This is mainly for unstructured document management systems with workflow and data classification.

The overall extensive base APIs are available, and it is open for extension. This part is something I appreciate. You can have your own use cases and customizations. It is highly extensible, meaning you can do whatever you want. You can meet your users' expected features without having Alfresco's involvement. You don't need Alfresco to be there for your future enhancements, which is very advantageous.

After onboarding Alfresco, many applications got decommissioned and everything merged into Alfresco.

Currently, the challenge is the general availability to users. Initially, they had poor documentation, but over the years, their documentation has highly improved. Initially, we had challenges finding the extension points and understanding how to extend the system. The workflow was one of the hurdles we had. At that time, it was not that beautiful or feature-rich. Even today, workflow consists of basic workflows. If you want to extend, you have to implement your own customizations. They are using it extensively with features such as records management, CMIS, Share UI, and Web Scripts. All these features are being used extensively.

Governance of this system is required. If you don't have proper governance, things can go wrong. If you don't have a proper policy of how documents should be maintained, issues can arise. You have to make rules, such as one folder should not have more than 5,000 subfolders or children. This was advised by Alfresco, but we did not have that advice, so we had challenges when everything was dumped into single folders. It slows down the systems and sometimes becomes unusable. Whoever is going to use it should have that governance system in place.

It has been in use for around 10 years now.

Deployment is now straightforward with WAR-based deployments. They have a straightforward one-file deployment system. If you have different components, they need to improve that part as sometimes requirements are not declared.

Initially, the clustering was not efficient as you could not start multiple servers together. Those issues have now been corrected. In the past, you had to restart or start servers one by one, as two nodes could not join the cluster at the same time.

Customer support is good because they are responsive. Sometimes it takes time to resolve issues, but the customer support team attends to concerns promptly.

Positive

Before choosing Alfresco, there were in-house document management systems. Many document management systems existed with every business unit having their own system.

Initially, there were challenges. After release 6.2, these things became much better. Before 6.2, we faced various issues. With the help of Alfresco Technical Account Manager, we could resolve many of the problems.

I give Alfresco a rating of 8 out of 10. If I expect resolution today, I sometimes don't get it until tomorrow. However, the overall experience is not bad.

Hybrid Cloud

Other

Mostly, the primary use case is to store documents related to transactions in our company. These documents could be signed documents, invoices, purchase orders, etc. While transaction records are stored in our ERP system, it is crucial to have the document as proof of the transaction. We implement a content manager to link documents in Alfresco with the registry in the ERP system. This is the most important use case for us.

The advantage of Alfresco over other document storage solutions is that it allows for the creation of a persistent link between a document and a registry. Even if you update or version the document, the link remains unchanged. This makes the record independent of the document, which is beneficial as documents often change, and it helps avoid continual updates to the registry. Additionally, the ability to handle various document types, create workflows, and its extensive customizability, from my point of view as a developer, are also significant valuable features.

Currently, documents in Alfresco are stored on a file server, which, while good for performance, is a security risk. Clients, especially large enterprises such as banks, are concerned about document security if someone breaches the server. It would be beneficial if Alfresco offers different options for document storage, such as databases or cloud solutions. Also, it would be helpful if Alfresco's viewer could be easily embedded in other systems, as its integration is currently complex.

I have been working with Alfresco since 2010 or possibly earlier, around 2009, which means over 15 years.

Alfresco is very easy to deploy. In the past, it had a very useful installation tool, making it straightforward. Although current options include deployment through containers or as a service, it still remains quite easy to deploy. Clients have even installed Alfresco themselves before we customize it.

Alfresco is generally a very stable and high-performance platform. However, dealing with a massive number of documents can become problematic if the platform is not scaled properly. In older versions, the cluster implementation of Alfresco was challenging and required expertise. Newer versions offer platform as a service, which alleviates some performance issues.

Alfresco is a scalable platform, but scaling involves challenges, especially with older versions. Implementations needing to handle millions of documents may involve complex cluster setups requiring expert assistance. Clients not wishing to migrate to newer platform-as-a-service versions may face difficulties maintaining large document volumes.

Alfresco's technical support is very fast and professional. They are experts, which is reassuring when seeking help. Our interactions with them have been positive, and I feel confident in their expertise.

Positive

Before Alfresco, we have worked with FileNet from IBM, mainly in banks, and SharePoint from Microsoft. We have also done several projects with OpenText.

The initial setup of Alfresco is very easy. Currently, multiple options exist such as containers or cloud-based services, but it remains straightforward. Even non-expert teams can deploy it without difficulty.

We are partners and system integrators who sell Alfresco licenses and platforms based on it. We have our own product based on Alfresco.

Alfresco provides a significant return on investment by efficiently managing documents. While it is challenging for clients to immediately see the benefits, the long-term advantages include seamless document management and cost savings.

The pricing of Alfresco starts at $100,000, which can be expensive for small projects. There is often a transition from the community version to the licensed version, which incurs migration costs. Overall, the cost can be a deal breaker for small companies or government institutions with budget restrictions.

We have evaluated FileNet from IBM, SharePoint from Microsoft, and OpenText.

Alfresco is highly suitable for companies needing professional document storage with metadata, document types, categories, and specific content management security measures. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Alfresco as an eight.

On-premises

We used Alfresco as a document management system for automating and digitizing manual forms. Those were the main use cases.

The digitalization of workflow, forms, operations, and business processes has improved our organization.

The most valuable features of Alfresco include its integration with the scanning solution, the ability to search, and the capability to store and index to capture metadata. The digitalization of workflow, forms, operations, and business processes is also significant.

Alfresco could improve workflow digitalization and enhance artificial intelligence capabilities.

I have been working with Alfresco for approximately four years.

The stability of Alfresco is rated highly as it hardly goes down, deserving a rating of eight out of ten.

We encountered no issues with scalability. It scales well.

Customer support is responsive when we encounter issues, however, I would prefer a direct relationship with them, focusing on updating their products more like in an agile practice.

Neutral

We switched to SharePoint because it was part of our existing license with Office 365, eliminating the need for a separate license fee.

The setup process for Alfresco was complex.

We required a consultant for implementation, which was another concern.

Pricing is considered mid-range, and there are considerations regarding the cost of licensing.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Alfresco six. There is certainly room for improvement. I can recommend the product to other users.

I use Alfresco primarily to look up documents. However, it is not as user-friendly as the previous solution, Nautilus, which I was more familiar with due to my involvement in its configuration and setup.

It is a basic solution where you store documents and perform searches. Alfresco allows broad searches with many index fields that you can search on, although the created fields and their values may not be intuitive.

The configuration of Alfresco is a big challenge. The index fields and their values are not intuitive, making it difficult to find documents. You often need a cross-reference document to navigate categories for specific items like check images.

I have been using Alfresco for probably two years.

We have had to contact Hyland for scheduling classes or recertifications. They were always very helpful and friendly.

Previously, we used Nautilus, which I found more robust. I was involved in the configuration and setup of Nautilus, which made it easier for me to use. I have no idea why our company switched to Alfresco.

Setting up and configuring Alfresco is moderately challenging. On a scale of one to ten, it is probably about a five. Training is necessary, but Hyland provides the training, guidelines, reference books, and setup manuals to help. With the right guidance, it is relatively easy to figure out the setup.

The product might seem less robust due to improper configuration, and proper training is essential for effective use.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.