OnBase Premium Enterprise

I was a vendor managing Hyland OnBase  for Hyland, not as a direct user but as a business partner. We managed the solution and were a partner with Hyland.

Hyland OnBase  is valued for its security, especially for those in the finance domain who require data confidentiality. Furthermore, the solution offers a variety of integrations with other tools, such as Epic in the UK. This integration ensures seamless data access and management. Lastly, Hyland OnBase is available in a desktop version, a cloud version preferred by healthcare teams due to public data requirement, and a mobile version which is akin to healthcare applications like Practo in India. It is widely used in healthcare due to these facets.

I believe the reporting features need improvement, as other competitors in the market provide better analytics. Hyland is working on a new platform (HXP) to integrate features from all products, addressing some concerns. Additionally, there could be more integration points with products Hyland has acquired, such as Alfresco  and Nuxeo . Offering a trial version with basic features would allow users to experience the product before purchasing. I find OnBase's monolithic architecture to be expensive, and adopting microservices could be beneficial.

I worked with it last year until approximately March 2024.

I find Hyland OnBase to be a stable product. I would rate it eight out of ten.

While I believe scalability is achievable due to integration possibilities, it comes at a high cost due to the extensive setup currently required. Transitioning to cloud-based services may reduce these costs in the future.

I find technical support from Hyland to be good. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

I found the initial setup to be complex. A trial version with a simpler setup could be beneficial, similar to how games offer a level to try before fully installing.

I find pricing to be on the higher side due to its monolithic architecture. I would rate it six out of ten. Transitioning to microservices, allowing users to pay for only what they use, could reduce costs.

Currently, I find OnBase's architecture adds to the cost, and the setup process is expensive and complex. Additionally, its advantages lie in its security and integration capabilities, although more integration points are needed to incorporate Hyland's acquired products without loss. I would rate the overall solution six out of ten.

On-premises

Hyland OnBase  was used as our primary document and image repository, and we extensively utilized the workflow module within it. It was used to store all of our customer documents, system-generated reports, operational items we needed, and check images. We built out a workflow module, including one specific for accounts payable.

Integrating Hyland OnBase  with our systems enabled us to automate document designs and templates, which was extremely helpful in the finance and banking industry. 

The application allowed integration of front-end customer onboarding processes to create, route, ingest documents, and route them for approval within the application, enhancing audit traceability.

Hyland OnBase offered robust system features ranging from configuring indexing fields to building auto-import routines for regular file imports. 

It provided data security features, allowing restrictions on sensitive documents, such as who could view or modify them. 

The user interface was intuitive, and the product integrated well with other applications like Outlook and Salesforce , enabling easy document indexing and access.

We found the size of images to be a restriction, though this may have been due to the API used rather than the Hyland application. The application could potentially be more open-source, allowing integration with more solutions.

I used Hyland OnBase for approximately eight years, starting around 2015.

Hyland OnBase was a stable solution that worked effectively for us, providing traceability and data security.

We had an enterprise license, which allowed unlimited users and a number of workflow licenses. We never crossed the threshold of workflow licenses, as the workflow was executed via system licenses, not directly through user licensing.

We primarily worked with Fiserv for technical support and not directly with Hyland. The Fiserv team was helpful, although instances existed where their database was tricky to manage. 

Our vendor relationship facilitated integration with our system and offered additional service beyond the Hyland OnBase product.

We transitioned from a document image repository to Hyland OnBase.

The initial setup was complex, particularly building a custom accounts payable workflow module. This task was supported and guided by the vendor, Fiserv.

Our implementation was managed by Fiserv, who served as the vendor and reseller, providing key insights and support during the complex integration process.

As we had an enterprise license, we were not limited in terms of user access. We also paid for workflow licenses, which allowed up to 250 concurrent users.

Alfresco  was an alternative used within the organization, but I only engaged with it as a generic user.

Hyland OnBase appeared more robust compared to Alfresco , but this perception might be influenced by deployment and configuration differences. Users appreciated the user interface and extensive integration capabilities.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the solution for document management and process management.

The solution interconnects areas and allows for real-time information.

The solution's most valuable features are integration and flexibility. Allows you to manage all types of organizational information content

The solution’s initial setup is a little complex. The look and feel need improvement as well.

I have been using Hyland OnBase  for eight years.

Th stability is okay.

The solution’s scalability is excellent. Around 80 users are using the solution in our organization.

The technical support team takes time to resolve a ticket.

Positive

We previously used SharePoint  and knowledge tree. We switched to Hyland OnBase  because SharePoint  doesn't provide much flexibility. 

The solution’s initial setup is a little complex. The deployment took around six months. Three people, including an administrator, were involved in the solution's deployment. The solution is deployed on the Hyland cloud.

A vendor team implemented the solution and I would rate them an eight.

The solution costs around $5,000 per month. It is very relative.

I valuated other options.

The solution helps with compliance and data security. I would recommend the solution to other users because of its stability, flexibility, and security.

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

It's the enterprise document storage utility, handling everything from member statements to reports and checks written against member accounts.

Its most valuable aspect is its flexibility. You can apply any keyword to search for anything within a document. This flexibility is also its biggest drawback: If you overuse the number of keywords, you can run into performance issues.

Software malfunctioning usually occurs when we receive documents from external sources. The incidents are related to the source not providing the correct accompanying metadata or keywords, which then requires manual adjustments.

I have been using Hyland OnBase for a year.

Eight people are using this solution. We have over a billion documents in our repository, it scales pretty well.

We wanted to implement a stored procedure against their database instead of using their internal or provided APIs. To get permission, you have to go through an entire legal process.

They bear some liability if a document gets lost, destroyed, or leaked, so they don't want to give customers unrestricted access to write anything against their database. Even after we demonstrated the performance issues, they kept suggesting alternatives. They agreed only after we proved that their APIs couldn't deliver the performance we needed. We had to go through a legal negotiation to amend the contract to allow the stored procedure.

Positive

They provide a SOAP-based API, which has been difficult to integrate with our MuleSoft Service Bus. We're considering moving to their more modern REST API, which has better security hooks that we can leverage more effectively with MuleSoft.

A typical system deployment can happen overnight. We don't have an automated pipeline for the application; everything is done manually. If it's strictly an update to the configuration, and barring testing, it's an overnight process.

Everyone involved in development, configuration, business analysis, and management is part of one team. A separate team of about four people is responsible for administration tasks such as patching the servers and installing the updates developed by the development group.

The product does what you need to do if you have a regulatory need to retain a document for X number of months or X number of years. It allows you to set that expiration date, and once it hits that retention period, assuming you put one, it will handle the removal. For example, financial institutions must keep checks and images on hand for two years. After two years, checks older than that are automatically removed from the database and the repository.

They have AI offerings, but we have not yet investigated them.

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

I am an IT personnel. We are supporting the tool. I am working for an IT firm here, and we are supporting a client.

The solution's most valuable characteristics are its features, mostly those used by its client, like workflows, some advanced capture stuff, dashboards, and reports.

The migration is a bit difficult in the tool. Whenever we make certain changes to workflow or other stuff, migrating the code from one environment to another is a bit tedious. The tool has an option for export and import, which is not robust. Most of the time, we need to do things stuff manually. For example, if we make any changes in the existing life cycle or any queues, we have to move those changes manually. There is no robust way to migrate code from one environment to a lower environment, like prod.

When it comes to the product's technical support, the turnaround time is a bit longer than expected. The issue may be because there are a number of issues or a large number of customers who are reaching out to the support team for help. I believe that the solution's technical team can provide a solution more quickly.

I have been using Hyland OnBase for ten years.

Whenever we have something or need assistance from a tool that is beyond our reach, like there are certain limitations, querying databases, or maybe any critical issues, we definitely reach out the solution's technical support team. I think my company is satisfied with the support of the product. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have experience with OpenText Documentum. Architecture and technology-wise, OpenText Documentum and Hyland OnBase are completely different. OpenText Documentum is more of a Java-based tool. Hyland OnBase has a .NET framework. Our client used OpenText Documentum for the manufacturing domain. They use the tool to maintain content related to the user guides, installation guides, and the images of the appliances, all this stuff. I am not sure how good OpenText Documentum is for the insurance domain, but it is good for manufacturing. Hyland OnBase has an expensive licensing model. What I feel is OpenText Documentum is more expensive than maintaining Hyland OnBase.

The product's initial setup phase is not difficult. I have managed three upgrades, so I can do everything individually with the tool. The upgrades were for the services used by clients.

My company takes care of the product's deployment phase in a sequence, though not always. Initially, maybe the first step would be the database of Hyland OnBase, followed by the services according to end-user clients. Applications and web clients are involved in the deployment, So it has a sequence, and it will take maybe six months. We need to do testing, starting from lower enrollments and all those things.

The product is insurance domain-friendly in nature. The tool is being used in domains other than insurance. What I feel is that the tool is more of an insurance domain-friendly tool. I think it benefits the insurance industry a lot in terms of security, maintaining the content, and using the workflows.

It is being integrated with Guidewire. Some other person did the Guidewire and Hyland OnBase integration, so it was in place, but we maintain stuff and support the integration.

I haven't explored any AI features in the tool. I think the tool has recently implemented a lot of changes with the cloud and is introducing new features as well, but I need to explore them.

I can recommend the tool to others. Once the setup of the tool is done for an organization, one has to look into more of the configuration part. They don't have to go for much complex customizations. If they are ready to spend time on the cloud-based maintenance of the servers, everything will be managed by Hyland, and the users won't have to take care of many such areas. If the users want to be secured and be within their network, they can go with the existing Windows-based servers, where they need to maintain the servers and databases.

With the features and advanced capture functionality, along with the content management stuff, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.