• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
TSB Alfresco Cobrand White tagline

Technology Services Group

  • Home
  • Products
    • Alfresco Enterprise Viewer
    • OpenContent Search
    • OpenContent Case
    • OpenContent Forms
    • OpenMigrate
    • OpenContent Web Services
    • OpenCapture
    • OpenOverlay
  • Solutions
    • Alfresco Content Accelerator for Claims Management
      • Claims Demo Series
    • Alfresco Content Accelerator for Policy & Procedure Management
      • Compliance Demo Series
    • OpenContent Accounts Payable
    • OpenContent Contract Management
    • OpenContent Batch Records
    • OpenContent Government
    • OpenContent Corporate Forms
    • OpenContent Construction Management
    • OpenContent Digital Archive
    • OpenContent Human Resources
    • OpenContent Patient Records
  • Platforms
    • Alfresco Consulting
      • Alfresco Case Study – Canadian Museum of Human Rights
      • Alfresco Case Study – New York Philharmonic
      • Alfresco Case Study – New York Property Insurance Underwriting Association
      • Alfresco Case Study – American Society for Clinical Pathology
      • Alfresco Case Study – American Association of Insurance Services
      • Alfresco Case Study – United Cerebral Palsy
    • HBase
    • DynamoDB
    • OpenText & Documentum Consulting
      • Upgrades – A Well Documented Approach
      • Life Science Solutions
        • Life Sciences Project Sampling
    • Veeva Consulting
    • Ephesoft
    • Workshare
  • Case Studies
    • White Papers
    • 11 Billion Document Migration
    • Learning Zone
    • Digital Asset Collection – Canadian Museum of Human Rights
    • Digital Archive and Retrieval – ASCP
    • Digital Archives – New York Philharmonic
    • Insurance Claim Processing – New York Property Insurance
    • Policy Forms Management with Machine Learning – AAIS
    • Liferay and Alfresco Portal – United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Chicago
  • About
    • Contact Us
  • Blog

Documentum and SharePoint – Key differences for document control applications

You are here: Home / Documentum / Document Control / Documentum and SharePoint – Key differences for document control applications

March 3, 2010

We have recently begun working with a couple of clients on potential migration efforts from Documentum to SharePoint for their document control applications.  In preparing for these efforts, we are in the process of upgrading OpenContent, OpenMigrate and even parts of HPI to run on either SharePoint or Documentum.  For this post, we thought it might benefit those familiar with Documentum to understand the differences for a typical control application.

Search

Documentum users tend to be pretty proficient at using the Documentum search for finding the right information.  In a document control application, a typical search might be “show me all SOPs for any plant that include this equipment number”.  In Documentum, this would be a search on both attributes (SOP doctype, plant) and full text (equipment number) and could either be accomplished with Webtop Search, HPI or another search interface.  For SharePoint, the search is somewhat more difficult for a couple of reasons:

  • SharePoint is divided around “sites” with each site having a library.  In an instance where there are multiple plants, the administrator would have to decide whether to set up an “SOP” site with one library to enable this search (would leave the folder navigation very crowded) or a site per plant with libraries that contain more than just SOPs.  (would force separate searches on each site).
  • SharePoint doesn’t easily provide for cross-library searches with attributes.  Basic search is limited to full text but, like Doucmentum simple search, is just a Google-like full text search with search results.
  • SharePoint advanced search is available and is similar to Webtop search.  Users have to build a query; however, users don’t get pre-populated pick lists like in Webtop.   Also, SharePoint doesn’t natively support the idea of a “contains” search and defaults to an equals or does not equal search, forcing the user to have to type and spell the whole value correctly.  For advanced cross-library searches, all attributes (called properties in SharePoint) from any library are in one giant property pick list and not shared across libraries (doc type for one library would have to be named something different for another library or it would show up twice).
  • SharePoint search results only provide a “Google-like” result list – not the tabular, sortable format that Documentum and HPI users expect.   For example, being able to sort on an attribute column or download search results to Excel is not available in SharePoint.
  • SharePoint does not provide for saved searches like Documentum or HPI.

We are enhancing HPI Search with access to SharePoint via the SOAP APIs.  Like Documentum users, the ability to have a robust, configured search is a common enhancement for document control applications.

Document Retrieval – Support for PDF

As we pointed out in a previous post, Documentum users are used to storing a variety of document formats and doing retrievals, overlays, annotations and other functions on a rendered PDF.  SharePoint “out of the box” doesn’t really support the automatic generation/storage of a PDF rendition or the ability to add overlays for document header/footer/signature page like Documentum users are used to seeing with PDF Aqua or OpenOverlay.  While there is a strong add-on market for SharePoint (we are adding to it as well for this), those evaluating should understand that any rendition would be stored as a separate object in SharePoint and would require some type of training/customization to make sure the PDF rendition was viewed/manipulated for retrieval.

Document Storage and Navigation

Most Documentum users are used to a cabinet/folder metaphor .  For SharePoint, the concept of Site/Library might be somewhat similar.  As already highlighted above, deciding to create and SOP site or a Plant site will be a major decision with impacts through the design of the application.  The difficult part of SharePoint is that within a library, the applications forces “common” property views.  To take advantage of the interface, users need to set up views per document type.  Some other key SharePoint differences:

  • Security – Security can be managed on a document level but, out of the box, the security is  not tied to document status as is typically setup with a Documentum lifecycle and ACL.  For example, with a Documentum lifecycle, you can set up that users cannot update when pending approval, can not edit when approved/effective, but can edit in Draft.  In SharePoint, out of the box users can edit no matter what the document status value.
  • Renditions – as mentioned above, documents appear in their native format without the concept of a PDF rendition.
  • Office Integration – SharePoint has superior Microsoft Office integration to Documentum alternatives.

Workflow Review

Because SharePoint does not support document renditions, SharePoint workflow is more of a check-in/check-out process with track changes on whereas Documentum approvers typically review a PDF rendition and annotate/provide comments.  One concern about using native word tools is that reviewers can be too likely to be word-smithing  throughout  rather than reviewing content.  Also, the check-out lock limits parallel review.   Lastly, the lack of PDF support requires similar functions to insert header/footer into the word document giving the appearance that it might be editable.  We couldn’t get document name, version and status per our testing into the header.

Workflow Approval

The out of the box approval workflow still has check-out enabled.  Users should configure/customize SharePoint to remove that ability.  If users update approved document content after other approvers have finished, the integrity of the approval is lessened.  Editing during the workflow works for document review, but not a true approval process.

Electronic signatures are not supported out of the box.  If you want to capture a user’s signature, you have to insert a signature object into the Word document.  SharePoint does audit and provide adequate reporting status tools.

Final Thoughts

Overall, most Documentum users will see SharePoint as a “light” ECM tool and, from what we have experienced, will be frustrated with certain functionality and how best to incorporate their process for managing controlled documents.  Please add a comment or contact us with any thoughts or questions you may have.

Update 2013 – with SharePoint continuing to fade, we are seeing more and more clients consider Alfresco as a Documentum Alternative – please view solution and related screencams from a recent Alfresco Webinar.

Filed Under: Document Control, Documentum, OpenContent Management Suite, OpenMigrate, Search, SharePoint

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Ben Yomtoob says

    March 3, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    I think you make excellent points about the weaknesses of SharePoint and some of the challenges that someone who will be migrating faces. You can definitely add value by developing useful applications that patch some of these wholes. Expect to find a whole lot more as you get more into it.

    Reply
  2. Anhtuan Doventry says

    March 4, 2010 at 11:20 am

    For us, the search deficiencies are going to be the hard parts to work around.

    Reply
  3. sonia says

    March 25, 2010 at 1:22 am

    Hi ,

    my question is….

    What is the difference between versioning of documents in documentum and sharepoint??? is major and minor is availble in MOSS as present in documentum???

    I need version info in detail to find out key difference between documentum and MOSS?

    Reply
    • bethtee says

      March 25, 2010 at 1:21 pm

      Yes, you are able to major and minor version in MOSS and it is facilitated through the checkin/checkout process. Within a document library you can even configure rules around how you want versioning to behave (similar to what you can do with Documentum Compliance Manager) – these include options such as “always major version” or “major or minor version”. In addition to configuring versioning rules, you have the ability to configure retention rules around versions (e.g., delete all minor versions after document is published). Out of the box, MOSS delivers quite a bit of flexibility with how documents are versioned.

      Reply
  4. Mike Sharp says

    September 9, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    This statement isn’t quite correct, or is at least misleading:

    “The difficult part of SharePoint is that within a library, the applications forces “common” property views.”

    The relationship between a document and it’s properties is related to the content type, not the library. A single library can have any number of content types, each with it’s own set of properties. The properties are not necessarily related to the document type either; For example, you can have three PDFs, each belonging to a different content type and therefore having different properties. All can peacefully exist in the same library.

    Also, search scopes are a separately managed thing in SharePoint. You can create search scopes that cover a variety of sites. And you’re in no way restricted to a single library per site. Even if you set it up that way, this statement is not correct:

    “or a site per plant with libraries that contain more than just SOPs. (would force separate searches on each site).”

    If you want a global search, you configure a global scope.

    But, as you mention, one significant difference is the lack of native renditions in SharePoint.

    Regards,
    Mike Sharp

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Documentum Implementations – “Over Customized” or “Over Sold” « TSG Blog says:
    May 20, 2010 at 5:01 am

    […] types of structured things Documentum typically does is not easy and often not possible.  See our previous post for configuring SharePoint for controlled […]

    Reply
  2. Documentum – Top 12 Tips « TSG Blog says:
    June 28, 2010 at 4:04 am

    […] are your customers are already looking at it.  Proactive Documentum clients have considered SharePoint and understand how to leverage connectivity rather than replacement.  TSG connectivity items are […]

    Reply
  3. Documentum Migration to Alfresco – Part 1 « TSG Blog says:
    July 19, 2010 at 7:03 am

    […] clients are pursuing a SharePoint direction.  We have addressed some of the SharePoint thoughts in previous posts .  For Documentum users, some of the advantages of Alfresco […]

    Reply
  4. Documentum OR SharePoint for Complaince? Thoughts on a mixed approach. « TSG Blog says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:33 am

    […] be as easy as email” – another unstructured collaboration tool.  As discussed in a previous post, using SharePoint for compliance involves moving away from a user driven collaboration application […]

    Reply
  5. Documentum, Document Control and Alfresco « TSG Blog says:
    August 13, 2010 at 9:50 am

    […] differences in regards to renditions and other common Document Control functions.  See previous post on SharePoint for Document […]

    Reply
  6. TSG Blog – 18 months and counting « TSG Blog says:
    September 13, 2010 at 6:16 am

    […] – Multiple Documentum related posts including Understanding differences for Document Control , Documentum OR SharePoint for Compliance, SharePoint – Adding ECM Structure and […]

    Reply
  7. Documentum and SharePoint – Key differences for document control applications Part II « TSG Blog says:
    December 7, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    […] initial post back in March comparing Documentum and SharePoint for document control continues to be one of our […]

    Reply
  8. Documentum, SharePoint, Alfresco – Document Control for Life Sciences | TSG Blog says:
    April 22, 2013 at 8:54 am

    […] – SharePoint 2010 got a ton of attention from customers in 2010 (related post – Documentum and SharePoint – Key differences for document control applications) but many are viewing SharePoint as less of an ECM play and more of a collaboration […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Search

Related Posts

  • OpenContent Solr Services – New TSG Product Offering
  • Documentum – Momentum EMC World 2014 Recap – Some bunts, hits as well as some swings
  • Documentum – Replacing External SharePoint Sites with a Simple Cached Approach
  • Documentum – EMC World/Momentum 2012 – TSG Recap
  • Alfresco Consulting – Consulting in an Open Source world
  • Alfresco Consulting – Documentum Disruptor #2
  • Documentum – Top 12 Tips
  • Third Annual TSG Client Briefing – June 3rd – 2010
  • Documentum Full Text Search with Lucene – Honoring ACL Security
  • Documentum – What’s Next Updated for 2010

Recent Posts

  • Alfresco Content Accelerator and Alfresco Enterprise Viewer – Improving User Collaboration Efficiency
  • Alfresco Content Accelerator – Document Notification Distribution Lists
  • Alfresco Webinar – Productivity Anywhere: How modern claim and policy document processing can help the new work-from-home normal succeed
  • Alfresco – Viewing Annotations on Versions
  • Alfresco Content Accelerator – Collaboration Enhancements
stacks-of-paper

11 BILLION DOCUMENT
BENCHMARK
OVERVIEW

Learn how TSG was able to leverage DynamoDB, S3, ElasticSearch & AWS to successfully migrate 11 Billion documents.

Download White Paper

Footer

Search

Contact

22 West Washington St
5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602

inquiry@tsgrp.com

312.372.7777

Copyright © 2023 · Technology Services Group, Inc. · Log in

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. Please accept this site's cookies, but you can opt-out if you wish. Privacy Policy ACCEPT | Cookie settings
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT