iManage Insight+ alternative: legal KM strategy for law firms

An alternative to iManage Insight+ is to keep iManage as the secure system of record for client and matter documents while introducing a dedicated legal knowledge layer for reusable know-how. Instead of replacing iManage, platforms such as AtlasFuse can structure, enrich, govern and surface approved legal knowledge across Microsoft 365, Teams and SharePoint while supporting AI-ready knowledge discovery. 

iManage Insight+ alternative: the short answer

The real strategic question is not where knowledge lives. It is whether your firm can consistently find, trust, reuse, and scale that knowledge for AI and firm collaboration.

• iManage Insight+ extends knowledge search and management natively within the iManage Cloud ecosystem.
• AtlasFuse takes a knowledge-layer approach, connecting governed reusable knowledge with Microsoft 365 workflows.
• Firms do not necessarily need to replace iManage to adopt an alternative legal KM architecture.
• iManage can remain the system of record while Atlas manages the context, lifecycle, discovery and delivery of reusable knowledge.
• The right model depends on whether the firm's priority is DMS-native knowledge management or broader knowledge delivery across the digital workplace and AI ecosystem.

What is iManage Insight+?

iManage Insight+ is a knowledge search and management solution built natively for iManage Cloud. It helps law firms turn documents and matter content held in iManage into more useful institutional knowledge. For firms already centered on iManage, that makes Insight+ a logical extension of the DMS. Rather than searching only by document names or keywords, lawyers can discover knowledge using context associated with matters, clients, jurisdictions, expertise and other metadata.

Insight+ also provides curation workflows that allow knowledge teams to submit, enrich, publish, maintain and retire approved knowledge assets. The underlying documents remain within iManage Work, preserving the security model and controls firms already use.

Insight+ extends knowledge management within the iManage ecosystem. For some firms, that's exactly what they need. For others, legal knowledge exists across iManage, Microsoft 365, SharePoint, Teams and other enterprise systems. Their challenge is therefore broader than improving knowledge discovery inside the DMS.

Why DMS based knowledge is both an asset and a constraint

The DMS is often the most governed system in the firm. It has security, ethical walls, auditability, and strong document version control. It is also where lawyers naturally store work product. That makes it a logical place to anchor KM. The problem is that a DMS is optimized for document management, not necessarily for knowledge reuse at scale.

However, as the iManage Knowledge Work Maturity Model highlights, advancing knowledge maturity requires alignment across people, process, technology, and culture. A DMS alone does not automatically deliver reusable, contextualized, AI-ready knowledge.

Why consider an alternative to iManage Insight+?

In our work with law firms, a common problem is how to connect authoritative knowledge with the context around it, and then deliver that knowledge in the tools that lawyers use on a regular basis. 

A firm may consider an alternative to iManage Insight+ when its knowledge strategy extends beyond the iManage environment. A useful precedent may sit in iManage. Practice guidance could be published in SharePoint. A lawyer's expertise may be represented in a people directory. Project knowledge might live in Teams, while business data comes from another system entirely.

The lawyer doesn't particularly care where any of it lives. They want the right answer, from an authoritative source, in the context of the work they're doing.

This creates several reasons to consider a broader legal knowledge management architecture:

• Knowledge spans multiple systems. The firm's institutional knowledge may extend beyond documents stored in iManage.
• Microsoft 365 is where much of the work happens. Lawyers increasingly operate across Outlook, Teams, SharePoint and other Microsoft 365 experiences.
• Knowledge needs context. A document becomes more useful when connected with matters, expertise, clients, practice areas, jurisdictions and related knowledge.
• AI changes the requirement. Copilot, AI assistants and agents need trusted, permission-aware and well-governed knowledge—not simply access to more documents.
• Knowledge has a lifecycle. Firms need ways to identify authoritative content, establish ownership, review it, update it and retire it when it is no longer reliable.
• Different audiences need different knowledge experiences. Lawyers, KM teams, business services and AI systems may need to consume the same underlying knowledge in different ways.
  
  

Summary of the alternatives to iManage Insight+?

There is more than one alternative to iManage Insight+. The real choice is between different legal knowledge management architectures: extending KM inside iManage, adding a connected knowledge layer around existing systems, or establishing a dedicated environment for curated reusable knowledge.

We have seen firms choose from one of the following three approaches.

Approach 1: Keep knowledge management centered on iManage

The first option is to use iManage Work together with Insight+ as the primary environment for document and knowledge management. This can make sense when the firm's most valuable reusable knowledge already resides in iManage and the priority is to enrich, curate and discover that content without introducing another knowledge architecture.

Approach 2. Keep iManage as the DMS and add a knowledge layer

The second approach separates document management from knowledge activation. iManage remains responsible for the secure management of documents and matter content. A knowledge platform such as AtlasFuse then connects relevant knowledge from iManage with Microsoft 365 and other enterprise sources.

This is particularly relevant when the firm wants knowledge to reach lawyers through Outlook, Teams, SharePoint, enterprise search, Microsoft Copilot or other AI experiences rather than expecting people to visit one repository whenever they need an answer.

3. Create a dedicated home for curated legal knowledge

A third model is to deliberately separate reusable institutional knowledge from transactional matter content. Instead of treating every useful document as knowledge, the firm identifies authoritative assets such as precedents, playbooks, practice notes, templates, approved clauses, research and guidance,  and manages them through a defined knowledge lifecycle.

Approach 1: Managing knowledge inside iManage (DMS centric KM model)

Managing knowledge entirely within your DMS, such as iManage or NetDocuments, is a rational and often conservative strategy. It builds on existing infrastructure, leverages established governance controls and avoids introducing another platform into an already complex technology landscape.

Firms adopting this approach position the DMS as both the authoritative system of record for KM content and the primary user experience for finding, validating, and reusing that knowledge, effectively relying on the document management platform to serve as the foundation for knowledge lifecycle management.

This approach works best where:

• Metadata discipline is already strong
• KM collections are well defined, relatively stable and limited in scope
• You have dedicated resources to manage the DMS
• Search needs are largely document centric rather than insight driven
•  AI ambitions are cautious or limited 

Pros

• Governance alignment with content remaining in the same controlled environment
• Lower technology change
• KM teams retain direct stewardship of content

Cons

• Implementing a tool such as Insight+ demands substantial configuration effort, robust metadata governance design, and careful change management
• Implementation services would be required, which materially increases both cost and delivery risk
• Designed for document control, not contextual knowledge delivery aligned to specific tasks or client needs
• Duplication increases when authoritative versions are unclear, reducing reuse and consistency
• Weak lifecycle discipline allows outdated or superseded materials to remain accessible
• The rapid evolution of AI is reshaping how lawyers search for, access, and work with knowledge. As a result, large investments in traditional, search‑centric infrastructure risk becoming increasingly redundant over time.

Managing KM within your DMS is a defensible and often necessary starting point. It strengthens governance and centralizes control. The strategic question for leadership is whether that foundation alone is sufficient to support the firm’s ambitions around productivity, cross-practice collaboration, and AI enabled knowledge discovery at scale.

Approach 2: Unlocking iManage knowledge through a structured knowledge layer

This approach does not replace iManage. Instead, it introduces structure by separating reusable knowledge from matter content.

Client work remains in iManage Cloud as the secure system of record. However, curated KM content is copied or promoted into a dedicated iManage workspace designed specifically for reusable knowhow. AtlasFuse then layers automated tagging, contextualization, and enhanced search on top of that curated environment.

In architectural terms, iManage manages documents. The knowledge layer manages meaning, context, authority, and discoverability.

 What this means in practice:

• Matter documents stay within their original iManage workspaces
• Approved (and redacted) precedents and knowhow are promoted into a separate KM workspace in iManage
• Atlas automatically enriches, tags, and surfaces that KM workspace content in Microsoft 365 
• Lawyers access authoritative knowledge in context, without navigating folder structures
• Simplified and unified search across Microsoft 365 and iManage
• Clear marking of authoritative or gold standard content
• Simpler and automated knowledge lifecycle management controls
• Knowledge delivered directly within Teams, Outlook, and Microsoft 365 workspaces

This reflects the broader shift from traditional knowledge management to knowledge productivity, where knowledge is contextual, automated, and embedded into daily workflows rather than accessed as a static library.

Pros

• Clear separation between live matter work and reusable knowledge.
• Strong governance alignment with existing DMS controls.
• Improved findability and contextual delivery that are designed around lawyer tasks and questions, not matter folders. 

• Automated tagging and enrichment shift the KM team away from repetitive classification tasks and towards governance and quality oversight.

• Knowledge appears within the flow of work inside Microsoft 365 and Teams, reducing friction and improving adoption.

• Structured foundation for AI grounded in curated KM collections. 

Cons

• Content rationalization needed: Legacy duplication and outdated materials must be addressed to avoid amplifying noise through improved search and AI surfacing.

• Requires governance clarity: Authority, ownership, lifecycle standards, and review cadence must be clearly defined before scaling visibility.

 This approach works best where: 

• There is recognition that reusable knowledge must be separated from matter noise 
• Lawyers need improved findability and contextual surfacing without abandoning iManage as the primary source.
• The firm wants stronger AI readiness 
• The firm is ready to introduce knowledge automation 

In summary, introducing a structured knowledge layer around iManage is an incremental maturity step. It retains iManage as the authoritative store while introducing structure and automation through Atlas.

Approach 3: Moving reusable knowledge into AtlasFuse (dedicated knowledge layer)

This approach makes a deliberate distinction between document management and knowledge management.

iManage remains the system of record for client and matter documents. Reusable KM content is migrated into AtlasFuse as the primary knowledge layer, which then acts as the authoritative environment for precedents, playbooks, guidance, and curated expertise. Knowledge is structured, contextualized, and delivered directly within Microsoft 365 workflows.

A global law firm we work with were confronted with fragmented repositories, duplication, inconsistent metadata, and rising AI ambition, the firm made a deliberate strategic shift to treat knowledge not as content collections, but as enterprise infrastructure. 

What this looks like in practice:

• Approved KM content is extracted from iManage
• Content is rationalized, deduplicated, and lifecycle governed
• Automated tagging and enrichment are designed for contextual delivery
• Gold standard content is clearly marked
• Knowledge is surfaced in Teams, SharePoint, and Microsoft 365 workspaces
• AI tools interact primarily with curated Atlas knowledge collections

You can also watch our on-demand webinar: Building a knowledge layer for people and AI at Baker McKenzie

Pros 

• Clear architectural separation with document control and knowledge experience are treated as distinct capabilities.
• Improved knowledge clarity, whereby Atlas becomes the single authoritative layer for reusable knowhow.
• Legacy duplication in matter folders no longer pollutes the KM experience.
• Stronger AI foundation as AI interacts with structured, lifecycle governed content.
• Scalable AI governance model with lifecycle, ownership, and taxonomy management.

Cons 

• Requires rationalization of knowledge content.

• Cultural change required whereby lawyers must understand that reusable knowledge no longer “lives” in matter folders.

This approach works best where:

• The firm views knowledge as enterprise infrastructure 
• There is significant duplication or entropy within matter workspaces
• AI is a strategic priority requiring authoritative, structured knowledge collections
• Cross-border or cross-practice collaboration requires consistent taxonomy and lifecycle discipline
• Leadership is willing to redesign the KM operating model

Approach 3 represents a strategic shift. It treats knowledge as core enterprise infrastructure rather than a curated subset of documents. Client work remains securely governed in iManage, while reusable knowledge is moved into Atlas, where it is structured, enriched, contextualized, and made AI‑ready.

For firms serious about AI at scale, cross-border collaboration, and measurable knowledge ROI, this model provides the cleanest long-term architecture.

iManage Insight+ vs AtlasFuse: what's the difference?

iManage Insight+ and AtlasFuse can both support legal knowledge management, but they approach the problem from different architectural starting points. Insight+ extends knowledge search, curation and contextual intelligence natively within iManage Cloud. AtlasFuse is designed as a connected knowledge layer across Microsoft 365, iManage and other enterprise sources.

That means AtlasFuse should not be positioned simply as a replacement for iManage Work. A firm can retain iManage as its DMS and system of record while using AtlasFuse to connect, structure, govern and activate knowledge across the wider digital workplace.

Which legal KM architecture is right for your firm?

The right legal KM architecture depends on where your knowledge lives, where lawyers work and how the firm intends to use AI. Firms whose knowledge strategy is primarily centered on iManage may prefer a native Insight+ model. Firms with knowledge distributed across iManage and Microsoft 365 may benefit from a broader knowledge-layer approach.

There isn't one architecture that makes sense for every law firm.

A useful starting point is to work through the following questions with KM, IT, information security, innovation and practice stakeholders.

Legal KM architecture decision checklist

Your existing knowledge

☐ Is most reusable legal knowledge already held in iManage?

☐ Does important knowledge also live across SharePoint, Teams, Microsoft 365 or other platforms?

☐ Can lawyers reliably distinguish authoritative knowledge from ordinary matter documents?

☐ Do precedents, playbooks and guidance have clear owners and review dates?

How lawyers work

☐ Do lawyers primarily search for knowledge within iManage?

☐ Do they expect knowledge to appear in Outlook, Teams, SharePoint or other everyday workflows?

☐ Are people regularly searching several systems to answer one question?

☐ Does the firm want knowledge to be surfaced proactively based on role, practice, matter or jurisdiction?

Your Microsoft 365 strategy

☐ Is Microsoft 365 a strategic platform for the firm?

☐ Is SharePoint already an important home for firm-wide knowledge or communications?

☐ Is the firm deploying or expanding Microsoft Copilot?

☐ Do you want the same governed knowledge foundation to support both employees and Copilot?

Your AI strategy

☐ Can you identify which content AI should treat as authoritative?

☐ Are permissions and ethical walls preserved when knowledge is retrieved by AI?

☐ Can AI distinguish current guidance from outdated content?

☐ Do AI-generated answers retain a route back to their source material?

☐ Will future AI assistants and agents need knowledge from more than one repository?

Your operating model

☐ Does the firm want its DMS to remain the center of legal KM?

☐ Or does it need a knowledge layer spanning multiple enterprise systems?

☐ Who owns knowledge quality after content has been published?

☐ How will knowledge be reviewed, updated and retired?

Final perspective: from iManage Insight+ to knowledge layer 

Moving from a DMS-centric model to a knowledge layer is an operating model change. The aim is not to move everything out of iManage, but to identify and elevate reusable, high-value know-how so it is easier to find, trust, reuse, and use safely with AI.

Successful firms keep iManage as the secure system of record and add a knowledge layer to operationalize a defined subset of KM content. This preserves governance, avoids duplicating controls, and focuses effort where it delivers measurable impact.

The shift from DMS-centric KM to a knowledge layer is about extracting more value. By retaining iManage as the system of record and operationalizing knowledge through a structured layer, firms improve findability, increase reuse, reduce manual KM effort, and enable safer AI adoption. This is the difference between knowledge being stored and knowledge being usable.

FAQ

Is AtlasFuse an alternative to iManage Insight+?
AtlasFuse can provide an alternative approach to iManage Insight+ for legal knowledge management, but it is not intended to replace iManage as a document management system. Firms can retain iManage as their secure system of record while using AtlasFuse as a knowledge layer connecting governed knowledge across iManage, Microsoft 365 and other enterprise sources.

Does AtlasFuse replace iManage?
No. AtlasFuse can work alongside iManage rather than replacing it. iManage can continue to manage documents, matters, security and records, while AtlasFuse provides a separate knowledge layer for connecting, contextualising, governing and delivering reusable knowledge across Microsoft 365, iManage and other systems.

Should we move everything out of iManage?
No. For most firms, iManage should remain the secure system of record for documents, communications, and compliance controls. A knowledge layer is not designed to replicate your entire DMS. It is designed to surface curated, authoritative KM subsets that are intended for reuse.
Moving everything increases noise, governance complexity, and risk. The strategic objective is not migration. It is operationalization of reusable knowledge.

What is the difference between a DMS and a legal knowledge management platform?
A document management system manages documents, matters, versions, permissions and records, while a legal knowledge management platform focuses on making reusable institutional knowledge easier to identify, govern, discover and apply. The two functions overlap, but they solve different problems and can therefore form complementary parts of a firm's technology architecture.

What is a legal knowledge layer?
A legal knowledge layer connects information from systems such as iManage, SharePoint and Microsoft 365 and adds the context, metadata and governance needed to make that information useful as trusted knowledge. It can help lawyers, enterprise search and AI applications discover authoritative information without requiring everything to be moved into one repository.

Can iManage knowledge be surfaced in Microsoft 365?
Yes, depending on the architecture and integrations a firm chooses. Rather than requiring lawyers to change where they work whenever they need knowledge, firms can connect governed content from iManage with Microsoft 365 experiences such as SharePoint and Teams and make it available to search, Copilot and other AI experiences.

Should legal knowledge remain inside the DMS?
Some legal knowledge can remain entirely within the DMS, particularly when it is closely tied to matters and the firm's knowledge strategy is iManage-centric. Other firms may benefit from a separate knowledge layer when authoritative knowledge needs to span iManage, Microsoft 365, people, expertise and other business systems.