IBM FileNet Reviews

My usual use cases for IBM FileNet involve three primary areas. The first is document management. For instance, if you have an insurance application, you can store all the documents required to process the insurance policy. The second use case from a product standpoint is a financial services product that I built, for which I used IBM FileNet as both a document store and for workflow processing. The third use case was for portal development with IBM FileNet.

I do utilize IBM FileNet's automation capabilities to streamline my business processes. All the use cases I have described, whether the insurance use case or the financial services use case, employ automation. I use CP4BA, which is a tool that works with IBM FileNet to enable business automation. While I am describing IBM FileNet, it is not just IBM FileNet in isolation. In a commercially available and provided solution, you will need a fully integrated version with automation. Both AI integration and automation, as well as document workflow processing and automation, are essential components.

The features and capabilities of IBM FileNet that I have found most valuable include three main areas. The first is the ability to scale. Most document management systems do not scale to millions of documents and retrieve them with that kind of performance. The second thing that I have seen in the last one to two years which I really appreciated was integration with IBM Watsonx. This meant that I could send a document to IBM Watsonx and get a summary completed and shown to the user. This extends the capability significantly. The third thing I have found to be very useful is DataCap integration. IBM has a product called DataCap where you can scan and perform OCR. Content can be scanned, OCR'd, and then pushed into IBM FileNet elegantly.

IBM FileNet's security features have helped me protect sensitive information by providing role-based security when you have a customer-facing application. What has been outstanding with IBM FileNet is that all these features come out of the box. It is a matter of configuring the roles and role-based accesses. You do not have to build code for it, and it also integrates very nicely with the front end. The whole solution can be brought up very quickly with role-based access control. The key message is that it comes out of the box.

I believe IBM FileNet could be improved or enhanced in the future, specifically the user interface development support, which, despite all the improvements, still feels from the 2010s or 2000s. The current state of the user interface development support and the ability to customize it leaves much to be desired. The backend engine, process engine, and object engine are fantastic. However, the user interface, which is required to provide an impressive experience to the user, is difficult to build. IBM will need to do something about this area. Over time, IBM has made improvements with enhancements through CP4BA and other tools, with which user interfaces can be built. But there is much more is needed. 

The initial setup process for IBM FileNet requires specialists. IBM FileNet is not a click-click-click deploy kind of product. It has several components that need to be installed in different versions and in a particular order. Additionally, IBM Cloud does not provide a proper experience. The problem is I cannot use IBM Cloud easily. I cannot even get a membership easily. With AWS, I just use my credit card, sign up, and I am done. With IBM Cloud, that is not how it is. They go through all validation processes, and it is a nightmare at times. There are problems around IBM FileNet, not exactly with IBM FileNet itself, but the point is that it is not a click-click-click deploy either on the cloud or on-premise. It requires specialists, and there is a big learning curve toward deploying and managing the whole infrastructure as well as the software.

I communicate with the technical support of IBM frequently. I have communicated several times, and frankly, there is much to be desired on that side. When you raise a ticket, it takes 24 to 48 hours for them to respond. We live in a time where business moves at the speed of light. Twenty-four hours is a very long time. You need to be able to get technical support instantaneously.  It is not like the more contemporary support models where you get turnaround in minutes, not days.

I have been working with IBM FileNet since 2013, which puts it at twelve years of experience.

IBM FileNet is very stable and reliability is very reliable. It is a very good product at its core. The process engine and the object engine are very core to its functionality. I have never encountered a problem of data corruption, losing data files, insecure access, or anything of that nature. It is extremely reliable.

Scalability is very important for my organization's growth and evolving needs. It is very important in a world where the bulk of applications are internet-facing, mobile-facing, and chatbot-facing. If your application is good, you must be ready to take on at least thousands of users, if not millions of users. Scalability is very important, and that is one of the reasons IBM FileNet is valuable.

I would rate the technical support from IBM around five to six on a scale from one to ten.

Positive

FileNet has been around since the 1990s or even earlier and has evolved over a period of time. There have always been use cases for which FileNet was employed. I do not think any of the contemporary products existed before  FileNet. FileNet was acquired by IBM and has been around for a long time. The more appropriate question would be about competing products. There were not many competing products earlier, but there are many more now. 

The initial setup process for IBM FileNet requires specialists. IBM FileNet is not a click-click-click deploy kind of product. It has several components that need to be installed in different versions and in a particular order. Additionally, IBM Cloud does not provide a proper experience. The problem is I cannot use IBM Cloud easily. I cannot even get a membership easily. With AWS, I just use my credit card, sign up, and I am done. With IBM Cloud, that is not how it is. They go through all validation processes, and it is a nightmare at times. There are problems around IBM FileNet, not exactly with IBM FileNet itself, but the point is that it is not a click-click-click deploy either on the cloud or on-premise. It requires specialists, and there is a big learning curve toward deploying and managing the whole infrastructure as well as the software.

I have taken on both roles. I have been with both integrator and implementation partner company.

I have seen a return on investment with IBM FileNet. Where the requirements are such that you need the performance, scalability, and other capabilities, the return on investment is there. For the last twelve years, I have been providing solutions to customers, and they have been purchasing, and we have received our return on investment as have they. This has been very good. Many times, within the first year or maybe the second year, we have seen a thirty percent return on investment. Cost savings come from re-engineering the business processes using IBM FileNet and related strategies.

The pricing and licensing of IBM FileNet is high. We are living in a world where the minimal license from IBM costs anywhere from seventy-five thousand to one hundred thousand US dollars, depending on your requirements. If I have to build my product on top of that, then it means the minimum product price will be two hundred fifty thousand dollars. This is an issue. The licensing costs are very high, and while it is a very good product, many times you can build equivalent capability in SharePoint for maybe one-fifth of the cost. IBM FileNet can scale phenomenally, performance is good, security is good, and everything about it is strong. However, for a majority of applications, you do not need that kind of scalability. Price becomes the decision factor in those cases. If you can get the same capability and product with a very good user interface for one-fifth of the price, people will go for the one-fifth price option. I understand that is a problem.

SharePoint, for example, is a significant competitor. SharePoint's performance has improved phenomenally over the years and comes out of the box through Office 365. You do not need to spend any money if you have an enterprise ELA agreement with Microsoft, as you get SharePoint. Virtually, you are not paying any licensing fees, and that is where I think IBM is losing out.

I did not use IBM FileNet's document management features specifically to reduce data redundancy. Data redundancy was not an important use case in the scenarios I have worked with. I know it has the capabilities, but data redundancy was something I did not have to deal with.

I did not utilize the omnichannel content delivery feature of IBM FileNet yet. I did not have the need for it. It is all use case-based. In the use cases I have worked on, that was not necessary.

I provide this review with an overall rating of nine out of ten.

We use IBM FileNet to store documents and content for our business systems. The application handles loans and financial matters. It is basically used to store documents of the applications.

IBM FileNet is a very robust system with many functionalities for content management.

The management capabilities of IBM FileNet are very strong and reliable.

We almost do not utilize the automation capabilities of IBM FileNet to streamline our business processes. The process automation and business automation features are barely used. Currently, we primarily use it to store content. We are now trying to use all of the functionalities of IBM FileNet, but we have not yet utilized the full capacity of the system.

We are trying to reduce redundancy with IBM FileNet by enhancing our business rules. However, we still have significant redundancy.

IBM FileNet can help us reduce redundancy, but we need to understand the tool and use all the functionalities to accomplish this.

Ease of use with IBM FileNet is a disadvantage of this tool. It is complex and hard to use. When we try to set up IBM FileNet, we have many questions. We do not understand what we need to do in IBM FileNet. There are many configurations we must make but do not know how to implement.

While IBM FileNet is very reliable, it is very difficult to set up. When reading the documentation about IBM FileNet, it appears to be very reliable and secure, but setting up configurations, access rules, authorization, and authentication seems to be very challenging.

I am new to using IBM FileNet with about two years of experience, but our organization has been using IBM FileNet for more than 10 years.

IBM FileNet is very stable. I do not see any problems with it.

We have about 80 transactional systems connected to IBM FileNet. In theory, all of our employees can access IBM FileNet through APIs, as users do not directly interact with IBM FileNet.

The support from IBM rates at six out of ten. When we need to configure anything with IBM FileNet, we need to contract consulting services and sign a service order, which is complex. The consulting experts that IBM provides sometimes do not understand the tool very well.

Neutral

I cannot fully speak to the cost of IBM FileNet, though it seems to have a good balance between cost and return.

IBM FileNet is currently deployed on-premise, but some functionalities are moving to the cloud.

We primarily use Microsoft Azure cloud services, with some usage of AWS as well.

Our organization has about 8,000 employees and is one of the biggest banks in Brazil.

I cannot provide detailed information about pricing or licensing of IBM FileNet as I am on the business side and do not have complete knowledge of these aspects.

My overall rating for IBM FileNet is 7.5 out of 10.

IBM FileNet is used for data management as well as process management, and it is being used for pre-underwriting. This is one purpose, and the other purpose is to store the data for other applications that do not use IBM FileNet process management, but only use data storage with IBM FileNet. There are two types: one is to use the entire IBM FileNet function, the other is just to use the storage function.

The business process manipulation in IBM FileNet is very effective for implementing business processes. IBM FileNet has content management, and these two features are very good. Compared with Kamunda business process management, Kamunda is easier for implementation than IBM FileNet.

There is a significant ROI from IBM FileNet because before its introduction, the company needed to do all the work manually. This significant ROI has been evident since IBM FileNet was first introduced ten years ago. While there might be documentation prepared by the company, it is not currently available.

The API provided by IBM FileNet is a very out-of-date implementation. From the beginning, we cannot use a REST API; we have to use the IBM FileNet native API, which is quite outdated.

We introduced the IBM FileNet solution in 2012, which means we have been working with IBM FileNet for more than 10 years.

Deploying IBM FileNet is very difficult to do independently, so we received support from IBM Japan to deploy IBM FileNet into our environment. The deployment process took between one to two months because it was a collaborative effort with IBM. The vendor also required an IBM FileNet deployment, which involved an upgrade from the old version, completed by referring to the document prepared by IBM.

IBM FileNet is very stable, rating between 7 and 8 out of 10.

Regarding the scalability of IBM FileNet while using the WAS ND (WebSphere application server), it requires more servers and rates between 5 and 6. Moving to Kubernetes might improve the rating to between 6 and 8, though we do not have experience with this. With Kubernetes, we can simply add instances of the worker, CPU, or memory without needing deployment.

IBM has a different division that provides consultation to end users, and most customers utilize consultation from IBM, which costs approximately $100k USD to $200k USD. Apart from the cost, IBM's support is excellent, rating between 8 and 10.

Positive

I evaluated Kamunda as an alternative to IBM FileNet.

Two or three people, including those responsible for virtualization environment preparation, took part in the deployment.

There is a significant ROI from IBM FileNet because before its introduction, the company needed to do all the work manually. This significant ROI has been evident since IBM FileNet was first introduced ten years ago. While there might be documentation prepared by the company, it is not currently available.

From the company's perspective, the licensing cost for IBM FileNet is still affordable. Though the license cost is somewhat expensive, it remains manageable. The company rates it between 3 and 5 because it is an IBM product, which typically commands premium pricing.

I evaluated Kamunda as an alternative to IBM FileNet.

We did not use MicroProfile for the actual development but currently are still using Spring Boot and working on the IBM FileNet implementation.

I previously worked for MQ workflow, another IBM product, during my time at IBM, from which I retired around 10 years ago.

Considering the benefits from IBM FileNet, I would rate it 8 out of 10.

We are a systems integrator, and we deployed FileNet for a big insurance company in Pakistan. We implemented FileNet in seven departments, using the case manager and capture for content management. We served them for about eight or nine years before they became capable of handling the product themselves.

FileNet was scalable and could be implemented into big multinational organizations. However, it has become very expensive recently. Compared to low-code solutions such as Appian and outsystems, FileNet has gaps, mainly because it requires coding, which is not preferred by clients due to pricing concerns in Pakistan. We transitioned clients to cloud solutions, although FileNet has been strongly integrated with on-prem deployments.

FileNet needs improvement in pricing as it has become very expensive. Also, in comparison to local solutions, the need for coding is a disadvantage.

We served the insurance company for about eight or nine years before the contract ended two years ago.

Rating is six out of ten because we encountered issues with switching databases. FileNet was restricted to DB2's enterprise edition instead of the standard edition, causing complications.

FileNet is highly scalable and suited for implementation in large multinational organizations.

In the past, we used Oracle partners for database management.

As a systems integrator, the difficulty or ease of initial setup did not affect us much. We have resources to handle complexities.

We are a systems integrator, so we lead the implementation using our resources.

The product has become more expensive and requires significant investment for enterprise solutions.

We have used Appian, outsystems, Python, and Microsoft solutions as alternatives.

From an enterprise perspective, I would rate FileNet nine out of ten. However, smaller products that are emerging are becoming more competitive and may offer better value.

I am in the presales part of a big seller, and I am an IBM partner. I wanted to compare IBM FileNet with OpenText as there are not many tools at this level of enterprise content management that can meet our needs. The competition at this level is limited, which is why OpenText was interesting to me.

In my experience, larger enterprise tools like IBM FileNet help manage billions of documents and support thousands of users, which smaller tools cannot handle effectively.

Most customers will produce their own solutions with these tools. We only need the tools to have a base level. It's similar in OpenText. At this level, companies don't buy a ready-made solution. They mostly use it when they need a base solution and change it to their own way.

There are only a few products large enterprises can choose from, and it doesn't really matter which one as it often depends on the consultants and the team implementing the solution. Smaller products often have many issues since they aren't as safe yet are less expensive.

I have been working with IBM FileNet for one and a half years.

In terms of stability, we haven't experienced any big technical issues or downtime with IBM FileNet, which is a difference compared to smaller products.

The bigger products like IBM FileNet can handle billions of documents and thousands of users, compared to smaller tools that are not equipped for such scale.

IBM is good, and as a huge company, they have special teams. People come from all over the world, and they have specialists at the other end of the world to help if needed. IBM provides good support since it's a big company.

Positive

I worked for a smaller product producer company two years ago, and before that, I was in the middle level. I always used the tools that the companies I worked for provided. I can't say whether the tool is good or bad, as I have to work with what my current company offers. Previously, smaller products always had a lot of problems as they were not as safe.

The solution depends on the human beings implementing it. It's crucial to find the right company with the right consultants for your project as the product itself is secondary.

FileNet and similar enterprise-level tools require substantial costs, starting in the millions, which limits their use to large enterprises.

I compared IBM FileNet with OpenText. These are tools available at a high level for enterprise businesses.

The choice of product is secondary. It depends on the consulting team understanding the company's needs. Every tool can be tailored to be the right product with the correct understanding and implementation. At this level, it's important to have an understanding of the requirements and find the right consultants.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are using IBM FileNet for our new business process workflow. This is the main purpose, alongside some integrations with other applications.

IBM FileNet supports our document management and compliance processes. It aids integration with other business systems by utilizing FileMaker API for document retrieval and database interactions.

The main features we find impactful are the workflow and document management along with FileNet file stores. These basic features are essential for our content-centric tasks.

The response time and resolution of issues by technical support need improvement. Additionally, the integration process can be complex, particularly with new patches or updates.

We have been using FileNet since 2014.

The product-level support is better now than before. Earlier, it was not up to the mark, but it has improved.

Positive

We previously used another solution, which had limited enterprise capabilities.

The configuration for integrating FileNet is complex yet manageable with our current setup.

The ROI is good as per our business perspective due to our integrations with other applications.

The price is high, with yearly subscriptions increasing day by day. We pay annually for the license and do not have concrete metrics yet.

It is difficult for small companies due to the high cost. FileNet is more suitable for large enterprises that need robust solutions.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

IBM FileNet was supposed to be the organizational system for all our content. A lot of departments used it for their files. We were trying to do records management, but people did not really want to put in the effort to do the RM part. They used the solution as a shared drive. We also used it for simultaneous edits, just like SharePoint.

IBM FileNet was more scalable. We were not limited, and we could have one repository as opposed to all of the chaotic websites we have with SharePoint. As records management administrators, we could have a broader overview of the organizational content. However, it's all over the place now. I feel we had better control with IBM FileNet. It was more controlled because of how we had set it up, and we had it in-house.

We knew how much we were using in terms of storage, and we didn't have to panic whenever there was a price increase. We could also control the changes whenever the vendor put in new rules. We could do the upgrades, test them in DEV and UAT, and ensure that when we release something, it is tested and communicated. Now, it happens, and we know only when users start complaining.

The solution’s pricing could be improved.

I have been using IBM FileNet for ten years.

We faced issues with the solution's stability. Sometimes, our guys could fix them, but often, they had to open a ticket with IBM and troubleshoot.

IBM FileNet is a scalable solution. We had a lot of data, and the searches were fast. We never had an issue with the solution's scalability.

The technical support team was responsive, but sometimes, they took a couple of days to fix an issue.

I rate the solution's technical support a seven or eight out of ten.

Neutral

We are moving away from IBM FileNet to SharePoint. People didn't like IBM FileNet's interface, which could be because of how we deployed it. SharePoint was more user-friendly. Everything was easier in SharePoint, and there was a less steep learning curve.

The solution's initial setup was not easy, and we needed specialized staff for that.

IBM FileNet is an expensive solution.

We use a taxonomy. We had standard metadata. We had a file classification scheme, and we organized the categories by retention and with the triggers. We had some standard security that you could choose for the folders depending on what the folder was about. It wasn't really enforced. Nobody was looking at the compliance.

We are moving away from IBM FileNet because Microsoft gave us a good package. When we purchased Microsoft Outlook, they gave us a suite of products that included Word, all the Office applications, and SharePoint. We did not want to pay for another product when we had SharePoint.

The solution's maintenance was not complicated. Some of our team members cleaned it up once a month and also performed the upgrades monthly.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We are resellers of IBM FileNet, and I have been reselling this tool. The primary use case is for enterprise content management, possibly extending to various document handling purposes.

The best part of FileNet includes its advantages and most valuable features, which are its scalability and stability. Moreover, it stands out for its integration capabilities, making it a practical choice for our needs in managing content and related tasks.

There is no room for improvement in the current version of FileNet, and I have not identified any potential new features or existing problems that require attention. The solution meets our needs as it is.

I have been using IBM FileNet for ten years so far. It has been a crucial tool in our service offering as resellers.

The solution is stable, and there have not been any mentions of latency issues interrupting its operation.

The solution is scalable, and the implementation is able to expand as needed without critical issues.

I rated the support for BPM as eight out of ten, and for IBM FileNet, I give a rating of nine out of ten.

Positive

I have not used anything similar to FileNet from other vendors so far.

The initial setup of IBM FileNet can be complicated due to complex documentation. However, the resellers like us are generally adjusting to it despite these challenges.

Several people are usually involved to ensure a smooth deployment process.

Implementing IBM FileNet has resulted in some time and cost savings, though specific ROI percentages were not explicitly stated.

I find the solution to be average in terms of expense.

I have not evaluated any other alternatives similar to IBM FileNet yet.

Overall, I rate IBM FileNet nine out of ten. 

It remains an integral part of our offerings and operations. I would highly recommend it to those seeking a robust enterprise content management solution.

We use the product for document digitalization and workflow management. It is our document management system. 

We chose IBM FileNet primarily for its scalability and interoperability. Additionally, we appreciate the mobile app, which allows us to access documents using smartphones from anywhere. We also utilize various other IBM products for security purposes, creating a cohesive environment that works well together. The transition from a paper-based to a digital environment has significantly impacted our workflow systems and document management practices.

The standout feature for us is undoubtedly the Google-like search functionality, which allows us to search for documents within the system effortlessly. Instead of just querying the document database, this feature retrieves all relevant documents, akin to searching on the internet. It is very easy to use. 

Implementing the product has brought about significant positive changes within our company, especially in how we archive and access documents. The availability of documents on the go via the mobile app has brought positive impact. As a result, adoption rates have been very high. 

Currently, our primary ERP system is SAP S/4HANA. Despite this, we have encountered difficulties integrating the solution with it, which remains an unresolved challenge for our team. The renewal cost has significantly increased since we adopted the solution, posing a considerable challenge. Previously, we paid an annual maintenance fee of 22 percent, but now the renewals have become expensive. This cost escalation may prompt us to consider replacing the solution in the future due to pricing concerns.

We need training programs for the solution by IBM here. My team could benefit from getting certified and improving their skills. It's something we haven't seen much of in our country. So, if IBM could provide training, it would be helpful.

I have been working with the product for four years. 

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. 

My company has 200 users. I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten. 

Support for IBM FileNet is really tough. Finding skilled consultants is a challenge even with IBM partners like platinum or gold partners. And even if we find someone, they often lack the needed experience.

Neutral

The solution's deployment is easy. I rate it a five to six out of ten. 
The challenge lies in the limited availability of IBM FileNet consultants through partners, compounded by a scarcity of expertise due to the relatively low adoption of the solution in Pakistan. As a result, finding quality resources with the requisite skills poses a significant challenge.

Deployment takes a couple of weeks to complete. 

The tool is expensive, and I rate its pricing a ten out of ten. 

The tool has proven robust without any notable functionality or performance issues. Currently deployed on the primary side, we plan to implement it in a high-availability environment on a DR site. This implementation will provide insights into the ease or difficulty of setup and management in such configurations. I rate it a seven out of ten. 

We use IBM FileNet for content management purposes.

The application's processing engineer needs to be more advanced.

We have been using IBM FileNet for two years.

I rate the platform's stability a nine out of ten.

We have more than 500 IBM FileNet users in our organization. It is a scalable platform, and I rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

A third-party services vendor, a gold partner certified by IBM, helps us communicate with the technical support team.

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

Our team didn't encounter any difficulties in implementing the product. The installation process takes a week to complete, whereas it takes around six months to create the content. We have a team of four technical engineers to work on deployment.

We take assistance from a third-party vendor for implementation.

The product generates around 30% benefit.

The platform is inexpensive. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

The operations management team primarily utilizes IBM FileNet as the foundational tool for content management. It offers a range of modules with additional functionalities for tasks such as daily maintenance, yearly maintenance, and quarterly maintenance. It has broader capabilities, and the team has tailored its usage to meet specific content management needs.

The platform efficiently streamlines the handling of documents and content in our organization. It is a user-friendly system and easy to manage for anyone with basic knowledge.

It has been leveraged effectively in our existing workflow, particularly concerning third-party components and directory services.

The security features work effectively in managing sensitive information and ensuring confidentiality.

I rate it an eight out of ten.