IBM FileNet Reviews

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.

The most valuable features are that it is very well integrated and connected. To deploy many new applications and solutions it may sometimes not be very easy, but it is very robust, at the end of the day.

The benefit is a shorter time to market, especially.

In the next release, I would like to see features for how to move it to the cloud and enhance functionalities as you are developing new products.

Also, I come from a Spanish-speaking country. Sometimes, you have to work with people that don't speak Spanish and that makes that the overall solution a little trickier to implement, because of the language barrier. So, I think that a strong knowledge of the technical issues by people that also have good knowledge of the mother tongue of the country, that would help a lot.

Usually, IBM products are stable, although some of them require some changes or some upgrades for minor bugs, but the overall quality of the solutions is OK.

FileNet has helped us a lot with the customer documentation information and I think the solution is very strong.

Actually, right now, we are moving to the new version of FileNet. We are doing all the scalability right now to have more processes involved with the FileNet platform.

The technical support is good. I think that the guys have provided us with the solutions that we needed.

We didn't previously use any other solution. We decided to invest in a new solution because we understood that it was a benefit for us and our customers to have the solutions that FileNet, in this case, provided for us.

The setup was a little complex. Even though some of the projects or the solutions are not very complex, you have to integrate them with the company's old system. Some of the systems are not complex, so the overall solution sometimes requires effort, that if it's not on the FileNet solution itself, it's in another module that's integrated.

We were checking out other vendors. We were looking at Oracle, Microsoft and some smaller vendors that were developing some specific things for us.

When I'm selecting a vendor, I look for a vendor that you can trust, with whom you can have a long-term relationship, and you know that they are also on top of the technological wave. What you are going to implement is going to be constantly changing with new developments in the future.

Make a very good design at the beginning, understand what you need and also prepare the different phases of the project to ensure that you finish the projects. Have a clear view. Draw the lines of the software you need.

We use FileNet as an unstructured content repository today. About six, seven years ago, we also used it as a case management solution but we don't use it as a case management solution anymore. We use it primarily as a content repository. We like the fact that it is a large vendor solution. It is robust and stable; hardly comes down. One of the challenges we face is finding qualified personnel to take care of the upkeep of the solution but, other than that, it's serviced very well.

It has actually simplified some of our business processes that rely on unstructured data. We are in the health care business, so centralized storing and management of unstructured data allows the different business processes to go to the same single source of truth for that information. For example, we process claims. We also have to answer questions at the contact center on the claims that we've processed. If there is a document that is associated with a claim, for both those business processes to have access to it from a single source of truth is valuable. There are multiple business processes that rely on that. Having a centralized repository has become very useful and valuable. And, naturally, the audit and compliance requirements have also been fairly well satisfied, thanks to the fact that we have that centralized repository.

I would like to see better integration with other tools. For example, we use IBM Security Suite. We also use IBM's Business Process Manager, Rules Engine, Cognos, and so on. I think IBM products can be better integrated across themselves. We find that, sometimes, we have to jump through hoops to get one product to work with another.

I would give it a perfect rating if all the upgrades had been smooth.

We've been using it for almost 10 years now.

It is very stable and it does scale well. It does require a certain amount of discipline in setting the infrastructure up right and keeping up with the patches and releases. But it has been very stable for us and it has scaled well.

I think technical support is pretty good. They've been very responsive and helpful, but we haven't really had to call them too many times in the last few months.

I was not involved in the initial setup but I was involved in an upgrade that was almost an overhaul, about four years ago. It was fairly complex because I think the model we used to lay down the unstructured data within FileNet originally was not really very extensible. We had to redo a little bit of that work, so there was some complexity in it. And, also, we were coming from a fairly older version of the software... Lack of upkeep, I guess. And that's why it was a fairly difficult exercise at that point.

First, know the problem that you are trying to solve. Different products have different sweet spots, different scales, for operation. Understand the business problem that you are trying to solve. Understand the ability of your organization to adapt to change, because these things require the entire organization to think a little differently about how they do what they do. And then, make sure you have the right technical strength to implement a large infrastructure solution like this.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with are reliability, technical support, and, definitely, the cost.

We are able to provide a lot more content management solutions than before. We've been using it for almost 10 years now. There's really nothing dramatically different or new that we've done in the last 12 months.

It's very usable. I haven't seen it lately but I'm sure it has improved dramatically in the last 12 months, too. Compared to what I saw five, six, years ago, and what we actually upgraded to, it's come a long way.

We are not considering employing IBM on cloud, hybrid or Box solutions, nor for mobile, at the moment.

• Enterprise content
• Document management
• Worker's management, which we are currently not leveraging. 

It is performed fine. It is a robust solution.

From the document management side, it is able to integrate with some of our other systems, such as SAP.

It has a robust API. We are able to have systems communicate with each other, and do business process automation. Although, there are a lot of opportunities that we have not leveraged yet.

• The document management elements
• The worker's management pieces
• The distributive environment capabilities

We run a global corporation with locations all around the world, therefore the distributive environment is important.

I would like to see Azure AD added.

It is a good, stable system.

I have found that it scales well.

I would rate the technical support as medium. I do not like the login process. It is not great. 

Getting an ID, and the IDs across the different things. IDs used to solve similar problems.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

If you are planning on managing records, go with a OpenText, FileNet, or Documentum. A lot of times companies go with SharePoint as a default, but there are some pain points around worker's management in SharePoint. 

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: Company's position in the industry within that particular technology field. We want market leaders. A company who can support an 80,000 person company which is global.

It's an image repository for our medical documents, our claims, etc. They do all kinds of stuff. They put checks there. It's an indexing software.

It has added more indexing capability on images and enabled us to search them. 

Stores a lot of documents. It's a good repository for that.

What I would want to see is heavier analytical ability within it, but we've purchased the cognitive piece of it. I haven't seen that implemented yet, but that would be the future; I think it may already be there but I just haven't seen it yet. Something like indexing for unstructured text.

At this time, it has improved, but it wasn't that stable not that long ago. 

It seems fine, it's dynamic. It works with all the different business needs that we have for it.

I have not used tech support for this solution.

When selecting a vendor the important criteria are 

• cost
• ease in getting something accomplished
• not over-promising 
• trustworthy.

I would rate it a seven out of 10. That rating is because of stability problems when I first had it - and then, I'm not entirely sure our company has set it up right. Sometimes things are only as good as the people who run it. It's like going to a restaurant. It's only as good as the chef. So you can go to Burger King and have a pretty good burger or you can go down the road, it just depends on how good the chef is. So I think there's some of that dynamic. I don't know that much because I didn't mess with it like at that level. But it's a fine product. We've used it for a very long time.

The advice I would to a colleague at another company who's researching this or another similar solution would be to check how data index with one another, and the communication back and forth in being able to find your files, if you have a large data set like we do. 

We use the Case Manager component of FileNet, itself. It helps with the business process, mainly; incoming documents; and then collaboration of the underwriters or adjusters. Besides that, we consolidate all documents within FileNet, so nothing is going to be left on a file share or somewhere that is not going to be found down the road. It's very important for the company to have something like that in place, to control every asset of the documents within the enterprise.

Documents used to be everywhere; anybody's desktop or shared file systems. Now, everything is in one location and people can share or view the same document at the same time, without waiting for each other to finish a folder, paper or document, to go ahead and work on them again. Basically, that's it. You can have many people using the same document at the same time, sharing it without any problem; annotating on them, if need be; having it all in one place; and being easily accessible.

I would rate it higher if they improved the usability, because as a product, it went through iterations and things like that. If it was supposed to be a perfect product, Content Navigator would have been developed earlier, so that people would have been using the system much, much better. We still have lots of customers that are used to using XT; migrating them from one environment to another always causes issues. Training them again on the new product for the same backend, for the same solution, that always creates some issues. It's the response from the customers, mainly; the end users. When there's a change, there is always resentment. You have to deal with all of those things.

It would have been better if things were what they are today five years ago or seven years ago. The product could have matured quicker.

Because it's a content management solution, they could start providing an analytics component on it. They already have the content, so they could start adding components. Usually, they rely on third-party or external products to do those things. If they start doing the analytics, that would make it easier for me, instead of implementing other products, but I guess that's the trend now. You have to go with that. It's something that we don't currently have that I would like.

The way I see it, IBM is going more towards cloud-based solutions; more towards Box being a content management solution for the cloud. Even with the delay, how that's going to fit with the Case Manager, I don't know. I don't know what the future is going to be for content management.

They could have done things differently or better. No product is perfect 100% of the time.

It is stable. We have no major issues.

It's an enterprise solution. Everybody, from coast to coast, is using it. It's not only departmental or one geographical area. It's enterprise, coast to coast, and it’s being used.

My advice wouldn’t be positive because, as I see it, everything is going cloud-based. Everything is going in a direction where content management is becoming like the database products used to be 10 years ago; they are in the back room and nobody knows about them anymore. They do their job, day in and day out, but they are in the dark now. That's the trend I'm seeing with the content management. They're going to go in the back room and nobody's going to be dealing with them. They will just sit there and do their job; collect the content and then do nothing else. That's where it's going.

Just because it's not sexy doesn't mean it's not good. Everything runs on the databases but they just sit there; nobody cares about them anymore. The same thing goes for content management. That's my impression. That's my gut feeling about what's going to happen.

We're looking into the IBM Box solution, for cloud collaboration with external vendors, external users and external suppliers. That would make it easier for them to come in, send documents or upload documents, without having to go through emails, which is currently the case. It makes the work process easier, document management easier.

As far as new analytics or content management services that we are now able to provide our organization, we are doing some proof of concepts but nothing in production yet; mainly content analytics, not streams or anything that's coming in from other sources. We're doing analytics on the content that we already have. We're looking into the sentiment part of the documents that are coming in, to see if it’s something people are going to be using, or to escalate it to be looked into right away, or it's something that anyone can view anytime they want; there's no urgency on it.

Regarding existing services that we're able to provide better than before, it's easier to respond to documents that are coming in or are requested; coming in from brokers, for example. It's easier to work on them. It's faster to work on them. Turnaround time used to be two or three days; now, it's minutes or less than an hour.

Mobile is probably going to be part of the Box solution coming in but nothing has been decided yet.

As far as usability, it's user-friendly. Now that we're using Content Navigator, it's easier to use and easier to present it to the users. Training-wise, it's much easier because you teach them on one application so everybody knows how to use the next application that's going to come on as a solution. That's a plus.

The most important criteria for me in selecting a vendor to work with is how accessible they are; how support is available, especially IT or technical support; and if we're doing development, how fast they're going to respond for problems that we encounter. Those are the things that are important.

Since we implemented FileNet, the users are happy with the experience. The users are using it on a daily basis, especially when they don't deal with paper. Whenever they need, it’s there and they don't have to worry about paper. It helps them in their daily work and job.