Workiva Wdesk Reviews

The cross-functionality between connectivity, whether through API connections between different software platforms or the connection of data collection to the actual written ESG report, is highly valuable. The connectivity of all these aspects significantly aids in data assurance, which I consider a bonus.

The tool's script encoding needs to be updated to make it more user-friendly and less of a manual process when changes are made to a company's program. Those changes happen frequently due to mandatory or voluntary reporting requirements, leading to lost linkage connections that must be manually reset each time a change is made. This aspect is not functional now, and I see it as an opportunity for improvement.

I have been using the product for a year. 

The tool is scalable and competitive compared to other products in the market. 

Workiva Wdesk's support is proactive about closing the gaps in the platform. 

Positive

I am unsure why Workiva Wdesk lacks certain functionalities that other software has. However, they are working to update and match the capabilities of similar software. Although they are not yet on par with other software's capabilities, they are making progress. They also offer some unique benefits that other software does not have. It appears to be a work in progress, with a different prioritization roadmap than other software companies. Their current focus is more on connectivity to other applications and software than script functionalities.

The tool's deployment is quick. Once the program is set up, you're ready to collect data and connect it to your report. The deployment team's size depends on the size of the company and how many different data providers you're utilizing. Some companies have one person doing everything, while others have a huge team. We're on the latter end of it, with many people involved. One great thing about the platform is that everything is consolidated in one place, providing a single resource for everyone. This is a benefit.

The  maintenance of the solution depends on the experience of the person managing the company's program. The company might have a contractor handling the back end and software management if they're low-level and only analyzing the data. However, if you have someone experienced with software and script encoding, that person might be the analyst and managing the program. Generally, most people are just analysts and not managing the software. There's an opportunity for improvement in user management of their software, and I hope they address this gap before the year ends.

Most companies have a contractor to deploy the solution. 

The tool's ROI depends on the company. This product can streamline the process for many companies, but it depends on the number of data providers. There are opportunities for improvement in how data providers supply data, which likely needs fixing on the coding end. The broader the data collection, the more opportunities there are for streamlining the product to make it more user-friendly and less of a manual process.

I've been working with the tool's script encoding departments and top management to address gaps in their script encoding. They are working towards closing these gaps to ensure we can continue using the product. However, if these gaps are not closed, we will discontinue its use. We need the product to be more functional quarterly and annually. Any amendments made to our program are not user-friendly now; it's a manual process.

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. Despite the areas for improvement, actively working on enhancements. Their customer service compensates for the current limitations.

I use Workiva Wdesk primarily for creating and managing Board deck presentations. It allows multiple users, each responsible for specific sections, to collaborate efficiently. We can update our own comments and contributions in real time, making the process of preparing and maintaining our Board presentations more streamlined and collaborative.

Using Workiva Wdesk has provided significant benefits, especially in the context of quarterly board meetings with tight deadlines. We could efficiently create PowerPoint presentations with Excel add-ins for our financial data. As we made adjustments and tax entries throughout the month, any changes in the data, especially in categories like SG&A and net income, could be instantly updated in the presentation. This seamless flow of data eliminated the need for extensive discussions and allowed owners to adjust their comments as needed. Overall, Wdesk helped us effectively manage our financial data, ensuring everyone had accurate and up-to-date information for review during the board meetings.

The most valuable feature I have found in working with Wdesk is its ability to easily upload and update financial results, creating a dynamic data sheet. Whenever these numbers are used throughout the system, they are automatically updated, ensuring accuracy and saving time.

One area where Workiva Wdesk could improve is by ensuring that its cloud-based system is fully compatible with the most current versions of PowerPoint and Excel. Sometimes, the features available in their versions of these applications fell short of the company's standards, which could be limiting. Having access to the latest versions might increase costs, but it is essential to keep up with the evolving technology landscape and meet the demands of companies that require faster reporting processes. This would make it easier to handle custom requests and adjustments, like creating specific data categories in Excel and seamlessly transferring them into Wdesk for presentations without the need for time-consuming manual adjustments.

I have been working with Workiva Wdesk for two years.

In terms of stability, I had no issues with staying connected or accessing Workiva Wdesk. The only minor glitches I encountered were related to working from home and using a VPN to access it, but these were more about the VPN's capabilities rather than Wdesk's stability. Overall, the platform was consistently available and reliable.

The scalability of this solution is tremendous, especially for standard reports and dashboards that don't change much. It's excellent for quickly updating monthly reports by changing the name and having all the numbers readily available. It's ideal for P&Ls, balance sheets, project finances, and any constant, repetitive reporting. However, creating new or one-time reports may not be the best fit as Excel can handle those quickly and efficiently and you don't need to wait for updates. We had approximately 25 to 30 users with access rights to the solution. Usage was more focused on executive management and some mid-level managers who used it to review and provide input or accept comments rather than actively edit the content. Wdesk does not require much maintenance and it is used every month at our company.

I would rate the technical support as a nine out of ten.

Positive

Before working with Workiva Wdesk, our company primarily used Excel and PowerPoint for our reporting needs. We decided to switch to WDesk primarily to maintain consistent and easily updatable numbers in our reports. Handling changes in a 150-page presentation, especially when many numbers are involved, was a high-maintenance task. WDesk's ability to streamline the update process and ensure data consistency was a key factor in our decision to switch.

The deployment process for Workiva WDesk faced challenges when it came to engaging the C-level executives, who preferred reviewing reports in a PDF format rather than using the tool directly. While this saved on paper, it limited the ease of making real-time changes or providing feedback electronically. For WDesk to work effectively, it requires full buy-in from top executives all the way down to accountants, ensuring that everyone involved has access to and utilizes the platform effectively. We started by granting access to everyone, but the challenge was getting people to log in and use the platform. We had two key reports in WDesk: the board presentation and a monthly financial update for the board. The latter was a condensed three-page version of the extensive quarterly report. This setup served as a trial to assess the platform's suitability for distributing these types of presentations. The deployment of Workiva Wdesk took around two to three weeks for the initial setup, including configuring tables and data download requirements. After that, it required an additional half a day or so to review and ensure data accuracy when changes were made to a slide. Some of the delays in this process were attributed to compatibility issues with older Excel versions being used.  My colleague and I handled all of the updates. Most of the changes involved text and verbiage, which we could easily manage by opening the report and making the necessary edits, including removing comments.

The return on investment from using this solution was mainly in the time savings, particularly the ability to create a new document within about an hour of having the financial results available in the system.

Wdesk is affordable and as far as I'm aware, there were no additional costs beyond the standard license increase. We didn't have to make any other changes; it primarily involved accessing the platform via the cloud and storing data there.

My advice to someone considering implementing Workiva Wdesk in their company would be to ensure they have compatible Excel and PowerPoint versions. Overall, I would rate the solution as an eight out of ten.

I use it to generate reports with teams.

It helps you to maintain a backup of your data, including the connectivity with the tables, which provides a user-friendly way to handle and access your files.   

I believe there are significant issues with Fortiva, particularly in the HTML and Excel aspects. There seem to be constraints and promises made to clients that don't align with the reality. For example, pivot tables aren't recognized, and you need to redo various elements like graphs, waterfalls, maps, and charts. This can be a hassle, especially when trying to create a polished final product. Managing large volumes of data is challenging, and bulk operations like Search and Replace are limited. The platform lacks the flexibility to switch between uppercase and lowercase, requiring time-consuming workarounds. Overall, there seem to be legal and structural problems with the way Fortiva has been constructed.

Regarding the product, I would like to incorporate support for pivot tables. Additionally, I aim to integrate Excel graphs into Workiva seamlessly, with automatic refreshing. This would eliminate the need for Windows integrations. Moreover, I intend to enhance compatibility with regular workflow tasks, such as shortcuts and keyboard commands.

I have been using Workiva Wdesk for two years.

Stability is a mixed bag. During our regular working hours in sync with the US time zone, it's quite stable because that's when everyone is active in the US. However, if we need to work after 3:00 p.m., we experience constant connection issues due to increased user activity on the US side. In contrast, we find that regular SharePoint works better and appears to be more reliable. Additionally, it offers richer control over changes and is more compatible with Microsoft Office.

A limitation we face is that it's web-based. Sometimes, when working online, there's a risk of losing the last couple of minutes of work due to network or internet connectivity issues. This can be quite frustrating because it disrupts our workflow. Comparatively, other applications like Microsoft Office have addressed this problem by allowing you to continue working even if the internet connection drops or changes have already been committed. The issue here is primarily because it's web-based, which makes us susceptible to connectivity problems. This is an area where improvements could be made.

More often than not, their support consists of sending a multitude of links containing information that you're expected to sift through to resolve issues. Unfortunately, it often turns out that the software itself isn't capable of addressing the problem or requires a new feature to be implemented. In such cases, it's frustrating because you don't have direct access to or control over the necessary changes or solutions.

Positive

The initial setup was satisfactory. They offer training, but it can be costly. It might be beneficial to provide two versions of training to users. The first version could be a light introduction to get users started quickly, and then more in-depth training could follow. This way, users can choose the level of training that suits their needs.

What I've observed is that many other companies are using Workiva. In my view, it would be a good practice to run a trial before fully committing to it. Personally, I would opt for a trial of various products to understand their limitations. However, we ended up being compelled to use it. I believe that, at one point, Workiva had a substantial niche market around six to ten years ago. Yet, post-COVID, tools like Teams and SharePoint have improved significantly. At this point, I don't see a compelling reason to invest in Workiva. It may be necessary for compliance and controlling the version of SCC, but not everyone needs its high-end capabilities. Using Workiva involves a trade-off. You can achieve your desired outcomes more easily, but it may require high-end users. Workiva simplifies many tasks, and I think it's quite practical.

From a user's perspective, I would prefer using Office. However, from the viewpoint of financial or administrative personnel, the preference would be for Workiva. The reason for this divide is that Workiva eliminates the need to concern oneself with managing various aspects. It's a two-sided coin, with users leaning towards a negative response and financial managers and administrators in favor due to the advantages of governance.

Overall I would rate it a six out of ten.

Workiva Wdesk is pretty good in terms of getting the data from the system, automating the reporting schedules, and directly connecting with the different users to review the data. So, it is pretty operational in terms of being user-friendly for people, especially in terms of providing the data consolidation, reviewing the data, editing and modifying the data, plus updating the schedules through the ERP. It has a very good integration with ERP tools. So those kinds of benefits we have.

As far as I know, Workiva Wdesk works okay. There are always some issues, but those are not on top of my head, but it was okay when I was working with the client. It was doing its job.

Regarding the solution, reporting has certain areas that can be considered for improvement. However, nothing is on top of my head right now.

Having worked with a couple of clients, I had to optimize Workiva. So, that is the experience I have. We are not the customers since my company helps in the implementation of the solution.

I don't see any issues with its stability, as it looks good to me.

It is a pretty scalable tool.

The solution is used by smaller organizations. For reporting purposes, I have used it in a company where there were six to seven people working because this is a very niche and small process which forms once a month or once a quarter. So I haven't seen a big team working on it. Those working on the solution prepare reviews and approvals.

The initial setup was straightforward, and it integrated with ERP to fetch the data.

I have done the deployment for some of the teams, so it is good to go.

To those planning to use the solution, I can say that the solution does its job. I rate the product an eight to eight and a half out of ten.

The solution is used for financial reporting.

The collaboration within the platform is valuable.

The solution should be able to do pivot tables.

I have been using the solution for three years. I am using the latest version of the solution.

I rate the tool’s stability a six out of ten. The speed must be improved. We're using the data center in the US. It might improve if we use the one in Japan.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. Five of our customers are using the product. Our customers are very large multi-national companies.

I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. The initial setup was straightforward. The solution is cloud-based. We deployed the product along with Wdata in six months. It was for a lot of use cases. To deploy the tool, we designed the use cases and developed them. Then, we went through unit tests, integration tests, and user acceptance tests. It was an Agile delivery cycle.

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten. Our clients in Asia think that the solution is too expensive. The tool is difficult to sell. Other than the implementation service, the customer needs to pay the annual license fee.

We use Wdata more than Wdesk. Someone who is considering using the product must also use Wdata. They must use it widely for multiple use cases to get the benefit. The product will look too expensive if the customer uses it for a single use case. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We utilize Workiva Wdesk to generate the annual reports. Additionally, we prepare several reports. As part of this process, I am responsible for creating multiple tables containing data.

Workiva Wdesk has a data flow that is standardized, making it easy for people to file documents, create users and manage the information, creating backups. Additionally, creates links that allow the replication of certain critical data in different documents making easier updates.

Workiva Wdesk cloud servers are located in America and Europe. Thus, if we are working on the system after six in the evening and the system refreshes, we risk losing data. This is a significant problem as we have to start over again. Additionally, we experience continuous connection disruptions because the documents are heavy.

The most critical issue is the need to shift between uppercase and lowercase. If someone decided to make all the titles lowercase. Then we have to copy and paste it into Word, do "shift F3", and come back to Workiva Wdesk. Unfortunately, Workiva Wdesk doesn't have this functionality, which is the worst part. 

The search and replace option needs improvement. For instance, if we want to set double space and replace it throughout the whole document, we would have to manually click the mouse ten thousand times to find and replace ten thousand places. Workiva Wdesk doesn't have a "replace all" option, search with case sensitivity, or search for the whole word. 

Managing columns is an issue accommodating tables and images. I have spoken with the support team numerous times about the need to delete using backspaces in areas where there is nothing, this situation is extremely frustrating.

In Excel, I have around 50 auto reports. after importing loses all graphs and pivots, then I am forced to redo it using their app. Additionally, the synchronizing of superscripts and subscripts doesn't work properly. The sync only works in one direction, creating two versions if you modify inside Workiva the excels.

I have been using Workiva Wdesk for over two years.

Workiva Wdesk is not stable, as the servers experience downtime during busy times in America. Some of our reports are over 300 pages, and we face difficulties when the solution is unstable.

Most of the time, when we have a query, we receive links to information, after reading you realize that the solution is not there.

Neutral

The initial setup needs training and implementation, some difficulties are exporting to Word, especially if your setup is in inches, while we are using centimeters. Additionally, all the spacing is done in percentage, which causes issues when exporting to Word, another problem is that Workiva does not have the capability to do pivot tables. Instead, you need to create several Excel inside Workiva to filter and achieve the same result.

I give Workiva Wdesk a five out of ten.

We have approximately 300 users using Workiva Wdesk.

In my opinion, Workiva Wdesk should have trial versions to test properly to avoid disappointments.

With this solution, we do SOX, internal audit, and integrated risk, and we can also do a lot in SEC filings and reporting.

We've modeled our processes around the Workiva model. There's a little bit more flexibility, so we can do a little bit more, as compared to AuditBoard. Workiva's a little bit more flexible, and you have the ability to evolve our processes and have them as your own. That said, we have to follow the Workiva model, which has allowed us to mature our processes and gain process efficiency, as well as being able to improve our reporting and integration amongst the various risk and compliance departments.

The control testing, the reporting, and the workflow capabilities are great. The core foundations of being able to work through an audit process or a SOX process to better fit your needs are quite useful. It makes the compliance process more efficient and more effective.

Like any piece of software, there are always areas for improvement. With this product, it's more about the integrated data model where you can have a one-to-many/many-to-one relationship between your policies and processes, risks, and controls. They need to showcase how you can put those pieces together. That could always be enhanced and improved so that I could test once and leverage it across multiple risks and controls.

The best thing that could do is just continue to expand the vision and the model, which is what they're trying to do. Likely what we need is on their roadmap, and it's just sticking to their roadmap and direction to put those pieces together that will help it evolve into a stronger product.

I've been using the solution for five or six years. I've used it for a while now. 

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It's very scalable. Similar to AuditBoard, it is scalable for smaller audit departments and companies. It would be very hard for a large, robust company, like a multinational, to work in that model.

The general audit department that we work with, and SaaS department, is somewhere between five and 25 people, going out into a broader control environment of 100 people.

We currently implement mostly in the financial reporting, docs, and audit workspaces, and we're looking to get more into the operational risk, enterprise risk, IT risk areas. We likely will expand usage in the future. 

I've worked with technical support in the past, and they are very good in general. They were responsive and resolved my issues. 

I'm also familiar with AuditBoard. AuditBoard and Workiva are pure competitors, with Workiva being more functional than AuditBoard at this point in time.

As a systems integrator, I work with a lot of different solutions. 

The product is pretty straightforward to implement. It is similar to AuditBoard in that it's got a limited structure and model, so you have to adopt the Workiva model in a broad way to make sure that we're putting it together. If that works, then that's great. Otherwise, you have to evolve your processes to match the tool. Therefore, it's pretty simple to implement and low-stress to work with.

In terms of how long it takes to set up, we do some deployments in two to four weeks. It's pretty fast. That said, it really depends more on the client. It depends more on the implementing company, and what documentation and process structure the company is than it is on the technology.

I am a system integrator, so we are the hired people to help companies do implementations, and we generally transition to an in-house team.

Pricing is to be negotiated by the company. I don't deal with aspects of licensing. The pricing is all the same across the board. You need to basically negotiate a bit and they are open to that.

They're pretty good about outlining the total picture. Obviously as your scope or as your use cases change, the pricing changes, however, they don't have hidden fees of pricing surprises.

We are a systems integrator. We are systems agnostic and not exclusive to Workiva or any other tool. 

We work with various versions of the solution. 

The solution is implemented on the cloud and is very similar to AuditBoard. 

Similar to AuditBoard, new users should make sure they've done their diligence in-house to understand what they want to achieve. For example,  look at your processes and procedures, and then go look for the tool. Don't buy the tool and then figure out how to make it work. Figure out what you want to do, then go find a tool that fits what you want to do.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.