SharePoint Reviews

I have found SharePoint team sites to produce much more value to our organization. As a consulting company, it allows multiple consultants to collaborate on a team project for a customer.

We use SharePoint for company-wide document management.

Although the workflow is limited in SharePoint, we have used it for many boarding processes, PTO requests etc.

SharePoint has streamlined many processes and has provided additional organization for our company. It has become a central location for both documents and productivity.

SharePoint has workflow built into the software however it is very simplistic. Third party applications integrate with SharePoint to provide a more feature full workflow. For example, if I wanted to create a workflow for new employee onboarding process I could use SharePoint built in workflow. Doing so would provide me limited configuration options, no version control, only attach to one list, sequential workflow only, and not very customizable.

Using a third party you can create intuitive workflows, customize branding with CSS, easy drag and drop implementation, comprehensive workflows actions (loops, foreach, parallel actions, variables), and maintain retention history.

I would like to see it built-in the product itself.

I have used this solution for two years.

Some stability issues have been found with the database. From the infrastructure side, most people use dedicated databases for SharePoint so a simple reboot usually fixes the communication issues.

SharePoint is extremely scalable but requires planning ahead of time.

You must answer some questions about your environment in order to determine the number of servers and also as to what SharePoint function(s) they will serve for meeting the demands of your organization.

I have never used Microsoft technical support for SharePoint in particular. However, Microsoft support is very good.

Initially, we were using simple file shares and emails for this purpose.

SharePoint can be very complex to set up initially both in terms of the infrastructure as well as the backend design and implementation. The more scalable the environment, the more complex the setup will be. Generally, third-party consultants will be needed to implement the solution.

There are two options with SharePoint. They have an on-premises and a cloud solution as well.

We have not evaluated any other solution before this one.

You will need to hire and communicate with a third-party consultant.

Synergy with other applications in the MS Office suite. For example, with a single click from the MS Lync client, you can create an email in the Outlook client and vice-versa, amongst many other similar integrations between applications that previously did not speak to one another.

Collaboration became a lot easier. Meetings happened more frequently between colleagues across different locations sitting at their desks and not in special video conference rooms.

Better mobile optimization and a similar experience level across device types (desktop, tablet and phones). For most applications, MS SharePoint included, users are treated to different experiences across devices. For example, Excel works slightly differently (has fewer features/capabilities) on mobile when compared to the desktop experience. It would be nice to close this gap as much as possible, such that a user may have no qualms transiting between devices.

I have been using SharePoint for over four years.

We did not have any stability issues.

We did not have any scalability issues. It is as easy as adding new licenses for new users.

Technical support was not as good as expected. Sometimes request took upwards of three business days.

We used several single purpose software tools for each area of our need. We switched to MS SharePoint/Office 365 for a number of reasons, including: the seamless integration between the many apps in the suite; colleagues (users) are familiar with the MS office interface from Excel, Outlook, Word and PowerPoint and that shortens the learning curve considerably.

Setup was straightforward.

For non-profits, seek out non-profit licensing.

We evaluated eleven others.

It’s the best in the class, but make sure your existing solution doesn't already meet your needs before making the decision to go the MS SharePoint route.

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.

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.

The document library feature in this product is most valuable.

This product does a good job of maintaining an easy, searchable knowledge base, which is the key for supporting applications and business teams.

I personally don't use this product. However, my clients find it useful for locating documents in a format, that is easy to navigate.

Submitting document changes function needs to be improved.

It is hard to identify deltas in documents especially ones with drawings.

The process of updating a document on the fly takes a while to download and update.I am used to robust versions of management systems and hence end up using Apache Subversion (SVN) rather than SharePoint for version management.

I would also like to see who makes the changes inside the documents, that are managed.

I have used this product on and off for 10 years.

I have encountered stability issues when connecting to TFS 2013 for reporting.

I have not yet encountered any scalability issues.

I have not used any technical support.

Previously, I have used HP document solutions. I made the switch to SharePoint as it was what the client was using.

The initial setup for me was fairly simple.

I don't know since I did not source the production and used existing licenses.

I did not evaluate other options as I have not purchased this product.

It is best to ensure that all configuration options are explored when connecting
to other solutions.

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.

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.

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.