OpenText Documentum Reviews

The most valuable feature is the management. I like the accelerated platform but it uses a lot of CPU and RAM. 

It is easy to develop a VPN and UI.

In terms of improvement, we have had bugs with version 2.2. They should develop something so that bugs don't happen in our projects. We make changes manually and bugs happen. 

I have been using this solution for six years. 

It is easy to expand. We store many workflows in it and we are going to expand the project after the next upgrade to include all of our workflows. 

There are around 5,000 uses but after the upgrade, it will be closer to 20,000 users.

We get our support from a partner, not from them directly. I don't like the consultancy, they don't have a lot of experience but they sell this solution. The support needs to be better. 

The installation is easy. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

They should improve the licensing model. We can't get to a license agreement, they recommend a certain license but I don't think we need everything. The licensing model should be more clear.

We use it for enterprise content management and we have many businesses which use it for business process content management. So we have two categories of users. The primary use case is lifecycle management or flow management and that includes the enterprise content management service.

We have several customers and each one has a different "flavor." So the benefits vary with each case.

The lifecycle management is valuable because many of our businesses create content and it passes through a lifecycle. Each state of the lifecycle means that your business has certain business rules, which are set.

It needs a better UI and it should also be cloud-ready. The UI has not changed in years. These are the two major improvements I would be expecting.

The stability is good.

The scalability is good.

Technical support is average.

I wouldn' say the setup was straightforward but it was also not complex. It's somewhere in between.

When selecting a vendor, the primary considerations are the cloud and that we need simplified solutions for all of our customers.

Using Documentum products such as Content
Server, xCP, Captiva, 90+ large-scale Business Processes/Applications have been
successfully implemented for moving forward to be paperless organization. These
processes are fully integrated with our Oracle E-Business Suite (Financial Modules
plus HRMS) in addition to integration with custom enterprise systems built
in-house

Reduced request cycle time, along with enhancing request tracking and archiving. Moving towards a paperless organization, it has facilitated paperwork easily in a fast and elegant way.

Process Engine for handling over 90 large-scale business processes/applications. also Documentum Content Management System is very powerful.

Documentum xCP 2.3 is still has some drawbacks such as :

1• Dependent filtration among multiple drop down lists in Result list

2• Unable to access all user tasks from all processes in user inbox (not only the processes included within the application)

3• Unable to include task link in task notification mail automatically

No.

No.

Seven out of 10.

No.

Straightforward, by following the installation document.

in-house

Reduced request cycle time, along with enhancing request tracking

Licensing according to organization scale. Captiva software in case of backlog archiving.

SharePoint, IBM, Oracle.

Make use of load balancing. Try simplifying forms as best you can to avoid performance issues.

In terms of sub-products/components, the most valuable features are definitely Content Server and DFC. The core components are the most valuable and trusted ones. These components help us make a solution that can manage documents and their metadata providing features such as permissions, auditing, transactions and debugging for when things get strange. Doing this from scratch may be a good option, but using Documentum we may be able to save some time.

WDK is also very useful. It's not the best web framework, but it is an acceptable one for most cases and it's directed for a Documentum solution.

For some users, Webtop can be a good solution. From my experience, a customized version, usually very customized, of Webtop is an optimal solution.

The organization needs to manage a large number of documents. Depending on the context or application, it produces from 50k documents a year to 200k documents a day.

We designed several solutions for several business contexts. The core of the solution design was the custom-made design specific for the organization, and not the fact that it depended on Documentum. Using Documentum helped in the development process. Application development would be more costly if it was from scratch, rather than using some basic Documentum features.

Performance could be better. But this is a generalization. We can achieve good performance with Documentum, but we need experience to understand several details about how Documentum works to avoid performance problems. Documentum, out of the box, could be better designed so that we wouldn't fall into these problems so easily.

Also, the permissions model could be better. For example, I don't understand why we don't have the concept of a read-only user enforced by content server. But I can understand it can be difficult to make a permissions model that can be simultaneously generic and functional.

Sub-products like RPS and Records Manager are really bad. But I wouldn't hope for improvement here. The mission here is difficult. Trying to make a product that can handle lots of records, millions usually, is a tough mission. We have to be able to apply customer rules you don't know yet, because they're the customer's rules (and exceptions).

I’ve been using Documentum for 11 years.

The core (content server and DFC) is very stable. Several sub-products, like RMA and RPS are really bad stability-wise and many other aspects.

The core (content server and DFC) are reasonably well scalable. Several sub-products, like RMA and RPS, are really bad scalability-wise and many other aspects.

The content server could be more scalable if it didn't depend so much on dm_sysobject. The design overuses dm_sysobject without much need. Lightweight objects can be a way of solving this issue. Table partitioning can be useful also, but table partitioning can be a lot of work for solving a design problem.

I rate technical support 1/5. Whenever I wanted help from Dell EMC, it wasn't for trivial issues. I wanted help from people that have a high degree of knowledge in Documentum and, in some cases, have access to information that I don't (like something I could only know by reverse engineering).

For sure, some people in Dell EMC have knowledge and can be really helpful, but usually when we submit a case or question, we have to pass through some people that know less than what we know. This makes us lose lots of time asking irrelevant questions for information we already gave. Sometimes we give up before getting to someone with knowledge.

Other times, our issue really gets to someone with knowledge (after quite some time), and only a percentage of those times the support is helpful. Also, Dell EMC doesn't support Documentum's versions for a long time. You quite often see Dell EMC personnel saying Dell EMC does not support old versions when, for most situations, we can see the issue would not be any different in the most recent version.

Initial setup was complex. Several times we started with a solution. Then, in production, we started to get problems concerning performance or complexity, because we tried to use a product that needs to be generic to our customer specific solution. Then usually, when we address the problems, we figure out that replacing some Documentum-specific features with a customized feature (usually a simple one) can be a huge improvement.

I'm not an expert on this but from what I know, the pricing and licensing model is strange and I'm not sure how well it is controlled. For example, paying by user capability (consumer, contributor, coordinator) makes sense when the user application is Webtop. But we can have a WDK solution or any other web-based solution where the user capability is completely irrelevant.

I was not involved in product evaluation. The organization evaluated FileNet as one option, but I can't say much about it.

Stick to the core (Content Server, DFC)! I don't want to say WDK because Dell EMC is/was always saying it was going to end it. Otherwise, it was something to consider.
Dell EMC made DFS, which was a logical approach. But for several users (like myself), if you design web services by yourself using plain DFC, you’ll get better web services and it's not that complicated. Of course, you're not going to provide all the functionality DFS provides, but you won't need it.

Make it simple when possible! When you need something more complex regarding specific functionality or great performance, consider custom development. Don't assume that because Documentum has a feature addressing what you want to do, you should use it. Do the pros and cons first.

You would want to block the generic interfaces and customize your solution, unless:

• Your solution needs to manage only a few documents.
• Your users are IT people that understand what they should or should not do with an interface as generic as Webtop or CenterStage.
• You use DFS services without being very careful (performance-wise, for example).

We use this for documentation management. It provides possibilities for us to save documents and supporting the business process while doing so. It helps us with some of the overflow of documents, and that is very important for our company.

It helps us achieve enterprise content management. It is quite good.

It helps us with some of the overflow of documents, and that is very important for our company.

The biggest issue for us is the price of the product.

It is quite an expensive product. The price is very high. 

I would advise others that the best solution for enterprise content management is either Documentum or Microsoft SharePoint.

Most of the solutions that we get are to be built on top of the platform. The platform can't be leveraged as it is. Most of the applications are customized applications that follow a particular life cycle workflow.

We build custom solutions on top of SharePoint, Documentum, and Adobe. We build applications for a lot of government organizations.

The content gets captured by a customized portal, which is written in Java, then the documents get generated via the Adobe and then get published and stored onto Documentum.

The most valuable features of this solution are the security, storage, and document search capability.

An area that needs to improve is how to reduce storage space on the AWS site. Also, scaling up is difficult and we need to look at how to scale a system. If the documents increase the application size, then we need to know how we take care of reducing the size as well as scaling up the application. 

In the next release, I would like to see more cooperating workflows, better integration with other systems, and RESTful services.

I have been using Documentum for eight years.

This solution is stable and it is one of the best products that we have.

This solution is scalable, but for large scale implementations, we would always prefer Documentum, rather than SharePoint.

Currently, we have over 25,000 simultaneous users and the total users are more than 40,000.

The technical support is good.

The initial setup was a bit difficult. After we read the documentation, the setup and configuration documents, and with the help of the videos, it was easier.

Initially, it took a lot of time to understand the architecture and planning the capacity.

It took a few days in total to deploy.

I would always recommend this solution and rate it an eight out of ten.