OpenText Content Manager Reviews

We are a system integrator. We deal with client requirements to determine the best solutions that should be deployed. Our primary use case for OpenText Content Manager is managing enterprise content, such as documents and emails, as well as engineering document management.

OpenText Content Manager has provided a return on investment through improved content management functionalities and reliable performance.

The most valuable features of OpenText Content Manager are its stability, reliability, security, and workflow engine. The search and retrieval function also stands out, although it needs fine-tuning.

Pricing is an issue, as it is too expensive. Support and services need to be more user-friendly. The support has been slow, and there is room for improvement. Additionally, they could improve building partnerships.

We have been working with OpenText Content Manager for around ten years.

OpenText Content Manager is a stable system and very reliable, handling around three thousand users efficiently. Occasionally, there are latency issues due to the amount of data, but overall it's good.

The scalability features of OpenText Content Manager are very good. There is no limit, and you can scale it however you want.

The support is fine, but there is room for improvement. Support has been slow, and it could be more friendly towards users.

Neutral

The installation is not very difficult, but it requires someone familiar with the database and storage. From the OpenText side, one or two people are sufficient, but additional support for database and storage access is needed.

Two people are enough for support and maintenance. However, for a full setup, you also need a database specialist and someone for storage.

There is a return on investment, but we do not have specific numbers to share.

Pricing is a disadvantage as it is very expensive, especially in this market.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I'm an administrator at the moment. I normally work with staff to structure different BCSs (Business Content Services). I've been working on BCS restructuring and, in another project, on the disposal of records - basically archival and destruction of documents and folders. 

Lately, I've been working on the data governance regarding the migration and move to SharePoint. So I've been writing instruction publications on it, and I've also been training on Content Manager. It's a daily work, mainly digital.

There's barely any physical work at this stage. Basically, I try to improve the information management maturity of the organization I work in.

I came into this organization two years ago for the archival and destruction project. I saw that the information management maturity was poor and needed to change. That's how the BCS project started, to restructure the way people use document collections within the system. But there's very little interest from the agency itself in improving, unfortunately, apart from a couple of people who are responsible for line records management. 

Otherwise, it's been a struggle to get staff interested in improving how they work with information, their record-keeping, and so on. It's been a little bit tough from that perspective. It still is.

And that's because, before I started working here, the people working on the system were not qualified records and information managers. They caused enough damage that people became uninterested in the process of information governance. This includes the executive. So, basically, everyone's looking forward to moving out of Content Manager and into SharePoint.

Probably the disposal management and retention management are the most useful things I use. I would also like to mention the security architecture. The only problem with that is it's a little bit complex and too torturous at times. So it could be improved a little bit, but it is regarded as a very good system in Australia. It's probably overly subscribed. 

Many public service organizations have committed themselves to Content Manager over the years when it wasn't being managed very well by either HP or, later on, Micro Focus. But now that it's in OpenText's hands, they're saying it's promising, but I don't know. I think a lot of people have lost patience and are moving to SharePoint.

The search and retrieval functionalities are quite good. Search and retrieval are quite effective functions on Content Manager. So, that's worked quite well. I'm not aware that people have trouble finding things they need.

The security architecture is the only problem as it's a little bit complex and too torturous at times. So it could be improved a little bit, but it is regarded as a very good system in Australia. It's probably overly subscribed.

Also, what's missing is what people would like, which is basically online collaboration. That's a problem. But it has so many other things to offer that SharePoint, I'm sure, will not have. So, that will be an interesting issue to come up.

It's not very good at providing stable and robust add-ins to Microsoft. That's a bit of a problem with Content Manager. They're kind of very volatile. So, that's been definitely something that could be improved.

I have experience with Content Manager, but we are just moving over from Content Manager to SharePoint. 

I have been using it on and off for a number of years now. Probably since about 2009. And I've been working on and off since then. Now a little bit more actively as an administrator. I work with version 10. It is hardly the latest. 

I would rate the stability of Content Manager a seven out of ten, where one is low and ten is high. I've had quite a few issues myself with stability lately—actually, all throughout last year.

I would rate the scalability a six out of ten, with one bein low and ten being high scalability. I'd expect SharePoint to be a lot easier for people.

I am the only administrator. So everybody's a user, but I'm the administrator. There are around 35 end users. 

It's being used by everybody. They have to use it. It's our official repository. But, admittedly, many people try to avoid it as much as possible, and they will save documents in unapproved repositories, or even in SharePoint. They're already using SharePoint, or anywhere else, whether it's the file explorer, the desktop, or their Outlook inbox.

We do not plan to increase the usage of Content Manager. We've decided to switch to SharePoint.

We outsource our IT. They're not familiar with Content Manager. Even though they've heard about it from us for so long, they don't really have any qualified people specifically for Content Manager. But I liaise with both the information management consultants and the outsourced IT to get technical issues resolved. 

So I'm usually quite successful doing that, but now there is someone who has come in expressly for IT at the organization I work for. So they've just sort of taken over that technical side of resolving any issues that are of an IT nature rather than an information management nature.

So, I just work with third-party support.

I have used something called RecFind and another one called Worksite.  Although I have worked with SharePoint too when I was in the UK. So, I've worked with different systems, but I think Content Manager is probably the one that I've worked with the most.

It wasn't a conscious decision for me to pick a particular solution. I went to work somewhere where they were using it, and most organizations at the time were using Content Manager. It's quite widespread here in Australia.

I haven't actually ever worked anywhere where I've had to set up Content Manager from scratch, apart from changing the way it was.

I'm the only person here who does all the maintenance and everything else. But, admittedly, I do work closely with an information management company. They provide all sorts of advice with regards to how to set up things and how to implement things. It's been very good. If I or any staff have any issues, they usually send them to me, and I relay that to the company, and they're usually very good at getting back to me.

It's a pretty good system, even though I seem to be a little bit philosophical about it. It's definitely good value in any organization because it's a very good, solid system compared to many others that I know of, apart from its sometimes technical side. 

But then again, I know that it's not particularly, how could I put it, very contemporary anymore. A lot of things are online now, and they're a little bit more integrated. Content Manager fails quite a bit in that regard. It's a bit of a system you have to go to rather than an integratable system.

It's probably not as cheap as many others. I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with ten being expensive, and one being cheap. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Comparing it with the other systems that I've used from memory, it's pretty good. From the administrator perspective, from the functionality, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

It's still a pretty good system. If they've had trouble or if they're having trouble with SharePoint in terms of its records management capabilities, or if SharePoint hasn't been developed properly, Content Manager fares well in comparison. 

But at the same time, I'm aware that a lot of people in Australia have adopted both, so they're working with both. SharePoint may be the interface, but Content Manager sits behind the disposal management functionality. They've kept that. We are planning not to because I don't see any reason to keep another system if we are able to develop SharePoint to the point where we can structure our disposal functionality ourselves. It would be expensive and probably not worth it.

At the same time, a lot of people are quite happy with that arrangement. So, if they don't have any need to collaborate or they collaborate just through SharePoint, I think for a records management system, Content Manager is a really good system.

The solution is for managing content where users want to keep and secure documents, with records management functionalities to streamline document workflows. It involves adding metadata to organize content and establishing connections between documents, facilitating efficient information organization for various processes.

Understanding customer requirements, including governance for trustworthiness, is crucial. Our process involves operations, unit access databases, testing, and transitioning to configurations and development environments. This includes full-term development and providing support during the go-live phase and beyond.

The first advantage is integration with your IP directory. You can customize any metadata and centralize all content, making it accessible to users. When a user is hired, the system automatically restricts and allows access according to their role. Another feature is organizing content into groups or rows within the system. Additionally, you can integrate modules to classify users and documents with specific security levels for enhanced security. The solution supports various levels of security, including private, secret, or public information, ensuring users can access only what they are authorized to see.

The first advantage is the capacity to support big companies across a large number of countries and to organize alongside security. The documents are subjected to other obligations required by customers. It's easy to administer and manage.

Support could be enhanced. The first line of support consists of individuals who lack experience with some key aspects. When you create a support ticket, the time to resolve the issue may be prolonged because the first person may not understand the system or the solution.

I have been using OpenText Content Manager for more than 10 years.

The product is stable if you have equipment maintenance.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

The solution's scalability depends on the demand of the users. There are different ways to make its structure. You can add more servers depending on the location and the activities performed. Scalability can be more elastic with cloud options like Jabra, Azure, and AWS. You can prepare the documents or configure the servers accordingly, allowing automatic activation. This facilitates the utilization of another front-end or back-end server. Users may require further refinements without incurring additional charges per day.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten.

I use SharePoint and IBM, but OpenText Content Manager is better. The system's ease of use and accessibility for individuals experienced in managing a browser and internal browser make OpenText products user-friendly.

The initial setup is easy, requiring at least three people: a technical consultant, a functional consultant, and a project manager. The setup takes at least eight to twelve weeks, depending on the scope of the customer.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

Only one or two are enough for the solution’s maintenance.

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

Our organization primarily uses OpenText Content Manager as a document management system to handle various SAP modules such as procurement, material management, SCM, finance, and documents generated in Salesforce. It helps us manage, monitor, and control these documents by creating a repository for access, tracking changes, seeking approvals through workflows, and classifying content.

The tool's implementation has made life easier for customers. It is sold by SAP. The integration between SAP and the solution is good, making it easy to access the documents. It is widely recognized as a market leader in enterprise document management. 

The solution automates everything and helps us to track every move. It increases visibility and saves time in finding the documents using classification. The ability to track document changes is critical, especially for legal documents and those related to procurement. Knowing what changes occurred, when they happened, who made them, and the approval process are all crucial aspects managed by the record management solution.

OpenText Content Manager has improved our efficiency by 50-60 percent. 

OpenText Content Manager needs to improve its user interface. Its installation process is difficult and can be made easier. 

I have been using the product for ten years. 

OpenText Content Manager is a market leader in the category and is very stable. 

The product is scalable. We are service providers catering to various customers, including leading manufacturing and automobile companies in India. My company has around 1500-2000 customers. 

The product's technical support is fairly good. It is prompt and responds quickly whenever we approach it. 

The tool's deployment is moderate. You need to do two to three separate installations. The process is easy, where you must create and deploy packages. 

The product's deployment requires a consultant. 

We have seen ROI with the product's use. Our customers are happy. 

The solution's licensing cost depends on the customer domain. Though its costs are high, the product is worth the money. You have to pay a one-time cost and support costs. You will have to pay more when you need to add more users. The annual AMC charges amount to 20 percent of the licensing costs. 

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. It is a good add-on if you are using SAP products. The most prevalent integrations that can be seen in the product are SAP, Salesforce, Oracle, and Office 365. 

I use OpenText Content Manager in my company as it serves as an ECM solution to store documents and workflows. The tool also helps with record management and offers many connectors with SAP and Salesforce that help store documents.

The most valuable features of the solution are that it offers connectors, helps with document storage, offers workflows, and takes care of report management.

The stability of the solution is an area of concern where improvements can be made.

I have been using OpenText Content Manager for ten years. My company has a partnership with OpenText.

OpenText Content Manager is an RDBMS system having certain power-related limitations.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

I did not face issues with the product's scalability.

I work as a developer in my company, so I used the product for development-related purposes.

The solution's technical support is good. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I don't have any previous experience with any other solutions apart from OpenText Content Manager.

The product's initial setup phase was a little difficult because of the resources available.

I rate the product's initial setup phase a five on a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult setup phase, and ten is an easy setup phase as it was a process with medium complexity.

The solution is deployed in the cloud and on an on-premises model. The product supports the services of all the clouds.

The solution can be deployed in two to three months.

OpenText Content Manager provides a good solution for document storage, and you can access it from anywhere. The product offers high availability, and it's easy to share documents. The product also offers security to documents and takes care of the different versions of the documents along with the area of document management approval process.

OpenText Content Manager is a product that is worth the money since it offers some good functionalities.

I rate the product price an eight or nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. The solution is expensive.

My company did not evaluate any other options available in the market against OpenText Content Manager. My company decided to use OpenText Content Manager.

OpenText Content Manager is a leading ECM solution in the market that offers vast functionalities ranging from case management to document storage and workflows. The tool has its own hardships with areas related to development, implementation, and high costs, especially compared to other products in the market.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

The solution has a good security infrastructure and a stable framework.

There could be an improvement in security and permission infrastructure, which is very complicated. Most of our build governance and security is set at the group or department level. Setting that up and the efforts required for management or information architecture are very high-level. Setting up information architecture is much quicker and easier in SharePoint than in OpenText. Compared to SharePoint, OpenText is a bit more secure, but I agree that SharePoint is better from a maintenance point of view.

Also, the solution could be more user-friendly.

OpenText Content Manager is tightly coupled, using Java-oriented applications at its server site. However, other applications like SharePoint are moving to Angular, providing a proper front-end stack. This allows development on the front-end side without requiring server-side implementation, resulting in a decoupled front-end. OpenText Content Manager, on the other hand, is still mainly using transcripts.

I have been using OpenText Content Manager as an architect for two years.

There are some challenges with technical support post-pandemic.

Neutral

We used IBM FinNet and Documentum for migrations, which were not part of OpenText then.

The solution is costly in terms of maintenance.

We are looking for other products like Knoxysco for an ACR.

If security is a major concern, like with Kubernetes, and budget is not a problem, then OpenText is a good solution. If you have a budget constraint and want medium-level security, or if the information is not critical or synthetic, then SharePoint is a better option than OpenText. Also, SharePoint is better if you are looking for no customization.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I use the product mainly for archiving documents.

The product can be integrated with different solutions. There aren’t many products in the market that provide such integrations. We are integrating the product with SharePoint. It is important in content management.

The product could improve its scalability.

I have been using the solution for the last six months.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten. It is quite stable.

I rate the tool’s scalability a six or seven out of ten.

The initial setup was not difficult, but we needed a little bit of background knowledge to deploy the solution.

I am an end user. My peers guide me whenever I face issues with the solution. People wanting to use the solution must go through the demo and try to understand the software before deploying. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for records management.

The solution allows us to do digital management, everything being digital nowadays, without the need to resort to paper use. The entire process has been digitized. 

We like how the solution allows us to have retention of records and workflows, as well as its fire plan. 

The ease of use should be addressed. If one is skillful then this will not present a problem, but a person who is not will be forced to struggle. 

Mobility, as it relates to the ability to have access, should also be addressed. 

We have been using Micro Focus Content Manager for five years. 

The solution is stable and is being used by bigger companies the world over. 

The solution is scalable. The technology allows for the scaling of different modules. Unlike SharePoint, the scalability is fine. There are different modules that can be scaled within the technology. 

We have plans to increase the usage. 

Premium support is available and it is good. 

Prior to the use of Micro Focus Content Manager we made use of SharePoint. We switched to the current solution since it provides a more mature process of records management. 

The deployment took six months and our implementation strategy was that of a cloud-based service package.

The implementation is handled by the partners.

We did everything on our own.

There are around five people responsible for deployment and maintenance. 

I would prefer not to address the frequency of our licensing requirements. 

The fees incurred are for the licensing and maintenance.

We also evaluated OpenText, but decided to go with Micro Focus Content Manager in the end. 

The entire organization makes use of the solution and this is primarily done by those in charge of records management. 

The organization comprises 500 people. 

My advice to others is that they cannot go wrong with the solution. It is the stable and secure Content Manager product available. 

I rate Micro Focus Content Manager as a seven out of ten. 

Our primary use is Records Management, with a secondary push by some to use it for all document management to include all draft work and convenience copies.

We are required to have a robust Records Management system. It does this job. We had it integrated with HPRM ver 8.3, but dropped the integration when we moved to HPE-CM 9.1.  Integration was not well documented.                                                          

It has a robust search but has often been difficult for people to learn.

This is a client-side app, and a web-based app would be easier to support. 

Easier integration with SharePoint and other apps would be an improvement.

The stability is reasonable. Although, like any software, it has areas to improve. It seams sensitive to configuration changes. Misconfiguration causes problems very quickly.

I don't know the server model enough to know if it is scalable. I have brought up the topic with a Micro Focus sales rep and did not get much of a response. 

For our organization to fully utilize HPE-CM, we'd need a more robust server farm. 

Over the earlier owners, the support was lacking and we had to use third-party vendors. We are using a third now and have had no interaction with Micro Focus directly.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

We contracted it out to avoid problems with complexity.

We used a vendor team for implementation. They seemed reasonably well versed in the system, although there were a couple of misconfigurations that caused downstream issues. 

Hard for us to gage. We are required to have a RM program. This system eats up a lot of staff time for support, administration, and use.

I would suggest that you do a thorough evaluation of all competing products and look for support for these products in your local area.

Due to very limited use in the industry, vendor and contract support are hard to find. We are using a consultant on the East coast which is four time zones away. 

There is more call for this product in Australia. The development of the product has moved to the UK. 

US support will probably remain spotty. 

This product has changed hands twice, from Tower to HP and then to Micro Focus. This has made support more difficult for us. 

Setup within the system is important. We have many users that really dislike the system, and I believe much of that has been due to setup and training. 

All features are important for a complete solution since any solution will need to cater to drive the transformation from the reliance on paper-based processes to digitized solutions, as per the following:

• Inbound processing – capturing incoming traffic through inbound scanning, conversion to long-term preservation PDF format, document classification, metadata extraction, capturing emails.
• Repository/storage of content – ingesting all inbound traffic to a reliable ECM system with governance capabilities relating to records and information management with the capacity to identify records, storing, retrieving, collaborating, tracking, security, lifecycle management – disposal and retention, etc.
• Outbound processing – documenting composition and dispatch and database storage.

Many organizations are facing the same problems with their operating environment and scope of responsibilities. Due to the fact that collaboration with external stakeholders has grown in scale and complexity, keeping track of important business decisions and ensuring that all relevant internal and external stakeholders have timely access to this information, is now a major corporate challenge, as in the exponential growth of paper, shared drives and emails.

Government agencies and private organisations alike expect to do more with the same or fewer resources. Giving staff the tools to enhance productivity is essential to help meet the increasing demands and expectations of the Government and public in a constrained fiscal environment. Changes to Government policy concerning digital records management, security and amendments to legislation such as the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts are also expanding compliance requirements for employees and corporate IT systems. Digital Continuity is an approach to creating and managing information that can be trusted and used for as long as needed despite technological change.

This is how the solution has helped transform business organisations. Businesses are facing the same problems. Network drives, accumulation of paper records, and email used to manage documents and other digital format records of business value do not adequately support the information management compliance requirements. This lack of an enterprise approach to information access and management is limiting organisational efficiency, responsiveness and capacity to maximize business opportunities.

Investment in a modern EDRMS solution has been identified as a key component for addressing efficiency and compliance business needs. Electronic business will mean the necessity to become more diligent and smarter in terms of the information management of the department. Usually a staged approach is taken to select and implement a commercial-off-the-shelf EDRMS. Hence the above vendors cater for these goals and objectives to some degree with integration to Record Management software capabilities, as well as OCR, conversion capabilities and content management.

In line with any digital continuity policy an EDRMS solution is about making sure that information is complete, available and therefore usable for business needs. Information is usable if people can:

• Find it when they need it.
• Open it as they need it.
• Work with it in the way they need it.
• Understand what it is and what it is about.
• Trust that it is what it says it is.

So any product vendor solution must be able to meet the above minimum requirements closely aligned to an out of the box solution such as MS SharePoint has perfected.

Perhaps:

• Cloud computing could be added.
• The ability to substantiate adherence to Australian security standards.
• Better ways in managing extraction of metadata.

In the case of SharePoint you rely on user selection but vendors should try to alleviate human intervention where possible.

I have used the above products for the last 20 years.

Many projects I've worked on encounter issues in production relating to load balancing and throttling where systems cannot cope with the volumes and capacity of transactional processing.

In the case of conversion of Adlib software polling MS Exchange and writing to an HNAS drive, it managed to bring down both servers. It's paramount to adequately plan capacity and preventive maintenance.

They need to support the processing by adding CAS servers, etc to manage extra loads. Also there is the importance of creating an active/active redundancy topology.

The technical support is OK as long as you pay for ongoing technical support structure to get appropriate support during critical breakdown when time is money and have the vendor understand your backup and recovery needs for transparent BAU continuity.

We have used many that do not deliver what they say so we chose the above because they deliver the goods. However, licensing is always an issue.

Initial setup is always complex to get all integrated processes/technology/software working together. For example, Adlib software will poll exchange mailboxes to ingest and process emails and create conversion and content metadata XML output as well as PDFA documents including native formats. OpenText OCC will poll the HNAS drive to ingest the output files that Adlib produced and to OCR all documents and create full text index to extract all metadata and them apply customization code that ingests the Adlib conversion metadata and merge the OCR content metadata then output the transformed XML with the PDF files ready for the next step.

Any content management software will then poll the output directory and ingest all files into the ECM system to store in a database record management system. Paper documents digitized by an external provider were transferred via secure FTP to a shared drive which the ECM system utilities would also poll to ingest and create the records in the EDRMS.

Some implementations were in-house and others were through vendor engagement.

Initial ROI is not appreciated but if you look at the time it takes to process for example, claims, then you are providing an optimized business model where you are competitive because you are more responsive to customer requests and processing.

Claims don't take a week or a month, instead they are processed daily and get into a downstream workflow system that sends notifications and gets assigned to the relevant teams to action. This creates a more sustainable, competitive, government compliant, and secure solution in the long term which pays off on the investment.

Be very clear with functional and non-functional requirements. Set forth minimum mandatory baseline business requirements in order to meet overall EDRMS objectives, aligned with the Principles and Functional Requirements for Records in Digital Office Environments and compliance. Also identify non-mandatory features deemed desirable but not mandatory.

In addition:

• Provide the organisation functional requirements specific to the use and operation of the EDRMS.
• Detail the relevant standards and specifications applicable to the efficient management of public/private records – NAA or PROV.
• Provide the mapping and traceability between the Business Requirement and NAA standard/business and specification with the functional use case as context.
• Provide guidance to vendors in the implementation of the EDRMS system, testing and user acceptance testing.

All requirements should be uniquely identified for tracking purposes and have a business priority assigned to provide an understanding of business importance.

The priorities should be derived from an EDRMS strategy to ensure consistency across business units. A code should be provided to indicate EDRMS’s (Vendors) ability to meet the business, compliance and functional requirements. There should be clear traceability in their ability to meet expectations. What is their ability to meet functional and non-functional requirement statements? Can they fully meet, partially meet, conditionally meet, solution not concluded, cannot deliver, etc.

Stipulate your complexity model to identify what requires complex customization, requires complex configuration, requires minor configuration or is an out of the box requirement. Identifying these components will make it easy to manage the vendor's deliverables and gives the business a better grasp on the monetary bottom line expectation and where the money is being allocated to. Create transparency where you can.