Poll for Domino Document Manager / Domino.Doc customers - why are you not using Lotus Quickr as a replacement?

March 5 2009

I would like to generate some feedback on why more DDM / Domino.Doc customers have not moved to Lotus Quickr. With the withdrawal of the product announced this year at Lotusphere, all DDM / Domino.Doc customers have a full entitlement for Lotus Quickr licenses. Are you looking to migrate to Lotus Quickr? Are IBM FileNet or Content Manager on your radar? Are you looking at competitor products? This is an open-ended thread - post whatever you want. Just be constructive. No pure complaints please - you need to suggest ideas on how to fix it.

Like the other two polls, I will reserve my thoughts on this until Monday. This feedback is not just for me or the Lotus bubble, but will be used for the DomDoc Redbook and the feedback will go directly to the Lotus Quickr team. No promises they do anything about it, but I have an opportunity to deliver the message directly.

9 Responses to “Poll for Domino Document Manager / Domino.Doc customers - why are you not using Lotus Quickr as a replacement?”

  1. 1) Patrick Picard says:

    Hi John, Although our migration plan is not in place or in the books yet. I hope we will migrate to QuickR/Filenet. We already are implementing Filenet in Q4 to replace IBM Ondemand and Sonora.

    We currently use Domino doc. for CEO/CFO certification documentation approval and its a pretty thorough approval process...but users always have to go back to a user manual to determine who the approvers are for that document type. I've seen some of the integration between Filenet and QuickR at lotusphere and I was impressed. I just hope that all approval workflow can be set on the document type in filenet and have that approval workflow bubble up to quickr, thus eliminating the need for that user manual.

    In the end, I want QuickR with a strong set of approval capabilities that require as little development as possible to make work. From what i've seen of Quickr to date..the document approval toolset is pretty limited in comparison to domdoc.

  2. 2) Enzo Stanzione says:

    I wanted to tell here, briefly, about my experience and implementation of Domino.Doc, so you can pass my message to the authors of Redbook.

    The solution to move from Domino.Doc to Quickr (J2EE version, however, not the Domino version) is acceptable only if it has been used a workflow for the baseline, and only if it has not changed the basic structure of Domino.Doc. Otherwise customizations (and this is my case) should be implemented again.

    My clients have asked me what is the right path to follow and if necessary to switch to something more serious, such as Content Manager or FileNet.

    This is the current situation here in Italy, and I think it is the same all over the world.

    As for the customization of type "based on custom code, the problem is the Business Partner, who will find the corresponding in the new environment.

    From IBM, I expect that the migration tool to Quickr and other ECM systems must be simple to use, to be precise in data migration and should be available in time to be able to prove in a test environment.

    Redbook are usually used by me and appreciated every day, so I expect a publication of high level and very practical to use.

    Tell the staff well, we are all confident in their abilities.

  3. 3) Peter Smith says:

    Some of the reasons to hesitate over moving to Quickr (Domino) would include:

    1.Difficulties customizing Quickr nsf's compared to ddm cabinets (all that haiku stuff!).

    2. scalability - DDM cabinets can scale with multiple document databases, Quickrs would need manual rooms and even then a folder couldn't span rooms.

    3. Poor connectors - Quickr didn't learn the lessons of DDM connectors. In Quickr (for instance)... forcing meta data via connectors is tedious and not obvious for users, folder structures display alphabetically in explorer, not in the layout of the Quickr...

    So, what do they need? -

    improve connectors to give a consistent and intuitive experience (I know the DDM connector had it's problems - I raised enough PMRs over the years for it).

    Provide a guide for how to map DDM taxonomies into Quickrs - how to represent library structures, should binders be Quickr rooms, how to manage quickrs to allow for growing content. What should customers with binder level security do to recreate in Quickr etc.

    One of the missing pieces for Quickr has been sizing info like we had for DDM - how many docs, binders per cabinet, guide to cabinet sizes etc. I've never seen similar info for Quickrs (may actually exist somewhere).

    From what I'm seeing large complex DDM systems are in the process of moving away to other (non IBM) products, the year of inaction from Lotusphere 2008 to 09 gave them time to choose another way.

  4. 4) keith Brooks says:

    My clients want to move to Quickr, but we are waiting on 8.5 domino and 8.2 quickr.

    Why didnt we move last year?we started too and I was going to post how to do it, but the process broke and rather than waste more time we got dragged into a wait and see by IBM for a year, not Jelan's fault but it put 3 sites on hold. Not painfully. When Doc is installed properly and maintained its very efficient and easy to maintain which is why they have not pushed to move.

    Also these are mostly vanilla installs which is what was frustrating that the ibm content integrator couldn't do it.

  5. 5) Paul Gagnon says:

    Oh wow, thanks John. I did not know this, I've got a stack of like 400 .doc licenses that are going to waste. Can't wait to get to the office tomorrow.

    How the heck did I miss this announcement?

  6. 6) Robert Harris says:

    A migration away from DomDoc will not be a 2009 project in my organization. At the earliest it will be a 2010 project, and more likely 2011. Our DomDoc environment is pretty much out of the box with only a handful of custom subforms. We will be going through a complete requirements analysis to determine the direction of the migration. Quickr or one of the other entitlements from IBM are options, but ALL options are on the table. Our organization has just implemented TRIM for records management, and it may be easier to migrate our document management system into that system.

    That said, Quickr is a tool we want to give a try, whether or not for use with document management. Having the licenses already makes it easier and I am hopeful to give the standalone (Domino) product a pilot later in 2009. Wish it could be earlier, but have to balance my resources.

    Look forward to seeing what comes out in the Redbook!

  7. 7) Sasa Brkic says:

    We are a small IBM Business Partner and have been using DomDoc to handle all business documents. We have strict rules (especially for technical documentation) with elaborate draft/version/review/approval workflows. DomDoc handles them easily with little work needed for customizations. It has solid web interface for working with documents when out of office. Our greatest problem with DomDoc are connectors (switching to Symphony at the moment and not having connectors is not making things easier!), and it is here that Quickr is definitely better.

    We are also using DomDoc as repository for important documents generated in our other Notes applications - DomDoc API is easy to work with.

    At the moment Quickr is just not good enough for these tasks. We are looking into FileNet as possible replacement, I am looking forward to an IBM event on Quickr/FileNet in Ljubljana, Slovenia, next week. I hope it will clear some things for me.

    Having said all that, we do use Quickr, I would assume as IBM originally intended. We use it for informal information sharing among ourselves and with our customers. It does cut down on e-mail amount and provides for easy document sharing and some light task tracking with our customers.

    Looking forward to the Redbook!

  8. 8) Rajesh Haran says:

    IMHO, IBM should continue to support / develop Domino.doc. Very simpy and easy to use out of the box product from IBM yet very roboust.

  9. 9) John Head says:

    Domino.Doc has been deemed End Of Life. There is no going back.

Leave a Reply