finally, we use FileNet's ability to expose information via APIs and interoperate with other systems.

IBM has a lot of documentation but the kind of information in a lot of the documents can be confusing to our clients. It would be easier if they used video tutorials. Right now, the information is too hard to understand, and there is a lot of it. If they used videos I think FinalNet would be easy to use for an end-user.

The technical information is hard to understand at times, especially on the installation of the product. And that's particularly true when you have to install FileNet with high-availability.

In addition, there are a lot of use cases for FileNet as a platform. There are other tools on the market with demos or models, ready-to-use use cases that can be configured. With FileNet, all projects we have to be developed step-by-step. IBM should develop some use cases or pre-configured models, across use cases. That would help us speed up implementation a lot.

FileNet is stable because the web application server is a very powerful tool. The problem is that people don't always correctly configure this tool. If the people doing the configuration are not the right people, the client has problems. But the web application server is very stable when configured correctly.

Scalability is good. IBM is one of the platforms that we can upgrade. They have different versions and new versions and upgrades happen without a lot of issues. As a developer or partner, we can take advantage of the flexibility of the scalability.

There are three levels of support. The first one is local support which relies on our experience as a partner. At the second level, we use IBM support for our clients. Sometimes, an issue we have is when our client has an older version for a given component. IBM has told us that some of these versions are no longer supported and an upgrade is required. After that, they can give support. But if we are on the correct version or release, the support is good.

In terms of ROI on the automation processes, FileNet is so expensive in Colombia. So return on investment takes time.

A lot of companies here need solutions like FinalNet. Its capabilities are very good. However, when it comes to pricing, IBM needs to make an effort to improve the cost. That's the main issue regarding use of FinalNet in Columbia.

In our company, we have three different tools for documents services. One of them is FileNet, another is Laserfiche, and there is a third one. But our company has an agreement with IBM where there is flexibility on pricing.

One of the main differences between IBM and its competitors is the pricing. In this market, IBM is the most expensive platform. But IBM has a lot of components in one package. We can use this advantage to offer just one package with all these components. With the competitors, we may need to combine technologies. Sometimes customers feel that having a lot of different vendors for one solution makes things hard to maintain. With IBM, we have just one platform with multiple components, making it a very good solution in terms of maintenance.

Support is also important after the initial implementation. That's one of the differences between IBM and its competitors

You need to be patient when you first use FileNet because the information is hard to understand. People often learn a lot when they go over the licensing agreement because it gives them all the possibilities of the platform. You also need technical expertise to use the platform. In addition, it's important to use support after implementation. Keep updated on the versions of the product and try to use all its capabilities. Don't try to customize the product code because that may lead you into difficulties.

I would rate FileNet, overall, at seven out of ten. It's not just about the platform. It's also the skills of the people around the platform. That is the most important thing you have. The platform is good but it's the people who know the platform who can be hard to find.

It is usually the client's system of record for their documents. In addition, it can be used for digital assets, like video and recordings.

It provides a centralized system of truth around their documents. It also allows them to automate their processes and gain efficiencies in cost reductions. 

It puts governance in place around the content and processes:

• People can only see what they should be able to see.
• It is auditable, so you have an audit trail.
• Access levels can be set to certain parts of the document based on role level.

Our most valuable feature is it's highly scalable. There can be up to billions of documents or content items. It can support thousands to tens of thousands of concurrent users. There is also tight integration between the content and process functionality.

I would like IBM to improve with each release, continue moving towards a continual, tighter integration, and build solutions that take advantage of all the different modules the platform has from one place.

It is stable.

It is used by large enterprises. It has to be scalable and robust for them to use. We have seen that on multiple projects over the years.

We work very closely with IBM and their technical service as part of a solution proposal. We also work with them to support and implement our client systems. It's a team effort.

We have been using the platform over the years. They have continued to make the product easier to install. With the new release of container support, it's becoming even easier to install. The trick to it is the design architecture which allows you to scale, and also putting in performance tuning for the scaling to happen.

Some of our customers are IBM shops and work with IBM exclusively, but there are also customers who look at other solutions.

Overall, IBM has a great end-to-end solution. I would highly recommend it.

Most important criteria for our customers when selecting a vendor: stable and scalable. Performance is a very big deal for most of our customers, and knowing it's a secure platform as well.

A lot of the time Datacap and FileNet work in tandem together. FileNet is like a database repository which can be connected to a bunch of different third-party applications or the Web. It's a very interesting technology in the sense of you can pull in a lot of information through the Datacap network, then connect it to servers on the FileNet side. The servers can communicate and assist in the automated workflow structure. This is especially helpful when it comes to multiple parties who are trying to work together.

A majority of our customers use FileNet. It's a valuable software in what it can do. If you need manual processes automated to the point where you are going to have a lot of information in a repository and it needs to be extraordinarily secure, then you need to work with external forces and it's not going to be an all internal processes. FileNet is a fantastic system and almost all of our clients use it. 

We work with Georgia, Connecticut, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, and integrating into New York. Many different state organizations use it because it is secure and highly advanced. 

We were working with the state troopers who needed their FileNet servers implemented with the ability to communicate with a third-party app called a OffenderWatch. OffenderWatch is a database where a lot of the sex offenders are stored. However, with the way that everything works, Datacap and FileNet must stay properly maintained, otherwise there are a lot of issues which might happen. 

The ability to coordinate with automated workflows is the most valuable feature. You have a lot of external servers, and even internal servers, where all the information needs to be housed somewhere securely. If you're pulling information through Datacap, FileNet needs to be able to store it, then also assist in the automation aspect of it.

The ability to connect servers is another big feature. It can connect a lot of third-party people and hold information securely. Security is the big thing for FileNet. 

I would also include the automated word flow structure as a valuable feature.

I would like to see in FileNet integrated with Watson, which can read something and send it without any human contact or interaction.

Stability is fantastic. It's probably one of the more highly secure systems out there right now. Though, you have to have the right people to support, implement, integrate, and maintain it. No technology will work completely on its own. Even if it does, one day it might break (and that goes for any tech). 

It is very simple to add any users that you need to. Implement it once, and so long as it works, you can add and train more people to use it. Scalability is absolutely there.

We switched to IBM because it is in high demand in the government market.

If you are looking for a stable, highly secure solution which will work with a capture solution or will work with an automated workflow solution that you are implementing, then you should look at FileNet, especially if you have a very large repository or database.

Going forward, I am interested in knowing:

• Where is AI going to play a part in FileNet?
• Does IBM plan on advancing the technology and integrating it with the newer technologies that they are focusing on now?
• Will FileNet and Datacap one day be replaced by something better?

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. 

We have implemented it in a real estate environment. They receive many applications on the front-end and, before our implementation, they were processing them manually. When we implemented it, they moved to a completely paperless system.

For example, a customer walks in at the front desk, the reception, and they ask that the company process a transfer or a no-demand certificate, which is a form used in real estate to clear charges against your property. The person at the front desk creates a case in Case Manager. It's processed by the Case Manager in two different departments, and it's completely paperless.

The customer can view the status from their homes. We have created a very scalable application using FileNet and Case Manager.

Our clients use it for office automation systems to have a paperless environment. Most customers are using it for paperless because Case Manager has more capability than any other product within case management and process flows.

Before the implementation of the software, there were about 30 people who were processing things. One person would take anywhere from one to four days to process something. Now, it takes them two hours. They are processing things within multiple departments within two hours. 

The solution has increased their productivity, saving them time and cost. When it takes a person longer to get something done, there are more operational costs. If we shave the time from days to hours, there is definitely an opportunity for them to save on operational costs.

In government departments and the public sector, they have to follow regulations regarding land issues. The products are already certified by the regulatory parties, such as OSHA and ISO. During implementation we take care of these rules.

• Scalability
• Ease of use

These features are important because the customer where we have deployed it has millions of documents, millions of block files, and inside one block file there are hundreds of documents. And over the last five years, the volume of the documents has been increasing. It's handling all of them and without any errors.

Also, we see business users using IBM automation and they think that the interface is very easy to use. They can find the options and links they need. It's not difficult to find what they want or to do what they need to do. In the scope of projects where we use it, we have been able to provide them with the user interface they require. After that, they are very comfortable with it. It is already a very simple interface.

We have been working with it from version 4.0 and now it is at 5.3. They have improved a lot already.

However, there is room for improvement in the file management. It's very complex. 

In addition, they should have a built-in application for directly capturing documents from the scanners. Currently, they have that, but it is a separate product. They should have a built-in solution for that functionality.

These solutions are very good in terms of stability.

Most of our customers want to expand their automation processes. They initially implement it in four to five departments and then they expand it to the rest of the departments.

Technical support from IBM is very good. There is level-one, level-two, level-three, and lab services. We have dealt with all these support levels during our implementation. When we have asked for support with technical issues, they have resolved them.

In the private sector our customers involve us in the decision-making process, but in the public sector they don't.

Some of our customers were using the Microsoft document management system, the SharePoint portal. They were not happy with that and some of them moved from SharePoint to FileNet. They switched because FileNet has more features and it's easy for the users. They find it a complete enterprise content-management system. They have told us that a SharePoint portal is only a document management system. They cannot use it in the broader context of enterprise content management.

The setup is very straightforward.

When it comes to automation processes, so far it has not added up to the mark versus what our customers were expecting, but there is definitely some return on investment due to having an automated system and through savings on the printing costs.

There are multiple vendors like OpenText, M-Files, and SharePoint. Our clients have found that FileNet is, overall, a better solution.

I would definitely advise going with FileNet. It is better when it comes to scalability.

We have integrated it with multiple systems. We have integrated it with customized customer applications built in-house and with Oracle ERP. It's also integrated with a customer's website. The solution provides a built-in API and by using the APIs we are integrating it easily with other systems.