Oracle WebCenter Content vs. Xerox DocuShare

WebCenter Content is suitable for payables invoice processing for companies with a huge volume of paper invoices. 80% of data entry effort can be reduced. For small companies with less volume, WebCenter may not make sense. WebCenter is not perfect. It has some issues. We raised enhancement requests with Oracle, hopefully, Oracle will resolve them soon.

Incentivized

Great for SMB companies. Though we have many sites in international locales the distances involved make it unsuited for export outside the contiguous US

Incentivized

• It provided one single repository with a URL link to access each AP invoice.
• It gives a life cycle to each invoice where a business user can perform some additional indexing as per their needs.
• It also provides a reporting feature and a front-end for users to view invoices with ease and very helpful for auditing purpose.
• It uses the BPEL engine to customize the life cycle and also it can automate the auto entry of supplier invoices in your EBS system.
• Reduce a lot of manual efforts, manual errors and workforce.

Incentivized

• Search and retrieval are excellent.
• The web interface is easy and intuitive.
• There is a client interface for selected users who require one.

Incentivized

• Some functionality you would expect to be built-in (such as reporting for compliance) is not and requires other Oracle products to be integrated.
• Separating an invoice with multiple lines for different departments is not an easy task.

Incentivized

• The client could use improvement. It is characterized as a secondary interface by Xerox but for the users who prefer it is their primary entry point.

Incentivized

The challenges with converting to a completely new system create quite a barrier to switching to anything else. If we find another system that offers guaranteed improvements to the user interface -- as well as as a more coherent set of options for data interchanges with current and future enterprise data sources -- we would be more interested in swithing to that new product. Of course, the expense in purchasing competitor system, along with the costs of migrating all current content, along with retooling all existing workflows in place, would be carefully weighed against the benefits incurred from a switch-over.

It meets all required functionality requirements -- but handles none of them in an exceptional manner

I can't really provide an answer for this question because I think the basic premise is flawed. Which system an organization selects is based (or should be based) on their unique business and organizational requirements, not the features of the system. We do not recommend a particular solution to a client based on subjective preference for one system over another but rather for its appropriateness to achieve a particular goal or collection of goals.

We compared three top solutions at the time of selection and chose Docuhare for its ease of implementation, scalability and price

Incentivized

• We were looking for a scalable solution for invoice processing needs. WebCenter did fit the bill. It reduced manual data entry effort by 80%.
• WebCenter saved our storage costs. We do not need to store the physical paper copies anymore in our expensive offices.
• WebCenter increased the employee engagement and reduced monotonous data entry work. Employees now have time to spend on value-added work rather than data entry.
• Auditors were happy with the tool, as they can retrieve any document with the click of a button as opposed to search and find a physical document.

Incentivized

• Positive impact by reducing fees for secure storage of paper records.
• Reduction in the use of filing space and materials.
• Fast, efficient access to accounting data, e.g., invoices and receipts.

Incentivized