FileBound vs. OpenText Documentum

Filebound is great for documents that have been archived or not needed on a day to day basis. It serves it purpose as a storage/filing system to digitize any previous "hard copy" filing system. But for the day to day accessibility, I find other programs to be more responsive and quicker to use. Also, In order to use or edit any document uploaded to Filebound, you currently have to re-download the document onto your computer to edit. If the editing capabilities were streamlined for quicker response that would also be a plus.

Incentivized

What are the document volume, the throughput - currently and expected in year, 3 years etc.? Is the company doing content management on international level, where access from multiple locations is needed - then Documentum can be good investment. What ECM system will be used for - document storage, document lifecycle or retention? Or all of the above? - Documentum works very well if all 3 items are combined, yet for storage there must be cheaper and more easily adaptable solutions available.

• Filebound is easily to upload documents onto and file into the proper location. You can easily find a file on your computer and have it uploaded within seconds
• Filebound gives you customization so you can create your own folders, criteria needed to file and search for uploaded documents. You have options of file types, names, certain fields of information to display when searching for files.
• Filebound allows you to download and print your saved documents quickly for future access. There is no limit to how you can use your scanned documents

Incentivized

• It's good at integration with external systems through standard industry supported APIs, including but not limited to web services integration and file system integration.
• Good support from major up and downstream technologies such as image capturing and back end ERP, Database, and HR.
• Highly configurable.
• Very fast searching capabilities.
• Highly scalable.

Incentivized

• Searching for Documents. Filebound does not allow you to look in differing file types for a specific document. You have to search each file type individually. And we have found that spaces or symbols are needed in front of the entered search information in order for Filebound to do a more broad search.
• You cannot move uploaded around, if you have more than one scan in a file. Once they are uploaded into a location, you cannot move it, you can only delete it and re-scan it into the proper file.
• If it was possible to simply drag and drop a file into Filebound to start the upload process, that would save time.

Incentivized

• Expense. If Documentum costs less it would penetrate more markets. This is often the reason a lighter weight solution is chosen.
• Web Publishing. Documentum is not a great solution for replacing CMSs like SiteCore or Drupal. Probably better as an archiving target for parallel publishing to both web and Documentum. Documentum is also not a web hosting solution like some other systems, it is possible to try and consume directly from the repository in real time but it is better to push web content out and consume from another platform.
• Development. The price of broad functionality is complexity. Arguably, Documentum drank the kool-aid and tried to become like other enterprise solutions by adapting Java, Windows, etc. in the late '90s and it made them slower, more complex in design, and less stable. They recovered from that but it still requires developers with a few years of experience in Documentum to safely develop in Documentum. The issue is not knowing Java but knowing what to do or not do in an ECM system. This is even more important in regulated ECM/RM systems.

Incentivized

Stability is a key factor as well as its flexibility. Also, any organization that deploys Documentum will have made a significant investment in terms of time and money, so not renewing its commitment can come with a significant cost. That said, the decision to deploy Documentum initially should come only after extensive evaluation, knowing that once deployed it will likely remain the platform of choice.

Incentivized

Support is better than with ECM, but could use some improvement.

Incentivized

Subjective but here's how I see it: Heavy duty (in order of how much they can do and how much they can handle): 1)Documentum, 2)FileNet 3)OpenText Middle duty: 1)WCC-WebCenter Content, 2)Alfresco, 3)M-Files (3rd b/c it is Windows only), 4)Nuxeo (only b/c of its newish approach that may lead somewhere) Light duty: 1) BOX (not an ECM but it says it is), 2) EFSS (pick your poison, BOX is an enhanced EFSS), 3) CMSs (some have some ECM capability, none have much)

Incentivized

• I don't have numbers, but our organization was able to go from having three large off-site and one on-site storage units to having none. This saved money on a monthly and yearly basis.

Incentivized

• After this product, the client is able to manage content security and due to it, the client is able to use the business process, and this really reduces effort and increases the profit in business.
• It provides integration with SAP easily which really helps the client to manage this effectively and with minimum effort system is ready to use.
• Also searching, automated flows also create a bigger impact and reduce a lot manual effort.

Incentivized