Loading product reviews...

web-content-management omniupdate All Markets > Web Content Management

OmniUpdate

5.0 out of 5.0 (2 ratings)

Reviews Distribution

5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
We don't have any qualitative reviews for this vendor yet


View other vendors in this market
We have aggregated ratings data on OmniUpdate but all of our reviewers have opted out of sharing their qualitative review feedback. In certain cases we allow reviewers to withhold their qualitative review feedback from public view, in order to protect their confidentiality.
  • 5 out of 5.0, Reviewed

    Product(s): OUCampus

    Knowledgeable and a pleasure to work with

    Overall Comment

    The company worked well with the 3rd party and was very attentive to our needs. They continue to adress issues in a timely basis.

    What one piece of advice would you give other prospective customers?

    It's not an inexpensive product, but a lot of value comes with it. Consider add-ons while pricing the product and make sure you're clear on any development costs with the company.

    What do you like most about the product or service?

    My end users are able to update their areas with ease.

    What do you dislike most about the product?

    We run the product on an appliance, but It's not always easy to deal with since OU Campus is managed solely by them and it's difficult at times to see where an issue lies. Issues are rare, but it's hard to be clear on whether it's OS based or OU Campus based

    What one thing do you wish the vendor did differently?

    Include some of the add-ons in the base product.

    If you could start over, what would your organization do differently?

    Make sure there were clearer lines of communication between 3rd parties and OmniUpdate.


  • 5 out of 5.0, Reviewed

    Product(s): OUCampus

    Implementation was straight-forward and fairly easy to adjust to our specific needs

    Overall Comment

    The product did exactly what they said it could. When reviewing the technical design of the product, we determined some creative ways of implementing it that worked almost exactly as we envisioned.

    What one piece of advice would you give other prospective customers?

    Learn the power of the OUCampus XML transformation engine and don't be afraid to customize the XSL to do helpful things. We added error-checking to our XSL so that a page cannot be published to the website server without a (metadata field) author or (metadata field) expiration date. We also added logic to produce an HTML redirect from one rendered page (the one that should look like the old website) to the other rendered page (new, temporary UI/UX) when the page was marked as "Employees Only". The new UI/UX pages forced login before being displayed, so content editors could get the benefit of a single content management heirarchy, and the result of an INTERNET/INTRANET with diverse layout and functionality.

    What do you like most about the product or service?

    The near-infinite power of the XML/XSL rendering design.

    What do you dislike most about the product?

    This release requires that the two web page products go to the same webserver diretory OR that the user perform two separate publish operations, one to each target server. If you don't have to do hokey dial-site trickery, this will never affect you.

    What one thing do you wish the vendor did differently?

    Better error messages when someone (not me :-]) makes a typo in the XSL stylesheet.

    If you could start over, what would your organization do differently?

    Lock down the goals and strategies of the project as a whole before beginning implementation. We (I.T.) had formed a joint team with our Communications department, and tried to lay down a set of web content governance categories, complete with suggested strategies, before we began. The committee was intended to be cooperative, but weak leadership and self-serving grabs for control resulted in long-standing inaction. Finally, three years after product purchase, an I.T.-team-driven short-term implementation, with no UI or layout changes, was initated to migrate content from the aging legacy website before it's service contract expired. Decisions were made based on the proposed governance strategies and the content move was completed less that 30 days before the service contract expired. Now, the "real" implementation has begun, and I.T. is being left out of the decision-making process and informed after the fact of what decisions have been made about the initial governance submissions. The "real" website, with a complete UI/UX redesign, is now 3 months behind schedule and many governance issues have still not been solidified. The OUCampus product has been flexible enough to allow us to make the changes needed, but they have to be made in the 3000+ files/pages converted instead of once on the original template before conversion. Most importantly, OUCampus has allowed us to produce two copies of each webpage, with different UI/UX and layout, from a single source file. Ths allowed us to move forward with the no-change content migration and saved the day.

    Product capabilities - overall comment

    Very powerful

    Service & support - overall comment

    Occasional lapse from support team, due to our customizations, but they were consulted on all customizations that were made to their delivered code. Occasional hand-off issues between different techs.

    Integration & Deployment - Overall comment

    Simple install of Tomcat, performed by the vendor in a remote-desktop-connection session. 11 months of in-house content cut-and-paste.


Ratings Overview

1 2 3 4 5
Section
1

Evaluation & Contracting

Overall rating of product evaluation and contract negotiation

(2)
5.0

Ability to understand your organization's needs

(2)
5.0

Timely and complete response to product questions

(2)
5.0

Pricing and contract flexibility (pricing and terms)

(2)
4.5
1 2 3 4 5
Section
1

Integration & Deployment

Overall rating of integration and deployment

(2)
5.0

How long did your deployment take?

6 - 9 months (<9)

9 - 12 months (<12)


Availability of quality 3rd-party resources (integrators, service providers, etc.)

(1)
5.0

Ease of integration using standard APIs and tools

(2)
5.0

Quality and availability of end-user training

(2)
5.0

Ease of deployment

(2)
4.5
1 2 3 4 5
Section
1

Service & Support

Overall rating of service and support

(2)
4.5

Did you purchase a support package from the vendor?

Yes

No


Timeliness of vendor's response

(2)
5.0

Was the support package worth it?

Yes


Quality of technical support

(2)
4.5

Quality of peer user community

(2)
5.0
1 2 3 4 5
Section
1

Product Capabilities

Overall rating of product capabilities

(2)
5.0
Section
1

Additional Context

What was the nature of your involvement? Multiple responses allowed.

Development/Integration

Implementation, Maintenance or other IT support

System Administrator

User Training

Analytics Team Leader

Application Lead

End User Support Manager

Technical assessment

Vendor/Product Selection


Why did you purchase the software or service? Multiple responses allowed.

Create internal/operational efficiencies

Cost management

Drive innovation

Improve business process agility

Improve compliance and risk management


What were the key factors that drove your decision? Multiple responses allowed.

Breadth of services

Product functionality and performance

Strong user community

Overall cost

Pre-existing relationships

Product roadmap and future vision

Strong consulting partnership

Strong customer focus

Strong services expertise


In which region(s) did your deployment take place? Multiple responses allowed.

North America