Interesting things about ECM


SharePoint 2007 Workflow (WWF) VS OpenText Livelink Workflow

Filed under: Open Text, Sharepoint — Anthony Fast @ 7:43 am


SharePoint 2007 Workflow (Visual Studio 2008) Livelink  Workflow (Livelink Server 9.7)
Workflow Platform Type Framework Engine
Electronic Forms Support Yes (InfoPath) Yes (LL Forms Module)
Interoperability with Desktop Applications Yes (Microsoft Office Suite Only) No
Interoperability with Email Yes Yes
Integration with Line of Business Applications Yes No (Actually maybe with some insanely complicated level of integration)
Electronic Signatures Yes (WRMS, a bit complicated) Yes (eSign)
Supports Attachments Yes Yes
Expression builder (WF Logic) Yes Yes
Dynamically assigning WF steps to Users With customisation Yes
Easy MIS Needs to be built Yes (OOB)
Logging Needs to be created in WF Yes (OOB)
Interoperability with custom services and web services Yes No
Development Required Yes No (except for customisation)
Development Language .NET OScript

First of all, it was only since Visual Studio 2008 came out that I decided to start comparing elements of SharePoint 2007 such as Workflow and Business Process Management to other leading Enterprise Content Management systems. Before that exercise would be pointless.

Livelink in this game comes as a seasoned veteran and SharePoint 2007 and WWF are playing the catch-up game here, so I’ll focus more on how much WWF caught up so far.

Windows Workflow Foundation’s (in SharePoint context) biggest weakness is in fact that it’s a framework that requires skilled developers to design workflows where other workflow solution are in a form of an engine, with very easy, user friendly design studio that can easily be mastered by less skilled people (basically non-developers).

That, being a weakness, in fact is also the biggest strength of WWF, as in my personal career, the percentage of clients that were happy with OOB (out of the box) workflow (such as Livelink) functionality is less than 30%.

On the other side customisation in WWF now is almost flawless, it provides variety of highly functional Workflow steps that make use of the latest technology available for .NET, and is provided in known strongly supported languages (such as C#). Whereas in Livelink for example, the whole solution is written in a proprietary language called OScript (written especially for Livelink) which is object orientated (mostly similar to C, has elements like assocs and stuff) with a very good object model but also very outdated making the customisation less then easy (in today’s terms), and since it is proprietary the skills are very scarce (there’s only very few of us in the country that are good with it) making it not very profitable for the clients and service providers.

Also, to add a custom step to Livelink workflow requires creating whole module, installing it and in some cases having to even re-do the existing workflow (if it existed before), they don’t have the code activity type steps (although other WF engines like K2.NET and FYI have it).

Windows Workflow Foundation for MOSS2007 also wins “BIG TIME” with InfoPath 2007 and Forms server with SharePoint 2007 against Livelink Forms. Being able to add various controls from the InfoPath UI to your SharePoint 2007 Electronic forms is a good start, and then controls such as: Repeating Sections, Repeating Tables, Optional Sections, leave Livelink Forms far behind.

Livelink still leads with the tight integration of workflow with rest of the Livelink suite, consisting of much more refined products to better provide various Enterprise Content Management Solutions.

All in all the race has become tight and I see MS SharePoint 2007 Workflow solution leading in near future if the OpenText Livelink crowd doesn’t realise how important it is to keep your solution on the latest Development Platform.

The talk has been for some time that version 10 of Livelink will be completely re-written in Java, we’re yet to see if that will increase the stakes in the game (if it comes any time soon).

SharePoint 2007 Workflow (Business Process Management) Solutions are solid enough to play with the big boys now, even without the help from the mighty (yet expensive) BizTalk server.


  1. Your comparison of Livelink and SharePoint workflow is not really a comparison at all. You are basically saying that if you are a consultant who knows programming and Visual Studio then WWF is a great tool. But the Livelink Workflow “out of the box” allows a whole layer of ECM professionals, Business Analysts, Knowledge Managers etc. to design workflows for their users.

    I’ve worked with Livelink workflow for years and the 30% figure you give for those “satisfied” with it is wrong. If you are a consultant then you probably only see those who want a custom solution which is great for you and your continued employment. But you don’t see the thousands of people who are simply designing helpful workflows. It is also incorrect to say “there’s only very few of us in the country that are good with” Oscript. There are many independant consultants and Open Text partners who use it every day along with Open Text’s own Global Services organization. If you are really a professional programmer/consultant it is simply another scripting language to learn along with the Builder tool.

    In your comparison you state Livelink workflow has no “Interoperability with custom services and web services”. This is incorrect. With 9.7 and 9.7.1 Livelink is using Web Services and that is now preferred over LAPI. You say Livelink WF integrates with other Business applications “Actually maybe with some insanely complicated level of integration”. There are dozens (possibly hundreds) of consultants and partners who have managed integrations using OScript, LAPI, Web Services and XML tools supports by Livelink. None of these are “insanely complicated” considering Livelink can be conected to Sharepoint, SAP, JD Edwards and many other systems.

    You have several other errors, but I’ll leave it at that. I think the real decision about which workflow tool to use depends on many other conditions. For example, is the customer totally comitted to only Sharepoint? Do they want a robust ECM solution like Livelink that offers true Records Management? Do they want a workflow tool that can be used by many internal users and easily tweaked by different departments or do they want to outsource it to consultants and have few options to modify it themselves? How customizable do they need it to be? Who do they want to customize it?


    Comment by Anton — 2010/03/11 @ 7:16 am

    • Hello,

      My company is going live with livelink for core ECM. for workflow we are using K2 since 8 years and many critical business processes automated with K2. i want integration of K2 with livelink.

      if anyone can help on this, please reply.(

      Comment by Rana Irfan — 2012/01/03 @ 9:21 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: