iManage Work vs. Thomson Reuters HighQ

iManage is well suited to managing the large volume of documents and emails that are created on a daily basis. Lawyers can get dozens if not hundreds of e-mails a day, and we need something to do with them. Deleting them is often not practical, because you may require the information a year from now. Leaving them in Outlook is also impractical, because a large Inbox will slow Outlook down. Outlook has an archiving feature, but this doesn't really help for collaboration (and your colleagues are likely out of luck if you end up unavailable due to emergency). iManage is less well suited to small organizations (ex: sole practitioners and small firms) because it is does require a significant investment in implementing and maintaining the software. iManage Work is well suited for large law firms, because it is great for collaboration, including between different offices.

Incentivized

Well suited for Extranets where: Sites where lots of documents will be shared Where workflows need to be defined and tracked Sites where complex permissions are required Sites that need to be accessible by anyone with Internet access Sites that require several different functionalities, such as wikis, calendars, task assignment, etc. Not well suited: Where integration with existing on-prem databases is required. Sites with complex or extensive workflows.

Incentivized

• Very reliable, once setup it is usually pretty flawless outside of Outlook-related issues.
• Simple and easy to use organization of files and groups.
• Customizable for different departments or sections to divide up access and partition document system.
• Allows collaboration with outside parties and makes sharing documents quick and easy.

Incentivized

• Document sharing. This product makes it easy to upload, review and organize documents related to a particular project or matter.
• Permissions. Collaborate allows very granular permissions to be assigned for shared documents and administrative activities such as workflows.
• Reliability. The product is cloud-based and rarely, if ever, unavailable.

Incentivized

• The system can be fairly buggy. I have issues with freezing, and a lack of responsiveness each time I use it ( although not for long and does not prevent me from getting what I need to be done, it's just annoying).
• It has a slightly larger learning curve to use than other more simplistic records managers

Incentivized

• It is just not that exciting. We host documents on there for clients but the extranet sites have ultimately turned out to not be a product that our clients are clamoring for or that we are regularly pushing.

Incentivized

It has been what our firm has always used, and overall everyone seems to be pleased with it. It is user friendly and intuitive and it doesn't appear we have any intention of changing what we use for our purposes.

Incentivized

To me iManage is very intuitive and user friendly. The switch from the application vs the Outlook extension was an adjustment, but it was one I made pretty easily once it happened.

Incentivized

We had an issue a few years ago where a plug-in of some sort which allowed the viewing of PDFs got updated and then whenever some people previewed PDFs in iManage then Outlook would crash. My outlook crashed over 20 times in a single day once. It was a pretty bad time. I know one of our information technology professionals in another office worked non-stop with iManage to get it resolved, and it seemed like they did take the issue pretty seriously.

Incentivized

The interface is easy to use and overall the software seems pretty robust (I haven't had any crashes yet), so I haven't had to use the support very often. Likewise, I don't think I've ever had a client e-mail me with questions or issues - the software is pretty idiot-proof.

Incentivized

MS SharePoint requires a lot of time to integrate and efforts are expensive compared to iManage product. iManage is quick setup and well integrates with existing on-premise environments and integrates well with major iDP systems for authentications and manage RBAC systems for permissions via API calls.

Incentivized

There are a large number of file sharing solutions out there. We do not use services like Dropbox and Box because they do not meet our document security requirements. Some clients use Sharepoint to host documents and share them with external organizations. I find the interface clunky and overall harder to use. For one-off requests, we use have a "Secure File Transfer" service (it seems to be a whitebox solution that we slap our logo on, so I'm not sure which software it actually is). That works well for one-off requests but does not have many of the key features that HighQ Collaborate does for long term document sharing.

Incentivized

• Since our policy is that all client documents are saved into iManage, we have been able to keep an email retention policy for Exchange to 90days to delete. This has saved us significant resources in both Exchange management and hardware to support excessive email storage for archived databases or extremely large databases.
• The ability to search documents quickly by text inside the documents allows to review previously created contracts and use similar language that is well suited to a new project over again without having to spend time manually opening and searching ourselves. The software does it for us.
• We used to store old files at an offsite storage facility for a monthly fee. We have implemented a new procedure, where we now scan these old paper files into our iManage system, making them text searchable PDFs. Since the software has such robust searching capabilities, this makes the documents much more accessible when needed than requesting an offsite storage delivery and having to manually pull paper files. In addition, we have saved thousands of dollars a month by not storing paper files offsite any longer. If the searching were not so powerful, we would not done this because our old paper storage system worked well for us previously.

Incentivized

• Positive ROI for both us and the clients from reducing the number of one-off requests for access to documents.
• Negative ROI because it is not software that has taken off in our organization.

Incentivized