Microsoft Project Server Reviews

We use Microsoft Project Server for project management. Whenever we get new projects, we enter our projects into the Microsoft Project Server and manage the projects. Submitting the timesheet, resource allocation, and resource utilization are all done from Microsoft Project Server.

Resource allocation is the most valuable feature of Microsoft Project Server.

It would be better if the solution had some more training or resources available for a person who is new to Microsoft Project Server.

I have been using Microsoft Project Server for three years.

Microsoft Project Server is a stable solution.

Microsoft Project Server is a scalable solution. Around 7,000 to 8,000 users are using the solution in our organization, and we have plans to increase the usage.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

We implemented the solution through a consultant. If you want to deploy the entire project, it takes around one week.

The first thing is to identify what kind of license you would require to implement Microsoft Project Server. You have to build your own process based on the kind of projects that you are managing, whether it's a construction project or a finance project.

There are multiple licenses for Microsoft Project Server. A standard license is cheaper, but if you want more features, then there is a premium license or professional license.

I would recommend Microsoft Project Server to other users.

Overall, I rate Microsoft Project Server a nine out of ten.

My organization handles IT consulting and services. That's primarily how the organization is managed. The use case for this solution was to set up the resource development unit and manage the investment cost, scheduling, budgeting, and some of those new initiatives that were supposed to happen in the R&D division. That was why we were looking for a portfolio management product. We found that Project Server could be a way to visualize and govern the entire program for the client.

The solution has improved the organization primarily due to the transparency between each individual team. There is a productivity benefit. I've likely seen a 20% to 28% increase in productivity benefit over a year's time. From a cost perspective, I'm less sure of how to comment. That said, productivity and transparency are definitely the two benefits I've witnessed so far.

The most relevant feature is its collaboration capabilities. Users can easily collaborate, for example, on Sharepoint or Microsoft Teams. If there is a lot of heavy usage of Microsoft tools, it's easy to share and collaborate across apps.

The Excel interface is very good. 

The stability of the 2019 version is quite good.

The deployment aspect of the product is a bit tedious. That's something I personally see of my organization. Deploying Project Server from an infrastructure perspective is not an easy thing. It takes a week sometimes to set it up. 

From a features perspective, the insights around the cost and budget could be improved. Competitor products are more robust. Project Server has a very limited feature in terms of reporting. Specifically, the features around the cost control are weak. The built-in reports and the built-in analytics for Project Server are very minimal. The competitors are way ahead than what Project Server is offering us.

The initial setup was complex.

The integration to an employee engagement platform probably would make more sense and integrations with other products like SAP would be useful.

Users of Project Server need to write some amount of custom integrations to the DLP product innovation site. If you wanted to have resource analysis, you want to create invoices based on resources working on a project, that integration is still not there. Integrating with some of those invoice management systems would make more sense now based on the way enterprises are working in terms of automation.

The solution needs multi-language support. The tool primarily supports English as a primary language. If someone wanted to make it Arabic, the Project Server does not work well. The characters sets, the dates, and other things create a lot of mess.

We've been using the solution for around six years or so. We started using it in 2016.

When I was using the Project Server 2016, that was creating a lot of problems in terms of performance, in terms of export, input, the content. However, when we moved to Project Server 2019 three years ago, I would say it was an improved version. It's quite stable now. There have been a lot of technical advancements, and feature announcements. 2019 is a much more stable version.

Primarily the solution has been handled by the PMO team which is comprised of 20 users. They are mostly portfolio managers, program managers, and solution architects as well as an executive who usually uses it from a governance perspective.

Since this has been used by the portfolio managers, so it's basically bread and butter for the PMO team. It's used day in, day out and it's tracking a single source of truth from a program management perspective. In terms of expanding the portfolio, likely, the business will grow, and that's when we may add more users. By 2022, we might add five more users. That is what I foresee.

We go through a CSP partner for Microsoft due to the online nature of the deployment. Our CSP partner is quite helpful. We are pleased with the support quality they provide. I would rate them four out of five stars. 

The initial setup was complex. Any type of guidance or user training or helpful documentation and materials were not available.

The deployment took around seven to ten days. Deployment took really a long time. 

I will not be able to properly quantify what went wrong. I'm not sure if it was the infrastructure or the capacity planning or if the partner just wasn't quite capable. There could have been multiple issues. The general perception was that was supposed to happen within a day, maximum. It took around seven to nine all working days to just set up the environment.

We used partners. They were a Microsoft partner.

Since I was not managing the process, I can't give feedback in terms of how the partner was to work with, or their capabilities. 

The solution offers a subscription-based pay-as-you-go model.

Now that everyone has moved to the online version, it is my understanding that the approximate cost comes to around $350 to $400 USD per month. I see or close to $4,000 to $5,000 USD per annum.

We are simply a customer and an end-user.

Although we began with the on-premises version, we've recently started using the online version of the solution. That is primarily how we access it now.

From an advice perspective, for any enterprise that has an existing investment around Microsoft, it makes more sense in terms of moving to a Project Server to manage in a more structured way. However, if you do not use SharePoint, if you do not use Microsoft Teams or any sort of solution that is the real value of Project Server it's not necessary to use Project Server. This solution is best for those companies planning to have a commitment to Microsoft technology. It brings more value. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's lacking some features around budget cost and portfolio management. There are a few areas that could use improvement still. 

We often require customization of our checklist, which is not web-based. We have also integrated it into mobile devices. This serves both clinical and Social Security functions, as well as management information systems.

It is well-established, reliable, and compatible. 

We want to expand to the local level where we lack strong IT expertise, we are considering making it more user-friendly. We are looking to have a point-and-click interface so that individuals without technical knowledge can easily navigate the system. We want them to use it without the need for programming or making complex changes, simplifying the process for them. Also, the pricing for support needs to be improved.

It is scalable.

It is not only highly beneficial but also accessible remotely and readily available.

It is easy to deploy and takes three months, on average. The key focus lies in enhancing the local workforce's skills and capabilities because the effectiveness of this concept doesn't rely on complex IT processes. Therefore, we aim to ensure that there's ample availability of remote support, making it possible for me to install and deploy quickly and with ease, which is something I desire.

We had an in-house team implement the solution.

I'm not approaching this from a commercial standpoint because we operate within the government. Our return on investment cannot be entirely measured and monitored in financial terms, but rather, we assess it based on the advantages it brings and how efficiently it helps us achieve our objectives within our offices. So, I can't simply assign a price; it's more about the value it delivers.

The technical assistance is expensive but the solution is an open source software. 

I would recommend it to other users and would rate it an eight out of 10. The primary and crucial step is for them to identify their requirements, including the specific software needs and how it aligns with their goals as an organization. They should consider what benefits they aim to achieve with this solution. Another key aspect is to offer training and capacity-building to enable technical support for addressing any minimal support requirements effectively.

We use the tool in our IT-related projects. All IT efforts are managed using the Microsoft Project Server. Every week, we have a project status meeting where we demonstrate the project's status using the tool. We track tasks and progress, assign owners, and monitor milestones and all project-related work using it. 

We sometimes need support from the IT department for installing and deploying the Microsoft Project Server. It is not user-friendly, and users cannot install it themselves.

I have been using the product for four to five years. 

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten. 

My company has 30-35 users. 

We contact local partners for support, and their support is okay. 

The tool's deployment is not difficult. We centrally deploy the Microsoft Project Server for the project owners, and we manage projects in our data center using it. 

Our ROI is good. 

We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft, and our licensing is based on the agreement. 

I would recommend the tool to others and rate it a ten out of ten. We use Microsoft Teams for collaboration. 

Currently, we are helping a government entity with their PMO portfolio. They have many departments and streams. The main Microsoft Project Server use case for them is managing the planning for all the projects within the workflows, monitoring the projects inside the dashboards of the PMO and processing all the workflows for the project initiation, charter, and deliverables.

There are many valuable features of this solution. It is very advanced and once you understand and learn how to use it, it can be quite powerful. The whole package can be quite powerful. Inside of Microsoft Project Server, you not only have in-house development solutions, but also the workflow engine. You can create templates, pages, and users. The web part is very straightforward and even without any development knowledge, you can create any page you want aside from the workflows. This is fantastic.

The solution should be made more collaborative. Currently, we are using Microsoft Project Server alone, without the involvement of a team. In other words, we are not collaborating with the whole team within the solution and that is a minus. 

I would also like to see an integration with Amazon's project management solution. As of right now, there is no integration. We have a link only between the Amazon project management solution and the planner activities. This is very basic and we need some advanced cooperation options.

I have been using Microsoft Project Server for four years.

I would rate the stability of this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. My opinion is that the cloud version of this solution is quite stable.

I would rate the scalability of this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

The main problem with this solution is collaboration between teams. If you want to involve the other teams you'll have to buy Project Light servers or enable the project team members to collaborate inside the plan itself. This is an extra cost to the standard license. We also have a license for the planner and the teams, but we need some integration between all of them.

The professional and premium licenses are quite expensive.

The solution can be very slow. Sometimes, it takes minutes to open a page that shares the dashboards. 

In addition, there is no training material and there needs to be more awareness training. There's no online help to aid users through the process.

The first thing I would say to anyone trying to use this solution is that you need to understand its capabilities and functionalities before trying to use it. If you are not aware of the capabilities and features, you are using a Bugatti like a normal car. You need to get the right training and educate all of the project managers on how they can utilize the main functionality and services of the solution.

Overall, I would rate this solution a seven, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

Everyone in the company has projects, and everyone needs approvals from everyone in the company. They need to handle approvals, rejections, cost estimates, project timelines, et cetera. This is an investment company, and all of the projects and related items are handled by Microsoft Projects and Power BI. This solution allows the CEO to see what's happening in subsidiaries in the company. 

The solution has lots of features, and they are used by various people. They are all useful and important. 

It's a stable, reliable product.

The solution scales well. 

Technical support has been helpful and responsive.

The initial setup is complex. 

There need to be more tutorials available to users. It's very robust software with lots of features. If you don't know the shortcuts or the application, it's more difficult. Having training and tutorials would make learning it and accessing features easier. 

I've been using the solution for one year.

It's stable and reliable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It is a scalable solution. It's not an issue at all. 

We've used Fast Track. The Fast Track in Microsoft is a very good service. Their support is also very good. There are partners here in Egypt, and they are good partners. We have been satisfied with the level of service on offer.

We have a hybrid setup, which makes the implementation a little bit more complex. It took us a while to set everything up.

I'd recommend the solution to others. We've been happy with the solution in general. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

We use the solution for project consolidation and project portfolio management.

I found the portfolio management valuable.

Resource management has room for improvement because it uses a lot of resources. We used to use Star BI, and everything else was an additional cost to our business. We also had to pay extra money for reports.

I've worked with Microsoft Project Server for ten years.

I rate the solution's stability a five out of ten because we had major issues with the Sharepoint part. The problem was not with the Project Server.

I rate the solution's scalability a ten out of ten. The solution is meant for medium-sized enterprises.

The online support is useless. It goes into a loop. For example, if you go into "options," it sends you back. You go into this constant loop of trying options. The online support is terrible.

The initial setup for Microsoft Project Server is complex.

We implemented the solution in-house.

I rate the pricing a one out of ten because the price is way too high. You need five enterprise server licenses, then an SQL Server in addition to that.

We used some of the functions, but part of the reason we stopped using it was because of the cost. We chose an on-prem deployment because of problems with bandwidth. I wanted to perform software backups, but the connectivity was down, so my whole operation would stop if I went on the cloud.

I rate Microsoft Project Server a seven out of ten. I love the solution and enjoy working with it, but the cost is an issue, and the documentation is terrible.

I've spent the last five years as the Director of Consultations for a firm that specializes in Microsoft project implementation. Our clients include significant corporations from all throughout Russia. During this time, my daily responsibilities were around project oversight and working as a project manager, particularly for implementation projects. I also served as the architect for these solutions.

We have been using the latest version, both on-premises and cloud which is particularly famous in Russia.

In the competitive landscape of project management and portfolio management solutions, Microsoft Project Server stands out significantly. Despite a mature market with numerous competitive products, Microsoft's advantage lies in its seamless integration with the desktop Microsoft Project application. This desktop application has global popularity and is often the initial choice for customers to manage their small projects. As their projects and departments grow, the need for project server applications becomes apparent. Microsoft Project Server fits this need perfectly, allowing users to transition smoothly from the desktop application to the server environment.

Unlike many competitors who offer only web interfaces for their solutions, Microsoft Project Server uniquely enables users to work within the familiar user interface of the desktop application. This feature is particularly appealing to customers as it ensures continuity and ease of use. Microsoft Project Server has this advantage in comparison to its competitors in the field.

Microsoft is undergoing a shift in its approach. They're diverting their investments away from Microsoft Project Server's development and are focusing on a new solution based on Microsoft Power Apps. This new solution is exclusively cloud-based and can't be installed on-premises. While Microsoft Power Apps are technologically sophisticated, the cloud functionality is currently less sophisticated compared to the existing Microsoft Project Server solution on-premise. It appears that Microsoft's primary goal is to migrate as much functionality as possible from the legacy on-premises Microsoft Project Server to the new cloud-based Power Apps solution. 

I have been working with Microsoft Project Server for the last five years in Russia.

It is highly scalable. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

The solution is easily scalable, however, it has some bugs. I can rate it a nine out of ten.

It is difficult to install Microsoft Project Server. I would rate the installation a three out of ten. The deployment takes almost three to four hours.

We needed almost three to four consulting developers.

I would rate the price a six out of ten. 

There should be significant organizational changes that are necessary to implement it. It should be more about the internal organizational interest of your company for the successful implementation of Microsoft Project Server. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.