SharePoint Reviews

The most valuable features to our organization are the ability to store and share documents across the entire corporation, and the ability to use workflows. Our organization has multiple locations and even multiple companies that need to share information both intra-company and within the corporation. The ability to create workflows that can assign tasks and route documents for review and approval allows for documentation automation and project management.

We used to use project folders to manage new product development. With SharePoint, it allowed us to store all of the related documentation in a single project folder. Another example would be when we have a product quality issue, a single form is filled out and routed to the various people in the organization for review and resolution to ensure the issue does not repeat itself. Several locations use the calendar feature to schedule PTO and at one plant, they use the calendars to schedule the dock doors for freight delivery and shipping.

The user profile synchronization feature is cumbersome to configure and at least initially had some stability issues. Since then, it has improved in stability, but is still not a straightforward installation.

We have used SharePoint in our organization for 10 years, beginning in late 2006 with SharePoint 2007.

There have been no stability issues other than with user profile synchronization. The only times we have had SharePoint offline in the last 10 years were when we had a server issue in 2010 and when we have taken it offline for maintenance.

I have not encountered any scalability issues, but our installation only supports a few thousand people.

I have little experience contacting Microsoft technical support in relation to SharePoint, as we have not experienced any issues that would require their intervention.

I did not previously use a different solution.

Initial setup can be daunting if you are not familiar with the product, especially if you are setting this up in a multiple-server environment, which would be the common scenario. There are three main servers in the configuration: the database server, the web application server and the web front end server. In larger installations, that number can grow, as you can have multiple front end servers and multiple servers handling the various application services.

As with any Microsoft product, the licensing can be complex. There are two versions of SharePoint: Enterprise and Standard. Standard does not require an additional user CAL for the SharePoint part of things, but has less features; the most important being able to use Office apps directly in the browser. SharePoint is tightly integrated with Microsoft Office, so this is a critical point.

We did evaluate using FileNet as an alternative. We chose SharePoint due to its tighter integration with Microsoft Office.

If you don’t have in-house expertise, you would be well advised to hire a competent consulting firm to help with the planning and installation. You will need to consider things such as in-house servers vs. a hosted solution, along with topology, backup and disaster recovery, security, and capacity plans. And that is just for hardware. You will also need to consider logical architecture: how you want to use social computing, document management, search and metadata structure, records management, and site security. That is just a portion of the details involved.

Beginning with SharePoint 2007, the product has steadily improved with a few minor exceptions.

I used the solution to share the documents on my devices.

The tool’s performance is good. It is also user-friendly, allowing you to download and upload files easily.

SharePoint should not provide frequent updates.

I have been using SharePoint for three to four months.

The product is stable.

The solution is scalable. Around 1,000 users are using this solution.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I have been consulting with this solution, combined with SQL server, since 2005. The majority of my consulting at that time changed from Active Directory and C++ to SQL Server and SharePoint.

This solution is a workflow operating system with many metadata services. Information is taken and automatically triggers actions. The specific action is based on the information itself, which is used to calculate a complex answer that results in the action.

I would like a simpler, more cost-effective solution for connecting data sources with workflows and BI tools, or data mining tools. There are different tools for data mining and for data evaluation, but you have to be a skilled programmer to tie them together. There is no simple and low-cost method to do this, provided that development time is a cost factor.

There are some automatic solutions for this task, such as Team Foundation Server, which is built on SharePoint. These tools can learn specific errors that are being made, using data mining techniques, and they are able to target these errors for correction. Having this capability built in, and customizable for the customer would be of great interest.

I would like to see support for Visual Studio to connect to SharePoint and have a wizard to connect data processes to iHubs, like an analysis server or data mining model, to an output, and to have a smart way of creating workflows. Microsoft will tell you that they already have that for SharePoint online, it's called "Flow", but it is not customer compatible.

It is stable after the hotfixes, or service pack has been applied. This has been the case for each release since 2003. If you take the release directly to the customer then it is almost always a big mess for them during implementation.

This solution is extremely scalable. It is a highly performance-optimized web service that you just have to install correctly and then add the machine to the farm with the proper permissions. That is one of the biggest strengths of SharePoint.

Technical support is extremely well developed with Microsoft. It's just that you have to pay for it, so it is not for someone without Software Assurance.

The setup of this solution is complex. There are SharePoint deployment architecture scenarios, and sometimes the C-level deciders underestimate the complexity of it. You have to know SharePoint very well.

For this type of solution, it is not wise to buy it without Software Assurance. It depends on the customer, but most are using an agreement that covers four to ten free incidents per year. You really need that, and it's well-invested money.

When comparing this solution to other workflow operating systems like Oracle or BP Logix, I give this solution a ten out of ten.

My advice for anyone implementing this solution is to first try everything that you want to do in a virtual environment, with people who know how SharePoint is programmed. You need to understand the psychology of business users because most of them omit essential steps when they are creating the business process model. They are used to doing things in their head, but the machine is not aware of everything that they know so some steps are missed.

Ideally, you want to buy a bunch of post-it notes and test your processes manually, by playing with different scenarios. You have to tune the business processes. I have seen projects fail because the debug phase of the business process design was not thorough.

This solution is useful for optimizing usual business processes, like writing an invoice. For any organization with more than one person in it, if they are trying to organize things to let people in the company know what others are doing, then this solution is good for them.

While this workflow operating system is better than others on the market, it is uncomfortable and expensive to really implement what you need. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

In general, I find SharePoint to be a very useful tool when it's configured to allow end users a certain amount of flexibility. (In one of my previous assignments, all options were completely locked down. In that kind of configuration, the usefulness of the tool is highly dependent upon whoever configured the product. In this case, they weren't particularly good.) The latest versions of SharePoint are highly useful for configuring pages for managing and conveying large amounts of information, while giving users the ability to pinpoint the specific things they need with speed and accuracy.

Libraries and lists have a feature set that enables capturing large amounts of information and organizing that information in ways that enable multiple audiences/roles to use it effectively.

In my previous job, I built a site to support the PMO. It consisted of a top level site that gave a view of all projects undertaken by the organization and then individual project sites that were used to manage issues, risks, changes, action items, key milestones.

The top level site also contained links out to our scheduling software (SmartSheets). The individual project sites were based on a site template, making it very easy to instantiate a new one whenever a new project was introduced. All project information was contained within a single site collection and allowed both broad and deep searches and visibility of key project metrics.

I think that the current version of the product is actually quite good, but it's not always easy to find solid training and reference information, especially from Microsoft. Typically, third parties have better offerings than Microsoft, but it still requires a bit of searching to find the most relevant and easily absorbed material.

I have used Sharepoint in various forms since around 2003.

Over the last three years (three jobs as well), I've used SharePoint 2007, 2010, and 2013.

I have not encountered stability issues with either the on-premise or cloud hosted versions of the product.

I was never involved in planning for scalability, and have never been aware of any scalability issues in any of the places where I've used the product.

I generally avoid using Microsoft or Microsoft partner support where possible. Unless you are paying for their top-level consultants (which is frightfully expensive), you're often better off just looking things up on the internet and bookmarking the most helpful sites. In situations where support is being provided by internal staff, the results have been variable.

There's nothing truly like SharePoint in the marketplace that I'm aware of. You can use wiki's of various sorts and cobble together any number of open source or paid solutions that address a component of what SharePoint does. But that approach doesn't have the current product's level of integration and the maturity of its feature set.

I don't know about setup. It was never my responsibility. Since the products were in place when I arrived, I don't know who the vendors were that partnered with Microsoft to configure and deploy the product.

It's Microsoft; empty your pockets. Seriously, if you obtain SharePoint under one of their blanket licensing agreements you really need to pay attention to the terms and conditions, especially if your acquisition is part of Office 365. It's typically not very easy to drop licenses for a particular subcomponent under such agreements if you find that you're not using that particular piece.

This wasn't my choice. However, there's nothing truly like SharePoint in the marketplace that I'm aware of.

Know what you want it for first. Talk to other businesses using the product to understand their experiences. If it looks like SharePoint can bring real business value, then find the best implementation partner that you can find. I don't know the economic ramifications of cloud vs. on-premise, but I found the cloud version of the product takes a lot of headaches out of your hands with Microsoft being responsible to administer and maintain the back end.

Finally, be very wary of proposals from within your company to build all manner of applications, web sites, and data marts with the tool. Although SharePoint is capable of a lot of things, it may be better to purchase a purpose built product rather than rolling your own.

In the same vein, it is still important to have standards and enforce them within the organization, especially on how sites are structured if they are to be used by people in various roles and departments across the enterprise. Someone has to have a vision for the architecture of your SharePoint installation and use in order to assure you get full value. If folks get to do anything they want, you'll have a crazy quilt of unrelated data, applications, and web pages.

Lists, documents, wiki pages and being able to create sites/subsites are valuable features.

The fact that our operational process improvement initiatives continue to be assigned on a lower priority in our portfolio management, it has given rise to the use of SharePoint as a platform to run its day-to-day operational processes. Specifically, we moved away from using MS OneNote.

It has its limitations. We are unable to use this tool to "archive" data and run queries to generate hindsight information.

I have been using this solution since 2011.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I did experience some scalability issues; this could be more because of trying to use SharePoint as a BI tool, which it is not designed for.

As it is internal, there is some knowledge that they are unaware of which makes it necessary for me to go check with third party sites (such as wikis) for answers.

Initially, we were MS OneNote.

All I did was request for a site to be created and then the rest of the configuration was up to me.

I am not involved with the purchasing decisions.

There are some features that I am looking for and that I am unable to find, for example creating nested IF functions.

The most valuable features are its ease of integration and customization.

• Produced workflows down to user / product level
• Easy KPI integration
• Use of standard reporting tools

The documentation can be improved, so it is easier to use for non-technical people. The documentation was clear only after full training was completed, not for starters.

I have used it for two years.

I have not encountered any stability issues, but prior infrastructure planning is a must. When systems are well defined, all setup and integration runs smoothly.

I have not encountered any scalability issues, but that requires the same conditions that ensure stability.

Technical support is perfect; nothing to complain about. Our market is special and they have minimal experience in special market segments, so they had a learning curve as well.

We previously used a solution called Hornbill (Supportworks); it was out of date and had less flexibility in customization and no access to the source code level.

Prior infrastructure planning is a must. When systems are well defined, all setup and integration runs smoothly.

• Look very well what your need is.
• Compare that with the budget.
• Do a full in-house inquiry to define:

  
  

  • What the real need is.
  • How to adjust internal procedures when needed, and if it is possible.
  • Whether the system can be adjusted to the company's needs.
• Make a clear time line.
• Make internal resources available.
• Do not make the error of fixing a time line and not allocating the resources accordingly.
• Make a clear plan of what you need.
• Do not plan for your current need; add some space for future expansion.
• Look into easy expansion; add licenses when needed.

Before choosing this product, we evaluated too many other options to list. We surveyed over 15 providers/solutions, and no one had a 100% fix for our company. We selected SharePoint based on flexibility, the best score, and that we were able to do our own changes. Some suppliers demanded that they do all the changes, so you would be locked to them if you need changes in the future; the system would become more expensive.

In addition to what I’ve already mentioned, if possible, have dedicated implementation staff. Or, get external staff involved after they have reviewed your company processes for optimization; they have a neutral view of the company and are not stuck in current processes the current users work with.

• Intranet and extranet: We set up a robust and easily maintained intranet and extranet.
• Ticketing and documentation management: We use the content management features and workflows to create ticketing and document management systems. We also make good use of the wikis.
• HR Requests: We built a system within SharePoint that allows you to create a ticket in HR. For example, terminations, job status changes, pay change, and name change. The user opens the form in SharePoint. Depending on what type of action is necessary, the user is given the exact items that need to be completed for the HR action to proceed. After the user completes and sends the form, it copies the department manager for approval. An email is then sent to the various departments to work on it. With terminations, for example, an email is sent to payroll for final pay, to benefits to get the separation paperwork activated, to IT for equipment pick-up, and to others who have a role when someone leaves the company. I know that we can purchase software to do this, but it would have been expensive. Building this within SharePoint took a few weeks and has received many kudos for helping HR actions.
• Moving from folders to storage: We are moving items from the thousands of Windows folders on storage servers to SharePoint for easy management and retrieval using a SharePoint search. All policies are now on SharePoint and are easy to find and view, even with a smartphone.
• Wikis: We are turning department standard operating procedures into wikis for easy management and documentation. We use security so that only those who need to see these documents can access and update them as needed on the fly.

Building workflow systems within SharePoint that allow for corporate tracking of work issues and work items. The intranet was an instant hit with everyone and wikis have been very popular.

Little quirks that make it difficult at times to fine-tune some items. The usual Microsoft items where 90% of the product is great, but that 10% makes little things difficult to work with. It is hard to pin down, but Microsoft has you do things their way, when their way is not the best for our needs.

• Developer code: Some areas of SharePoint require you to have a .NET developer code so that it works correctly.
• Numbering: We have production support tickets that we wanted to number in a certain way. However, SharePoint could not do it until we got our .NET developer to create a workaround for the numbering system.
• Sorting: We needed some sorting done, and this required coding. This additional coding is only about 10% of our projects, but it is still there. Thank goodness we can do that when we need to.

We have used SharePoint for approximately seven years and version 2013 for the last two years. It has been our intranet, extranet, and corporate website for the past year.

It is VERY stable if you follow the recommended settings and read the SharePoint blogs.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

I would give technical support a rating of 3/5. We had some small issues and called MS tech support, but they were only able to help us 60% of the time before we fixed it ourselves.

We had no other solutions before this one.

With so much online help and blogs, setup was straightforward. We did use a third-party to assist us with best practices. Once the system was up, we were able to support ourselves with no issues.

We have an EA. It was easy to get pricing, but it is difficult to manage.

When trying to use it as an extranet, we found issues with how expensive it is per individual user. We have 15,000 contractors who serve as staff at various locations.

We decided on SharePoint early on.

Use a third-party expert who can help with the initial setup and development. You can then manage yourself once you are up and running.