We are working with many products for content management, including SharePoint.

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.

We've always had this. When I came to this organization, we've always had this solution.

We were previously using other ECM systems in the corporation. There still are, but there's a standardization going on towards the FileNet, the P8.

We were using products like Documentum and OpenText, and we used to rely on different vendors for the database, etc., and we had certain challenges. But the IBM products come as an entire package for us, which is really helping.

We switched from FileNet IS to FileNet P8.

We are always continuing to move forward. IBM continually offers new products on their roadmap, then we follow along with that roadmap, what is supported and what won't be supported. 

Earlier they used to have a very basic version of FileNet, the content services. That was back in the mid 90s. We also had the product that were being used on the FileNet site and also having too many issues. They came up with the new products like FileNet, which made it easier to store the documents. They added more security on top of the documents. So there's a lot implements that happened over time.

The main product we use is IBM based products, FileNet, the case manager and that stuff. On top of it we build a lot of APIs and other services and that includes supplemental customer applications. So for that, we mostly work with our participating companies who are rather preferable for our company.

We switched from an AS/400-based, on-demand solution because the company decided to abolish the IBM AS/400.

We used to use M-Files and we are a little familiar with Alfresco and Documentum. Generally, the biggest difference between those solutions and FileNet is the price. The others are much cheaper but most of them are less robust and less stable than FileNet. Programming and manipulating other programs to work with FileNet is easier than in Documentum, as far as I know. Each one has its own best features. It depends on the use case.

We were all manual before and we knew we needed something.

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor are

• commitment
• partnership - we're in this together.

IBM doesn't succeed if I don't succeed, and I can't succeed if the product doesn't work well. If there isn't that mutual give and take, then no one succeeds. It's more about: Any solution can be thought of and fixed and made to work, but you have to be able to work together. If I just sign up and give you a check and then you walk away, that doesn't help me. I need to sign up and then you be there with me, through the process.

We were previously using an earlier version of FileNet.

We were looking for the next generation, where we were. We had used FileNet Image Services, and we still use FileNet Image Services, but we were trying to move on, grow and get into newer technologies. That's part of the decision to do that as our strategy to move forward.

I was consulted during the decision process as well to invest in FileNet.

We were starting to acquire a lot of little, home-built document management systems. It didn't make sense to build something when we could buy a package that already had a lot of capabilities. We had already built, I think, three or four little scanning applications. It just didn't make sense to keep building. We had a hodge podge of stuff.

In the past, we did have some other custom solutions. We have also tried some other vendors and they did not covering the platform 360 degrees. When we opted for this particular product from IBM, we saw that it has the overall coverage which is not being provided by any other vendor. This has improved our productivity.

We were using the out-of-the-box content store of Cognos, and we were just busting at the seams, so we had to come up with a solution. One of our account reps actually came up with the solution. We looked at a couple other things, but this was a solution we decided to go with.

The important criterion for us when selecting a vendor is mostly that it's going to handle volume. Our particular company is a distribution system, and so we have tons and tons of data, so we need to be able to handle volume. What we typically run into is, people give us a proof of concept, and it will handle it with a small use case. But when you try and explode that use case into something that we need, at the volume we're working at, many of those solutions just fall flat at that point. This particular solution, that didn't happen. 

I do not know about previous solutions, but the business decided that it wanted CCM, which leverages FileNet. Therefore, I installed, configured, and built the infrastructure.

Previously, we were using just a file-based solution. It was not an equivalent solution and that was the reason as to why we moved over to IBM.

We were looking for a BPM solution, and we found the FileNet BPM solution. It was integrated with ECM. We decided that it was a great integration, the way FileNet was showing the way to solve the problem.

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

We did work with Documentum and Alfresco, but we went with FileNet because we had been using it for a long time and we are happy with it. It's more reliable. And support is also very good when compared to others.

We did not have a different solution prior to FileNet.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I didn't like using paper. It's painful.

That is our role as an adviser. As a trusted adviser to our clients and customers, we would have discussions with them that would identify this particular type of requirement, then identify it in the client/customer review.

We had a lot of different systems. We wanted an industry leader. At that point in time, they were one of the top ones in the Magic Quadrant from Gartner or Forrester. We did look into this with Gartner and Forrester. We tried to stay as neutral as possible in this decision, and we were looking at several different companies. They just worked their way up to the top, eventually.

We were a very siloed organization. We had different systems in different regions and so forth. It was very difficult to find information, so we knew we needed one. We also knew that there were new government regulations on how we handled our records, and we needed to have something that we could really leverage to facilitate all of that.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with has to do with the size of the organization; what they're able to bring to the table, as far as the number of people and so on. We've dealt with small groups, where there's 1-2 people working for a company. That can make it difficult for us. It's the personnel, the power of the people that they can bring. That's really critical for us.

Also, experience, obviously; that they know what they're doing. I've also dealt with vendors where they come in and they learn with us. When we started with our implementation, ICM was brand new. When we were sitting down with our vendor, we realized quickly the vendor was learning it as we went. So, having some experience with the product is obviously key.

We're a pseudo-governmental organization and that means that we're a slow ship to turn. The decision-making progress takes a long time. There are a lot of different policies and procedures that are in place to gate us as we go through that process. It just naturally takes us a long time to get through it. From strategy, through an RFP, to getting to the point where we made a purchase, it probably took two years.

We did not really think about building an in-house solution. There are components of this that you could probably do on your own. We looked at things like platforms such as SharePoint and so on, and realized that there were limitations. That's why we wanted an enterprise leader; something that's already pre-built that we didn't have to build from the ground up and support. That's not to say that we won't build certain things going out. We've looked at connectors and what we want out of those connector products and we've toiled with the idea of actually building it from the ground up ourselves.

We previously used OpenText ECM.

Previously, there was a lot of exchange of documents via email with outside parties and within the organization. This became cumbersome. We looked for a solution that to increase the efficiency of our collaboration, which is why we are using FileNet.

We also liked Case Manager and the overall architecture of FileNet. 

Before we started using FileNet on our own, we were subcontracting with other departments using their FileNet. So, around 2007, we decided to move to our own installation and our own system, rather than using the county's system.

An older version of FileNet was already in place when I took over my position.

My previous system, Image Services, was being sunsetted.

We started with IBM Case Manager after doing our research on some of the other ones, just sampling them. We saw that the other ones didn't have the scalability and were very easily breakable.

For me, the most important criterion when selecting a vendor is trust.

The company had a training session and decided based on that to implement the solution.

Previously we were using, as in many other companies, Windows Network Drive. Then, some years ago, before I came to the company, they decided to invest in IBM FileNet because, in our company, we have used IBM for many years and many purposes, and we were quite satisfied. The consultant proposed this solution and we started with FileNet. Later on, we installed IBM Connections and many other products. We are satisfied, as a long-time IBM user.

For me, the most important criteria when selecting a vendor include that they have to be close to the customer and they need to understand not only the technical point of view, but the business point of view. That is very important. The risk in many projects is well-known, you build a perfect technical solution but maybe it's not covering the requirements, or it's not close enough to business needs, so people don't use it. So the returns are only on paper.

We were not using anything in the document management/document capture industry until we purchased FileNet.

We were running out of physical space to maintain records, and the cost of processing documents manually had gotten to be too high. In an effort to reduce our physical storage space and our costs, we decided that a solution was needed.

The biggest benefit to purchasing it was prior knowledge. The prior knowledge of the product: It did what it was supposed to do. It provided a stable environment, a good way to put your documents in, and get your documents out.

We were looking for a data solution because the other one was sort of cramping our style. It could be accessed only via limited workstations, so we were looking for another data storage solution.

We were previously using a different solution but the previous platform was obsolete.

I have used multiple ECM products such as Documentum, OpenText Content Suite, Newgen's OmniDocs, Alfresco, and Laserfiche as well. Among those, I have the most experience with Documentum. I started my career in ECM using it and then, being part of the ECM team in multiple companies, I had to look into other products as well.

Both FileNet and Documentum are very good. It all depends on your requirements. For ECM, IBM has multiple products. Based on your requirements they can suggest which layer you should buy. IBM has Content Manager, Case Manager, and FileNet. For example, if you're in insurance or a bank, it would be more case-based. In that case, you could customize FileNet to make it case-centric, but you could use it out-of-the-box as well.

We went with FileNet because of the customization. We can do whatever we need to on to FileNet. It's very easy to customize. You can mold it based on your requirements. Whoever is a good developer can mold it to meet the requirements instead of going with how it comes out-of-the-box.

We previously had an in-house solution.

No, I didn't use anything before FileNet.