IBM FileNet Reviews

The straightforward approach to the install.

Stability is really good. We fairly recently upgraded a version of it and have not been having any problems. The resources seem to be really good with this version; it is a little easier to troubleshoot issues. We do not have many issues with the newer version.

With the upgrade, it was a bit more improved.

I have not personally used IBM's technical support, but there are other members of my team that have used them. I have not heard any negative feedback.

While I was not involved in the initial setup, my team was. From my understanding, the initial setup was pretty straightforward.

I was not involved in the decision-making process.

This is a straightforward install, and it works well. It has been very hands-off and seamless in terms of supporting it. In terms of researching it, these are really good considerations.

It is our integrated document repository that we use in conjunction with Connections. It performs extremely well for us and has been very successful.

It has given us a whole new environment to do document management and document storage. Before we used heavily used file servers and file shares, and now we are promoting the use of Connections. This has made Connections more successful for us.

The integration with Connections, where it is basically transparent for the end users, and very seamless. They can go ahead and store multiple tiered folders of documents in multiple tiered folders without any technical assistance of any kind. It is very user-friendly and easy for them to use.

Continuous work to continually refine and improve the user interface a bit, but it is basically pretty good. Therefore, I do not have any strong impressions of things that need to be changed.

A lot of people are familiar with the Microsoft interface and Windows. It becomes more intuitive if it somewhat mirrors Microsoft characteristics, but it is very usable as it is.

I am not aware of any recent issues. It is very stable for now.

Scalability is one of it strengths. It is growing pretty rapidly. 

We have not seen any interruptions, and I am not aware of any scalability issues right now.

I have not personally contact them. I am sure there are some other people in the company that have, but I have not personally contacted them.

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.

I would advise a little on the product early on, but I did not actually do the setup of the product.

The initial setup was a bit complex, but it is a very elaborate application. The people that I talked to said it was not extremely difficult. It took some work, but it was worth it.

I was involved in the decision-making process.

It may be a little complex to implement and take some effort, but with the integration the way it is, it is worth the effort. Once it is in place, it is very stable.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: 

• Stability
• Credibility.

We are using a lot of IBM products across our company. For the most part, they have a strong track record with us already.

We use IBM FileNet to store state government-related documents, and conduct workflow processes to channel information between the knowledge workers.

We are very happy with the efficiencies that it has gained, and the customer service that we are able to provide back to the citizens.

It provides us with a solid place to store our records in a structure where we will be able to find those records efficiently. It improves the time when providing customer service to our constituents.

• It is a stable environment.
• It is feature rich.
• It' has a good user interface.

We would like to see, in FileNet, the ability to manage video and audio.

For the most part, the solution is very stable. Once it is a fully-baked application, it is stable.

It scales very well. We are housing 89 million records and 16 terabytes, and the performance is fine.

We have not had to use their technical support. We have done a lot of the support ourselves internally. We have not had to use professional services for a very long time.

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.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

I was not part of the evaluation process.

We have been running FileNet for 18 years. It has been a very good relationship.

This product requires that you take a long look at it, because it provides a good solution. It is used across many industries, and it has a solid reputation.

Most important criteria during the evaluation process: Familiarity with the product. The people who were doing the selection had a prior knowledge of the product from a prior company, and it had a very good reputation at that point, even 20 years ago, and the product has maintained that reputation.

Document storage and workflow.

It improves the usability throughout the enterprise. We are able to find the proper documents which are needed for business processes.

• The scanning automation piece.
• Being able to capture documents for retrieval.

There is always room for improvement.

The pieces that I have been looking for are becoming available. I am learning they are either on the roadmap or already been released. I am just not in a version of software that is capable of using it yet.

It is very stable and reliable.

I was a consultant for 15 years and had several customers, who I thought were large at the time, until my current employment which by far dwarfs it. So, the capability and the size are definitely scalable. I have seen from tiny installations to my current library, which is 1.5 billion documents and petabytes of data.

The technical support at IBM is knowledgeable and responsive.

The initial setup is complex. Though, it is straightforward for me since I have done it for so many years. It is complex because there are several pieces of software that have to be installed in the right order to make it work alright.

The thing I want most in my environment is to be able to work with a stable module like FileNet.

The important features to me are that it is stable, scalable, and the integration between this platform and other platforms is very good.

Also, FileNet is now introducing a newer client called IBM Content Integrator, so I think it's flexible.

Also migration. For example, if I want to move from my building to a new building, I have to move the physical server and everything would need to be changed, like network settings, etc. I think FileNet can handle this.

Many customers leave FileNet because of the licensing cost.

No, for the last 20 years I haven't faced any big stability issue.

I think FileNet can integrate with SharePoint, with Microsoft Office, with OpenText, so it can work with any other system.

When I face a big issue, I call IBM support and they are really helpful and their documentation over the internet can show you what you need, very well.

No, I didn't use anything before FileNet.

I would rate the installation process at about seven out of 10. It can be very complicated, and you need to to have an experienced resource.

The biggest issue is the cost of the FileNet, because the license cost is very high. If a customer doesn't have good technical guides that are aware of the license calculation, they will pay too much. FileNet's license calculation depends on the processor and number of users. So my advice to a new customer is to be very careful with your calculations before purchasing FileNet.

If you check the industry rankings, you can see that FileNet was the leader in the ACM category for four years in a row. Only in 2017 do you see that Microsoft SharePoint was the leader. I think that's because IBM doesn't offer new technologies every year, they offer new technologies after five years, for each release of the product.

It's not an open source product, and IBM support is very good.

• Document Management
• Records Management
• Business process and workflow
• Digital imaging
• Document classification
• Search 

• Streamlined our business processes.
• Centralized our business documents.
• Provides records management functions.

Records management to apply document classification for retention and disposition of business records. Email and instant messages are included.

It is still a leading ECM solution provider, however the cost to implement and maintain are higher than other solutions.

The best-scaling ECM solution now comes with a beautiful, extendable UI. I hope with the latest push on Case Management, IBM does not forget to flaunt the real beast under the hood, the Content Engine.

Archival, records management or workflows all get implemented best with FileNet. Over the years, I am witness to organizations picking a cheaper product with a little better UI, only to upgrade later to FileNet when the original solution did not scale well!

I have used it for 10 years.

We have encountered deployment issues, just like any other product.

We have not encountered any stability issues.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

Customer service is 4 out of 5.

Technical support is 3.75 out of 5.

It's very robust. We have been using it for the last 15 years and we've never had any opinion to change it or not use it. So far, we have been very happy with it.

Slowly, we are streamlining all our document management systems. We are including all other departments into FileNet who were not using FileNet as a document management system.

The user interface for FileNet can be improved. It was not very professional, you could say, in the beginning, so we developed a custom user interface. With the new ICN, they have come a long way, but they still need to work on the ease of use for the user/customer. So, the user interface is one thing where they're lacking.

It's very expensive, so they could make it a little cheaper but still, it's good.

We never had any stability issues.

Scalability-wise and robustness-wise, it's awesome.

The technical support is very professional and efficient. So far, we have been very happy with it.

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.

I was involved in the initial setup. It's very straightforward, as long as you know what you're doing.

It's on the expensive side.

If someone is comparing FileNet against other solutions like SharePoint or open-source solutions, I think they should be looking into the scalability, robustness and the whole document lifecycle features.

When I look to work with a vendor, the most important criteria is their in-house expertise, how competent they are, the resources they have in their organization; and then, price. We always have to look at which vendor is good and cheap.

For our custom projects, we outsource to a couple of vendors, such as Imagine Solutions. We work with them. They are vendors for FileNet solutions. They don't compete against FileNet. They help us in upgrading FileNet. Those type of projects.