SharePoint Reviews

What makes SharePoint special is that it applies to a wide range of company scenarios; document management, knowledge management, project management, and records management.

When you want to save information, collaborate, or discover information, SharePoint is the first point-of-contact. You can search, use metadata, or access content via business intelligence created as Excel reports or dashboards. You can also access data from PowerPoint presentations, PowerBI, JavaScript. or jQuery.

Since the core structure is based on ASP.NET technology, you can manage simple development projects using standard .NET developers who have no specialization. You are also able to brand the product using HTML, CSS and JavaScript.

SharePoint has benefitted us a lot regarding optimization. We can automate document management, project management, and basic service desk functions.

The biggest value is that you are able to integrate systems using workflow management middleware. You can also use business intelligence to integrate data and display output on a SharePoint page with predefined restrictions applied for separate security groups.

There is occasionally a problem when an organization has several in-house developed systems without any integration connectors, etc. But this is only an issue in some really specific cases.

The allowed size of document libraries and lists, i.e., the number of items allowed, needs to be increased. This was already improved in the latest 2016 version of SharePoint.

Also, there need to be more options to brand solutions without needing developers. This would be good for end users.

I specialized in the implementation, configuration, and branding of SharePoint for about 7+years. I’ve implemented solutions for many customers, large and small, in many architecture scenarios.

Stability is always a big issue, but not from the view of SharePoint itself. It’s more of an issue from the architecture and infrastructure point of view. Many customers implement SharePoint on virtual machines with dynamic memory allocation. VMs have slow disk access speeds that are below recommended specifications.

In these situations, there are always issues with stability, especially regarding search services, etc. For example, if you installed SharePoint on a virtual machine with dynamic memory, it could destroy the farm without any possibility of repairing it. You will then have to reinstall the whole farm. This would really be a big problem in the case of a farm with 10 virtual servers.

Scalability issue are related to the previous question regarding stability.

The main burden of technical support is on Microsoft partners, who implemented the particular solution. If customers want extra support from Microsoft, it is possible I think, but only if they have Software Assurance or an Enterprise Agreement. Even if a customer has one of these, they still mostly use Microsoft Partners for consulting, maintenance, or new projects.

I previously used SharePoint Services 3, SharePoint Server 2007/2010/2013. Now, I am using SharePoint Online 2016 in a hybrid model that has new features and some new innovations. There are many reasons to switch.

The initial setup was really difficult, because we had no experience. But, together with my colleagues, we managed to solve the initial issues. Then, we used specialized consultants to help us. All subsequent implementations, even in our own environment, were successful. There is always some troubleshooting to do, but this is normal.

I advise to really plan carefully before implementing a solution. You need to allocate the correct number of licenses of various types (standard versus enterprise), including the required SQL licenses. Be careful with SQL licensing as many companies get this wrong. Licenses for other systems, for example, AD CALs or terminal server CALs, also need to be considered.

One of the most common mistakes is that a project plan will not take into account the use of features that require an enterprise license to run. For example, if the planners allocate only 50 enterprise licenses and the rest are standard licenses, there may not be enough enterprise licenses for all the components that need them.

My advice is to look around the Internet and find some justification to negotiate with your boss to buy this product. Alternatively, you could go to the cloud as well and create a hybrid model to reduce the cost of infrastructure (using Azure/Office 365).

Also, optimize your business using automation, forms, document management, etc.

I mostly use the solution for the creation and sharing of documents.

SharePoint is easy to collaborate with.

The solution's support services and GenAI could be improved and made faster and more knowledgeable.

I have been using SharePoint for more than two years.

I rate the solution’s stability eight and a half out of ten.

SharePoint is a scalable solution.

I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward and doesn't take much time.

Our IT team deploys the solution.

The solution has good integration capabilities. SharePoint supports remote work and team collaboration within our company. The solution's workflow data analysis and AI-driven content organization are good. I would recommend the solution to other users because of its reliability and AI features. SharePoint has helped our organization save time and money.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight to nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for SharePoint is for document sharing and file sharing in projects where participants are from different organizations. It is a very good tool for users or participants of teams from different tenants inside the organization.

What I like most about SharePoint would depend on what the task is, e.g. if it's just simple document sharing then the document library is fine. The most exciting feature of the platform is that it's a no code or low code development platform. There's also Power Apps and Power Automate.

Despite the enthusiasm and very good promises offered by SharePoint, the usage of the power platform is limited, so that's an area for improvement, but I would suggest this just as a team feature.

It's hard to highlight other areas for improvement, but a better approach towards licensing power platform components for guest users would be great. SharePoint licensing costs could be lowered to introduce it to the outside guests of a tenant, then to supply them with power apps and power automate features.

A more straightforward integration with Azure, including better licensing in terms of using Azure components and functions, is also another area for improvement in SharePoint.

My advice for Microsoft, and this is something I'd like to see in the next release of  SharePoint, is for them to constantly improve training material. Currently, the training material is organized in a way where a new feature appears and is enforced, then they develop the training material for that new feature. What happens is that the total product or solution, e.g. SharePoint, then lacks overall introduction in terms of training. There should be a balance between the introduction of the tool and the introduction of the new feature. They should have comprehensive introductory courses for both Office 365 and SharePoint, instead of needing to Google for particular situations. I'm trying to get the knowledge bit by bit, so I'm losing the idea of the whole product, e.g. SharePoint is losing its essence. To get onboarded to any new product, it's important to get a good introduction into that product.

I've been using SharePoint since 2006, so I've seen its "many flavors".

I find SharePoint to be stable. No complaints there.

I have no complaints about the scalability of SharePoint.

The support system for SharePoint works pretty well. We had a complicated situation about the reasoning why tenants and users are limited in terms of functionality, and the escalation and resolving of that issue, of that situation, went pretty fast, even for experimental features. It was quite straightforward to get access to experimental features, or find out why this access is limited, then fix it. I'm happy with the technical support for SharePoint.

The initial setup of SharePoint is very straightforward. Microsoft did a very good job with onboarding new users of their platform, e.g. the Office 365 platform. There were a lot of good improvements for administrators of tenants of different parts of Office 365, including SharePoint.

We implemented SharePoint through our in-house team, because we are a technology company, so we didn't need to use external experts or specialists for the deployment of the platform.

I'm using SharePoint as part of Office 365, using it as a part of Teams and under the hood of Teams, so yes, I'm still using SharePoint.

SharePoint is deployed on public cloud. We have some projects where SharePoint 2019 is deployed as a server, but those are based on an integrations app, but mostly it's on Office 365, e.g. SharePoint Online. Microsoft is the cloud provider we're using for the platform.

I want to highlight that some organic growth was missed with Teams, because there's still complicated switching between tenants, e.g. Teams and SharePoint users. In this case, Teams users may work in different organizations, or are guests of different tenants and different organizations. Switching between tenants, or the ability to streamline and organize identity management logging into the system, e.g. to the cloud, to Office 365 with one ID or organization ID should provide options to do work with many organizations at the same time.

Currently, there is still the need to switch from one organization to another, to get the full toolsets of a particular tenant, so for users, that's quite annoying. For one organization that fits, and that works fine for an organization with guest users, but when we have multi-tenant situations, when people are collaborating on different projects, and when initiated or hosted by different organizations, switching from one organization to another should be improved.

We have 40 to 50 users of SharePoint, and they are involved in various projects run by customers. We also add users from other organizations, so the total collaboration space may include 200 to 300 users.

My advice to people thinking about using SharePoint, the very important lessons I learned during years of using the tool, is for them not to fight with it, e.g. they should not start to use it based on what they initially wished to use it for. It's best to first spend more time in getting a better understanding of the tool and its relevant capabilities. Learn SharePoint first. Spend time learning it.

I would give SharePoint a rating of nine out of ten.

When an organization is using Microsoft products already, the integration with the Microsoft Office products and the ability to leverage web-based Office products can transform business processes. I think there is a great benefit in integrating collaboration, e-mail, document management, workflow, and content management in one product. When I have been in the role of Information Architect, I took advantage of site content, metadata, advanced searches (FAST), web parts and the free applications.

There are a large number of solid third-party vendors that develop web apps that are easy to integrate and configure.

In smaller organizations or organizations with limited budgets, I was able to leverage SharePoint to provide a lot of functionality around workflows, content and document management with very limited customized development.

When implemented correctly, SharePoint and Office 365 can provide knowledge workers with the information they need quickly and it can provide for team collaboration. I have used it to transform relationships between business units and to break down silos.

I would focus on improving:

• Integration with other enterprise products.
• Simpler API.
• Enhanced ability to report against structured and unstructured data in the environment.
• More flexible security or training: I have noticed in organizations I joined that they lock down SharePoint so much, there is very limited functionality. As a result, teams in the same organization move to other collaboration tools when they would not need to.
• Enhanced ability for users to back up and restore at various levels of the architecture.
• Have SharePoint and Office 365 expand so that additional third-party products for document management are not necessary.

I have used it for over 10 years.

Any issues regarding stability are generally caused by a lack of governance from planning of the underlying infrastructure through ongoing operations. With best practices in rolling out any application from an infrastructure planning and operations perspective, stability is not a significant issue.

Frankly, I would make a case for many organizations to go with the SaaS-based option. I investigated the security around Office 365 in the past and it was HIPAA and PSI compliant. When organizations host these types of solutions instead of leveraging commodity hardware and expertise in a SAAS environment, that is where the issues of stability and scalability come up.

Technical support is excellent.

I have used Google and still do today. It is less expensive as a personal solution to document management, archiving and collaboration. It also integrates with my personal Google e-mail solution.

Rolling out the enterprise version and ensuring integration with other products, budgeting for the hardware, and ensuring governance was not easy for SharePoint. However, I did leverage all of the plans and checklists that Microsoft provided, which made the process much simpler.

Office 365 was very simple to setup and I liked the ease of expanding storage when needed.

It really depends on the size of the organization. For small organizations, I would advise them on just purchasing Office 365 for what they need in the next year or two. They can always scale up. In larger organizations, I would love to have the enterprise version. However, not every organization can afford the cost.

I compared it against Google's solution.

I would advise others looking into implementing this product to consider Office 365 as a SaaS solution. I would also provide a governance plan and some common templates and training to get them started.

I would advise them to start with the teams that will leverage the product.

I would recommend finding ways to combine business process re-engineering with rolling out sites. This would be an easy win: combining process improvement with content management, document management, workflow and collaboration.

I would tell them to expect some amount of customization depending on what they wanted to leverage the product for.

As a portal, EDM platform for organizations, I think it is an excellent product. The limitations I have seen are the implementation and expectations of the technology, not the technology itself.

It has an easy to distribute administration capability, and can also scale to meet a large number of future needs. It also has the ability to produce very simple web application development products, freeing up my team’s development activities for more advanced needs.

We mainly use this product for our intranet and capital projects team. It has allowed each business unit the ability to “own” their portion of the intranet, and allowed our capital projects team the ability to effectively manage projects that require a multitude records request requirements and archival tasks. It is very customizable, and it possesses a very logical architecture.

As usual, Microsoft’s licensing structures don’t really seem to fit the needs of their products. This leads to always paying for a project you will never use fully or always be adding to. Also, the product does not perform 100% when used outside of a Microsoft based browser, Chrome, Firefox, etc. It’s getting better, but the architecture is still behind. This is largely the case for mobile as well.

We have used this solution for almost nine years.

The stability of the system is fine, so long as you have a well prepared support team for your Windows offerings.

Scalability is one of the great strengths of the product, in that it scales very well. As an added benefit, due to the ease of administration, a lead in a business unit can take over such responsibilities.

The level of technical support from Microsoft is very little to poor.

We did not have a similar solution in place. Our intranet was previously an added product to our hosted CMS. And for Capital Projects, we were using a mixture of standalone Microsoft Project install and file shares.

After getting the infrastructure setup and deployed, installing and rolling out the product was fairly straightforward. A little bit of planning was required to better understand the differences in Web Applications from Site Collections, but that was largely straightforward.

Really take your time in planning the needs you are trying to meet. The licensing is very difficult to get right, and not as easy as many other alternative. Add in about a 15% cost to the initial cost estimates. You will find yourself needing to add something.

We did a brief overview of the market, and found that 9 years ago, SharePoint was a viable solution. Since then, we’ve settled on using it in very narrow cases, and fill the majority of our needs with custom development.

Invest a lot of time and energy in the planning for your needs. You will find that infrastructure needs are imperative to map out in the finest detail. Otherwise, your system will be continually under-performing. Also, pay special attention to the CAL needs.

Collaboration, DLP, and the search capability are some of the features I like the most.

It has improved our productivity to a great extent with its great collaboration features. Previously, business users were sharing documents through emails while different people contributed to the same document. This created a lot of confusion, such as:

• Issues with merging changes from some users
• No tracking of changes
• Version management

The business users had to spend a lot of time to get this to closure. SharePoint has helped a great deal in this space.

• UX
• Performance (especially Office 365): This is an issues when the sites are accessed from Asia/Australia, which is bad compared to accessing from the USA
• The mobile experience

I have worked with this platform/tool for more than eight years.

The current version is very stable compared to versions 2007 and 2010.

There are some performance issues with respect to the amount of data that has to be stored.

The technical support is very good.

I have seen customers using other tools and switching to SharePoint. Technology upgrades and feature upgrades are the key reasons for this.

The setup is complex, as you need to consider lots of things for the farm design.

The pricing is good. I have heard that MS gives very good deals on volume licensing.

It's a good tool, but be prepared to adapt to the new way of working with SharePoint and Office 365. They bring their own new features which are very good, but you will experience a learning curve.