Stay on Documentum or leave it. Two good answers, and everyone quoting you only sells one.

SmartView is the modern user interface delivered with D2, not a separate platform purchase on top of it. Your licensing position depends on your current agreement and edition, which is exactly the kind of thing we pin down in the exposure summary rather than guess at here.

Yes. Running both interfaces in parallel is a standard transition pattern, and it’s how you avoid a big-bang cutover. Power users who live in Classic keep working while broader user groups move to SmartView in phases. The catch is governance: you need a dated plan for retiring Classic, or “transition” quietly becomes “forever.”

It handles much of the mechanical translation: presets, common configuration patterns, and structures that map cleanly from WebTop to D2. What it doesn’t do is understand your custom WDK code, your integrations, or the workflows your business bent around the old client. In our delivered migration, the customization inventory was the step that mattered; the converter accelerated what came after it. Treat it as a head start, not a plan.

Honestly: it depends on customization depth, and anyone who gives you a number before inventorying your WDK components is guessing. A lightly customized estate is a very different project from one with fifteen years of custom code. What we can do in the review is give you a defensible low/high range for your estate, assumptions stated. A number you can budget against, not a promise we can’t keep.

Nothing turns off. The repository keeps running; WebTop keeps loading. What ends is support for the WebTop client: no security patches, no fixes, no vendor escalation path. The first real break is usually external. A browser or Java update WebTop was never tested against, or an auditor writing up an unsupported client in front of regulated records. You don’t get to choose the timing of either.

For many estates, yes. Microsoft 365 has serious records-management, retention, and compliance capabilities, and we build regulated document governance on it today. But “viable” is doing work in that sentence: it takes deliberate information architecture and governance design, not a lift-and-shift of your folder tree. Some high-volume, deeply structured Documentum workloads genuinely fit better on Alfresco or staying put. That fit question is precisely what the review answers.

You don’t have to, but it’s not free. Documentum’s version trees and renditions don’t map one-to-one onto SharePoint or Alfresco versioning, so preserving full history (and proving to an auditor that you did) is a designed outcome, not a default. This is the single most common gap in exit quotes, which is why chain-of-custody planning is on our risk checklist for every “leave” path.

Nothing, and the catch is transparent: a percentage of teams later ask us to deliver the path we recommended, and that’s the business model. The deliverables, including the written stay-or-leave recommendation, are yours to keep either way. No proposal follows unless you request one, and if the right answer is “stay put and do the minimum,” that’s what the recommendation will say.