HP Autonomy Intelligent Universal Search (discontinued) vs. Intapp Time

It does a decent job at its core functions (that other free software does just as well or better).

Time recording and time entry are such a massive and universal pain point for all timekeepers. All timekeepers perform this task on an almost daily basis. Anything that speeds up or eases that task is worth its weight in gold. Even if a timekeeper is working on a project that is billed on a fixed fee we still need accurate time entries to ensure that we are meeting our own profitability objectives.

Incentivized

• It adheres to traditional Microsoft standards such as: fact-dump documentation with no coherent story or 'best practices' information, inability to automate common tasks, intentional obfuscation of its basic operations.
• It provides OK search results. Not great, but OK.

• Timers: IntApp Time's timer functions are well thought out and meet the esoteric needs of different timekeeper's styles
• Integration: IntApp Time integrates well with our accounting systems.
• IntApp Time has been a reliable application for us.
• Users perfer the IntApp Time interface to other products.

Incentivized

• There are about a dozen different config files to maintain, and the most important one is dynamically modified by Autonomy itself while it runs. Which means that it is impossible to automate the configuration or keep the configs in versioned source control. Even `cp *.cfg ~/cfgbak/` won't help you roll back a change, because it is never safe to restore a previous config. You'll be using `diff new.cfg old.cfg` a lot.
• The Linux port is poorly thought out. The binaries are named *.exe. The StartService.sh scripts contain both `echo 'Are you sure you want to start the service? Hit ctrl-C to cancel''; read dummy` and, I kid you not, a `chmod a+x /path/to/my/binary.exe`.
• Many features are poorly documented, leading to lots of back and forth with the support department just to answer basic questions like "what does this error code in my logs signify?"
• It seems to reinvent the wheel, poorly, everywhere. E.g. the scheduled backup feature rolls through a user-defined finite list of directories in which to store backups. On day 0 it uses directory 0, on day 1 it uses directory 1, and after day N it rolls back and overwrites directory 0. Why would this be preferable to using a single directory and naming zip files based on the current timestamp?

• Interface could be updated (appears outdated)
• Having multiple timers open in one screen to start and stop projects fluidly
• Better mobile app time keeping

Incentivized

Management wants to see ROI on the (hefty) cost of purchasing this software, and has mandated that we continue using it. We would prefer to switch immediately.

There are three competitors to Intapp Time that I know of, and have looked at, but it's been years. Those competitors are Element55, Aderant Found Time and Smart Time. Every time I compared any of those products to the current version of Intapp Time then Intapp Time came out on top. Element 55 seemed have a bit of a clunky interface when I last looked. Aderant Found Time seemed like a limited success at copying Intapp Time; the software itself seemed a little burdensome, both on the client and the back end.

Incentivized

• I have learned to tack a zero onto the end of any estimate I make for how long an Autonomy change will take in both planning and implementation.

• Obviously, time capture for billing is a vital function. At this time we believe IntApp Time is best of the breed in this regard, though competition is coming.
• Recording timekeeping is something all timekeepers hate. IntApp time doesn't do as much as it potentially could to ease this pain, using predictive algorithms for example.
• For timekeepers who are diligent, IntApp time provides all the tools necessary to record and closely manage worked time, its primary functionality.

Incentivized