5 out of 5.0, Reviewed Dec 1, 2016
Great partners to work with; know what they do.
Spend enough time to review and consider all options in the SOW.
Relaiable product/tool for legacy platform conversion; supported by reliable and knowledgeble people whoe knows what they do.
establish exit language more clearly in the SOW
establish exit language more clearly in the SOW
3 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 17, 2016
We implemented the D2 Application framework which turns out to be still maturing.
Engage 3rd party service providers who have a true delivery capability instead of staff augmentation
Performance can be better
Share how far one can stretch D2. We should have included them in the FIT GAP evaluation
Critically evaluate D2 and seriously consider Alfresco and other products like McLaren Fusion.
Recommend the DSE model
5 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 15, 2016
the upgrade went smooth.
plan ahed and implement
plan and implement
we plan well ahead
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Nov 9, 2016
The implementation was successful, the software worked as expected except for a huge issue which we came upon which the vendor could only resolve after a few months. For the past few years the product has been working fine, but the features, functionality and interfece did not change since then, we had envisioned that there would be more enhancements every year.
Evaluate the product more and maybe the advanced features which it provides are not useful, the newer cloud option has a nicer interface and better support and enhancements roadmap.
The vendor could have checked with us on a half yearly basis to see what enhancements and changes they can include in their new releases. They could have also taken into account our future infrastructure requirements.
We would have taken more care in analyzing and agreeing on the infrastructure, discussed the prodcut roadmap for the next few years to foresee any new enhanceents we needed.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Mar 20, 2016
Service / Support has been excellent. Technical knowledge of product well demonstrated by EMC. Hardware is owned by EMC and managed as part of the services.
Review overall archive, deletion policiy and costs, with the aim of reducing the amount of content stored in a managed service to minimum required. Over time this will reduce the work and cost of exiting the service.
Stable, Reliable, Responsive and no support issues to manage.
Provide more flexibility about self-help to manage archival and deletion of content.
Less customization - Looked for simpler upgrade path, consider hosted off premise.
Overal effective for the current version.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Mar 18, 2016
Navigating EMC can be challenging at best; however, when we were reassigned to a sales representative focused on utilities, our vendor relationship improved. We love the product - it meets our complex records management needs but we are concerned about its future. With a looming Dell acquisition, will Documentum keep pace with ECM changes. How will it work with Office 365? Will Webtop be discontinued? Internally, we fight our own battles mandating Documentum as our users are beginning to demand SharePoint for the collaboration features Documentum doesn't offer. Our challenges in the next year will defining how we can meet users' needs while meeting the needs of our legal and governence records management teams. We also struggle to keep up with our enterprise demands - Documentum requires specific browsers, JRE, and operating systems - while our other systems have different requirements.
Before purchasing this, fully understand the total cost of ownership of this product. Licensing, servers, and technical salaries make this an expensive choice.
The records management functionality is top of the line.
It's not agile enough to keep up with changing Windows versions, JRE updates, and browser changes. Keeping up with patches and upgrades is exhausting.
Keep us better informed the future roadmap of the product.
When Documentum was purchased, the team had not completed a true records / content inventory. There are times I feel we bought the bulldozer and in reality, we may have been able to get by with a shovel. The team should have consider the technical talent required to support this application and the our salary limitations. It's difficult to find talented technical support willing to accept our salaries.
I would like to see more collaboration interfaces.
There support is good.
It requires consultants if you do not have highly qualified staff in place.
4 out of 5.0, Reviewed Mar 6, 2016
Overall, the product performance is better in the 7.1 version than previous. The product managers have been engaged and shared many insights to the new versions and roadmaps. They are actively listening to their customers.
Make sure that you understand your business drivers in order to compare like products. Keep your eye on the product features as the EMC/ECD division is heavily investing in the Captiva Capture products with Project Horizon. It's especially exciting for small businesses. IBM is heavily investing in their core support model and integrating all their applications around that central focus. Kofax/Lexmark is focused on the target areas for common business problems as "quick wins", which you can buy upfront. Make sure you understand the investment in ECM technology and look forward. You need to understand your ROI business models to compare products.
The EMC Captiva product has improved performance and scalability in 7.1. The purchasing model for the EMC Captiva Real-Time Server includes the mobile SDK. This pricing model allows for competitive advantage.
The EMC/Dell Conference is heavily invested in Dell technologies. The EMC/ECD division needs more focus.
The Enterprise Content Management industry has really advanced. I would look to integrate more solutions in our corporate environment to take advantage of the ECM technology integration capabilities: case management, document management & collaboration, integration to Unified Communications, and WCM integration.
EMC Captiva Service & Support has improved in the last few years. We have had the ability to continue to move our questions to the engineers faster for quicker results. This improves the ability to use the product to deliver our projects on time.
The EMC Captiva Upgrade from 6.5 to 7.1 (which included an entirely new environment) took us 6-9 months. I was hoping for a 3-6 month project. The difficulty was in licensing (for the server licenses) and also in the check module which required connecting to a 3rd party outside of EMC.