OpenText Documentum Reviews

I work as a manager for professional services implementation and Documentum Implementation engineer, we are partner with Dell EMC for Documentum Platform. We provide professional services to our customers, mainly government entities, implementing the product on-premises.

Our primary use case is generally twofold: Enabling our clients to have one repository, a centralized system, for all types of documents - PDFs, Word documents, and scanned images. And secondly, enabling document sharing between teams while maintaining security. 

There's also the addition of the high volume batch scanning of the Captiva module which is a smart automated capture solution with image enhancements, indexing, utilizing OCR technology to identify document types. Each document is linked to specific metadata for business information, extracting and indexing, raising the texture of the scanned image, and auto-indexing the business fields, which is then integrated automatically to the ECM repository.

We utilize XCP, the xCelerated composition platform to develop business applications, supporting case management solutions for our customers, and also automate work review, approvals and specific business processes.

The most valuable feature is that it's a central repository for everything, whether it's videos, documents, Excel sheets, etc. Building on top of the document platform means business applications can share and integrate with this repository. Although everyone has their own local disk with many documents these days, there's a need to have one single repository, one source of truth so you know you have the latest version, including comments, earlier versions, approvals, history, audit trail, etc., everything related to that document management platform. 

I think the vertical application could be improved. The integration with business applications means that sometimes the end-user, for example, the finance person, wants to see the scanned copy from inside the SAP form, or from inside the Oracle form and although Documentum claims it, it's not simple because integration between the ERP business applications and Documentum doesn't work so well.

If I'm searching for a certain transaction in the business application form and I want to see the attachments, the original scanned copy of the invoice, or the PO without the need to have another interface to login and search for a document, I want to be able to click on some sort of customized button or something to retrieve the attachments or the related documents from inside the ERP business application interface.

When it comes to additional features, OpenText announced that they are working to develop new modern web interface that will allow integration with Documentum repository as a backend. This was a concern because other competitors have a GUI, an outstanding user experience. It's a little slow now with OpenText, but if they release this in the coming two quarters, it would be great.

We've been using the product for 14 years. 

It's a very stable product, one of the leaders in the market.  

The product is very scalable. 

When Dell EMC had the technical support, it was better in terms of response and resolution. After the acquisition of Documentum from Dell EMC to OpenText the support became not as good in terms of responses and resolutions. I believe OpenText is working to enhance it in the coming years.

We started with Documentum, the enterprise content management platform. Recently, we have been involved with two or three projects using IBM Filenet, a competitor to Documentum and we had a small to medium-size customer requiring an open source for archiving or document management, so we utilized Alfresco Community Edition.

The initial setup is simple. There is a lot of documentation and we have our own procedures for installation based on individual architectural requirements. Deployment time really depends on the environment. If it's only Documentum that's quite a quick process, but if it's the whole bundle with Documentum Engine Xplore, CPS, then it can take three days and if you're adding extras on top of this then it will take longer. Deployment usually requires one or two people. 

Governments organizations don't pay an annual cloud subscription licensing fee, most licenses for government organizations are perpetual.

The architecture of Documentum is outstanding compared to other solutions like FileNet and Alfresco. However, IBM's revamp of FileNet to reposition it might make a difference. They have a complete bundle now for Digital Business Automation (DBA). All types of tasks, content management, data capture, and workflow automation solutions are already bundled out of the box and integrated.

People should be aware that the learning curve is steep. It's best to have an expert carry out the architecture and configuration implementation because it contains lots of modules, so it needs expertise. 

I would rate this product an eight out of 10. 

We use Documentum to store important documents for HR and other departments.

Using Document has improved document organization and also made them more secure.

The most valuable feature is that the documents are kept secure.

You can store everything in a central location.

The user interface can be improved.

Searching for documents is complex and should be easier.

We have been using Documentum for more than ten years.

This has been a stable product so far. Our legal and financial departments are using it, and we haven't had any issues.

We are only using Documentum in-house, so there isn't a heavy usage. We have about 1,000 users in total, although there are only about 100 using it concurrently.

For our purposes, scalability has not been an issue.

Technical support is okay and I would rate them an eight out of ten. In some cases, the time it takes them to respond can be improved.

The company started with Documentum, although we also use SharePoint as well. SharePoint is missing some features, such as document retention. It is better for collaboration, whereas Documentum is better for storing private documents.

We are not using all of the features but from what we do use, I think that this is a good product. It is secure, we can store all of our documents in a central location, and we don't have any plans to change. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises

Version Tree Branching. Bulk document edit. Hierarchal navigation. Document annotation. At the time webtop was an integration point we wanted into our products CM.

We were able to meet ISO 9001 QMS Standards and add a more robust CM integration to our product base.

After implementation, I was pleased with the functions of the application. Design and newer functionality should always be evolved.

I used this solution for approximately 5 years.

Yes, system deployment was complex and very tedious.

No, after the deployment, we found the system to be reliable. Not the fastest system, but stable.

Never had to scale to meet demand.

Customer Service: I would rate the service below average. This was three years ago, so maybe it has improved since.Technical Support: Support was average. My involvement was not only user level, but development integration level also. I had more difficult questions I am sure than the average user.

We had integrations to several content management applications. We ended up not choosing this option in-house as we felt it was too much. Just not a good fit for us.

The initial setup as per their install guide was pretty spot on. As we customized, it became more complex. This could be due to our unique business rules or because we were building an integration to the software.

Ours was an in-house implementation. We did lean on support a few times and it was average support if we were not dependent on a time line.

Be sure that you can invest the time for implementation on this also, use their technical services team. The software does what it says it does, but make sure you have considered cheaper options.

We use it for enterprise content management and we have many businesses which use it for business process content management. So we have two categories of users. The primary use case is lifecycle management or flow management and that includes the enterprise content management service.

We have several customers and each one has a different "flavor." So the benefits vary with each case.

The lifecycle management is valuable because many of our businesses create content and it passes through a lifecycle. Each state of the lifecycle means that your business has certain business rules, which are set.

It needs a better UI and it should also be cloud-ready. The UI has not changed in years. These are the two major improvements I would be expecting.

More than five years.

The stability is good.

The scalability is good.

Technical support is average.

I wouldn' say the setup was straightforward but it was also not complex. It's somewhere in between.

When selecting a vendor, the primary considerations are the cloud and that we need simplified solutions for all of our customers.

Using Documentum products such as Content
Server, xCP, Captiva, 90+ large-scale Business Processes/Applications have been
successfully implemented for moving forward to be paperless organization. These
processes are fully integrated with our Oracle E-Business Suite (Financial Modules
plus HRMS) in addition to integration with custom enterprise systems built
in-house

Reduced request cycle time, along with enhancing request tracking and archiving. Moving towards a paperless organization, it has facilitated paperwork easily in a fast and elegant way.

Process Engine for handling over 90 large-scale business processes/applications. also Documentum Content Management System is very powerful.

Documentum xCP 2.3 is still has some drawbacks such as :

1• Dependent filtration among multiple drop down lists in Result list

2• Unable to access all user tasks from all processes in user inbox (not only the processes included within the application)

3• Unable to include task link in task notification mail automatically

Three to five years.

No.

No.

Seven out of 10.

No.

Straightforward, by following the installation document.

in-house

Reduced request cycle time, along with enhancing request tracking

Licensing according to organization scale. Captiva software in case of backlog archiving.

SharePoint, IBM, Oracle.

Make use of load balancing. Try simplifying forms as best you can to avoid performance issues.

In terms of sub-products/components, the most valuable features are definitely Content Server and DFC. The core components are the most valuable and trusted ones. These components help us make a solution that can manage documents and their metadata providing features such as permissions, auditing, transactions and debugging for when things get strange. Doing this from scratch may be a good option, but using Documentum we may be able to save some time.

WDK is also very useful. It's not the best web framework, but it is an acceptable one for most cases and it's directed for a Documentum solution.

For some users, Webtop can be a good solution. From my experience, a customized version, usually very customized, of Webtop is an optimal solution.

The organization needs to manage a large number of documents. Depending on the context or application, it produces from 50k documents a year to 200k documents a day.

We designed several solutions for several business contexts. The core of the solution design was the custom-made design specific for the organization, and not the fact that it depended on Documentum. Using Documentum helped in the development process. Application development would be more costly if it was from scratch, rather than using some basic Documentum features.

Performance could be better. But this is a generalization. We can achieve good performance with Documentum, but we need experience to understand several details about how Documentum works to avoid performance problems. Documentum, out of the box, could be better designed so that we wouldn't fall into these problems so easily.

Also, the permissions model could be better. For example, I don't understand why we don't have the concept of a read-only user enforced by content server. But I can understand it can be difficult to make a permissions model that can be simultaneously generic and functional.

Sub-products like RPS and Records Manager are really bad. But I wouldn't hope for improvement here. The mission here is difficult. Trying to make a product that can handle lots of records, millions usually, is a tough mission. We have to be able to apply customer rules you don't know yet, because they're the customer's rules (and exceptions).

I’ve been using Documentum for 11 years.

The core (content server and DFC) is very stable. Several sub-products, like RMA and RPS are really bad stability-wise and many other aspects.

The core (content server and DFC) are reasonably well scalable. Several sub-products, like RMA and RPS, are really bad scalability-wise and many other aspects.

The content server could be more scalable if it didn't depend so much on dm_sysobject. The design overuses dm_sysobject without much need. Lightweight objects can be a way of solving this issue. Table partitioning can be useful also, but table partitioning can be a lot of work for solving a design problem.

I rate technical support 1/5. Whenever I wanted help from Dell EMC, it wasn't for trivial issues. I wanted help from people that have a high degree of knowledge in Documentum and, in some cases, have access to information that I don't (like something I could only know by reverse engineering).

For sure, some people in Dell EMC have knowledge and can be really helpful, but usually when we submit a case or question, we have to pass through some people that know less than what we know. This makes us lose lots of time asking irrelevant questions for information we already gave. Sometimes we give up before getting to someone with knowledge.

Other times, our issue really gets to someone with knowledge (after quite some time), and only a percentage of those times the support is helpful. Also, Dell EMC doesn't support Documentum's versions for a long time. You quite often see Dell EMC personnel saying Dell EMC does not support old versions when, for most situations, we can see the issue would not be any different in the most recent version.

Initial setup was complex. Several times we started with a solution. Then, in production, we started to get problems concerning performance or complexity, because we tried to use a product that needs to be generic to our customer specific solution. Then usually, when we address the problems, we figure out that replacing some Documentum-specific features with a customized feature (usually a simple one) can be a huge improvement.

I'm not an expert on this but from what I know, the pricing and licensing model is strange and I'm not sure how well it is controlled. For example, paying by user capability (consumer, contributor, coordinator) makes sense when the user application is Webtop. But we can have a WDK solution or any other web-based solution where the user capability is completely irrelevant.

I was not involved in product evaluation. The organization evaluated FileNet as one option, but I can't say much about it.

Stick to the core (Content Server, DFC)! I don't want to say WDK because Dell EMC is/was always saying it was going to end it. Otherwise, it was something to consider.
Dell EMC made DFS, which was a logical approach. But for several users (like myself), if you design web services by yourself using plain DFC, you’ll get better web services and it's not that complicated. Of course, you're not going to provide all the functionality DFS provides, but you won't need it.

Make it simple when possible! When you need something more complex regarding specific functionality or great performance, consider custom development. Don't assume that because Documentum has a feature addressing what you want to do, you should use it. Do the pros and cons first.

You would want to block the generic interfaces and customize your solution, unless:

• Your solution needs to manage only a few documents.
• Your users are IT people that understand what they should or should not do with an interface as generic as Webtop or CenterStage.
• You use DFS services without being very careful (performance-wise, for example).

The most valuable feature is the management. I like the accelerated platform but it uses a lot of CPU and RAM. 

It is easy to develop a VPN and UI.

In terms of improvement, we have had bugs with version 2.2. They should develop something so that bugs don't happen in our projects. We make changes manually and bugs happen. 

I have been using this solution for six years. 

It is easy to expand. We store many workflows in it and we are going to expand the project after the next upgrade to include all of our workflows. 

There are around 5,000 uses but after the upgrade, it will be closer to 20,000 users.

We get our support from a partner, not from them directly. I don't like the consultancy, they don't have a lot of experience but they sell this solution. The support needs to be better. 

The installation is easy. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

They should improve the licensing model. We can't get to a license agreement, they recommend a certain license but I don't think we need everything. The licensing model should be more clear.

We use this for documentation management. It provides possibilities for us to save documents and supporting the business process while doing so. It helps us with some of the overflow of documents, and that is very important for our company.

It helps us achieve enterprise content management. It is quite good.

It helps us with some of the overflow of documents, and that is very important for our company.

The biggest issue for us is the price of the product.

One to three years.

It is quite an expensive product. The price is very high. 

I would advise others that the best solution for enterprise content management is either Documentum or Microsoft SharePoint.