SharePoint Reviews

The key features in this product are:

• Use of list functionality
• The ability to easily modify the default screen on a new Web site
• The ability to quickly create and modify subsites
• The ability to create unique access rights to the subsites

We use the list functionality within SharePoint to create integrated test scripts. This has allowed us to have a Web solution for running integrated test scripts across multiple applications, along with multiple testing resources in numerous physical locations.

The product can be improved in the following aspects:

• In order to put certain customizations in place requires the downloading and installation of SharePoint Designer 2013. For large organizations where security has the majority of devices locked down, downloading and installing applications is not a simple process. It would be nice if some of the SharePoint Designer functionality could be baked in/part of the edit page functionality.
• The reporting functionality needs improvement, to combine multiple lists (for the most part) requires a solution outside of SharePoint. It would be great if there was an option to combine lists that have the exact same layout (fields and order of fields) so that the combined lists could be summarized and reported on.

I have used SharePoint for a total of 14 years; 11 years with my current employer.

Mostly, we have not encountered any stability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

I cannot comment as I simply use Google to find answers for technical issues.

The initial setup process was fairly straightforward.

My advice is to not hesitate; just plunge in and implement SharePoint.

The most valuable features are the high number of ready-made snippets, easy basic process automation functionality, security model, and good integration with other Microsoft products.

Knowledge management has improved a lot.

Analytics and reporting is an area with room for improvement.

It should provide more complex-process automation out of the box.

We've been using it in production since early 2015 for both document management and as Project Server 2013.

We have spent some time reconfiguring the farm in order to overcome performance degradation.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

We haven't issued any tickets to Microsoft support because we have dedicated SharePoint admins.

We have used no other tool prior to SharePoint.

Installation and configuration were somewhat complex.

You can always start off with the free SharePoint Foundation version in order to evaluate the platform.

Before choosing this product, we did not evaluate any other options.

Look at the spec list and try to find out if (almost) all of the features you request are covered by SharePoint.

The most valuable features of this product are: multiple site collections, list libraries, the content and document library, and custom development & integration.

Multiple site and subsites are created for around 10 subsidiaries of the main company which has a uniform portal along with subsidiary specific contents and documents.

Discussion forum, content library, document library, task calendar, job postings, integration with ticketing tool, etc. are features which are general as well as specific to each subsidiary and built by using SharePoint 2013.

We created a uniform portal for multiple subsidiaries of the company; a single place where employees can find all related documents, references and can raise requests to another application via this portal.

Areas with room for improvement:

• A more responsive UI: There is a set of user groups who want to use this application in their mobile devices. If SharePoint provides a responsive UI by default, then no extra efforts are needed to integrate the existing UI with a more responsive UI.
• The deployment process on multiple servers adds redundant work, mainly for configurations and creating site collections: Same-application deployment requires initial setup to be repeated for any new environment. For example, the very first time we need to set up each environment, we need to create the site collections and so on, and then deploy WSP packages.

No issues have been encountered in terms of stability.

I have not got a chance to make use of technical support for any issues.

Initial setup was complex for IT resources with a non-SharePoint background.

License cost is slightly higher so it is suggestible to derive license cost based on relevant features.

We did not evaluate any other options.

Using this product, one can benefit from OOB features in regards to content and document management. It provides a single platform where multiple applications can be integrated under one roof.

We are using metadata tags on documentation, indexed research, linked calendar to outlook, and controlled navigation.

We are not using libraries to classify information, but columns linked to metadata (customer, services, processes, and so on). We have generated a true document ID card, and metadata is easy to index in the research engine. We have a “Google-like” page dedicated to research, which includes refinement fields available to help in research.

We are only using it as a documentation storage system for around 500+ people, so we can find the right document at the right moment, as required. With metadata tags and acronyms, we were able to manage the company terms and create a common basis.

Various wikis are very limited; there is no integrated solution for communicators; master pages are too limited and require a developer; and libraries are sometimes useless.

Wikis are not simple enough and too hard to use. There could be auto links, for example, like you can implement in Confluence. A wiki should have an integrated table of contents and auto link to already available terms in the wiki, like Wikipedia works.

An integrated communicator would be an asset. You could use it to ask documentation owners when it will be available in the platform. It would work something like Facebook messenger.

Master pages are just too hard to manage because everything in SharePoint is linked. One level on one page might be a different level in another page; so you need time and failures before you succeed.

In general, it is a good product, but it has limited support and too much expertise required.

I have used it since 2010. The company I work for has been using it since 2003.

We never had any stability issues. In fact, our system is quite simple. We only experienced downtime three times in six years. This was only due to a VM management problem with human resources.

We did not have any issues with scalability.

Microsoft’s support is much too expensive and too complicated. We are not using their support at all. We are doing everything internally the best we can.

We tried ShareDrive and Confluence. We stay with SharePoint because of the indexed content and corporate licenses.

The initial setup was complex. We hired an external consultant to implement the Content Type Hub.

I’ll strongly recommend to adopt metadata solutions, but with a SharePoint expert. This is expensive, but you save a lot of time.

We did not evaluate any other options because of corporate requirements.

I recommend hiring experts and architects and preparing detailed business requirements for them.

SharePoint’s most valuable feature is its use for community building. It turns large scores of people into a more cohesive group by creating a central working environment for documents, conversations, knowledge sharing, processes, tasks and content.

We have a variety of use cases internally, but an easy one for everyone to understand is the creation of the “company meeting” slide show. Every two weeks, everyone in our company gets together to hear from each other about the “goings on” in the company. Each area of the business gets the opportunity to present a few slides. In the past, these slides were emailed to a central point and some poor person had to collate it before all staff arrived. Now, with SharePoint and Office 365, all the business areas are able to edit their part of the PowerPoint file at any time, from anywhere. This saves plenty of time, removes embarrassing copy and paste errors, and also gives staff a central reference point after the meeting to catch up on what was presented.

The user interface, although extensible, leaves much to the imagination when compared to modern websites. Companies, like ourselves, are able to transform the front end into anything, but this consulting process sometimes scares off would be clients. Adoption remains a challenge (not really a product fault). Lastly, the workflow remains a kind of ugly sister. Improvements have been made in the form of “flow” (only available on Office 365). But, all in all, companies normally have to invest in third-party tools, such as K2 / Nintex, if they really want to create enterprise-grade workflow processes.

I have been using this solution for 13 years.

We did not encounter any stability issues. In most cases, instability is caused by client or vendor implementation errors.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability. SharePoint actually scales really well as you’re able to add roles and servers to your heart’s content. Office 365 also has a number of clever resource throttling capabilities, which allows administrators to prioritize certain areas over others.

We received excellent technical support. We have no complaints there.

We never tried to implement a solution other than SharePoint.

In the early days 2003, the initial setup of SharePoint was highly complex, but nowadays it has been streamlined a lot. The challenge, however, is not the basic installations. It is creating something that is ready to take advantage of the scalability and other platform benefits without revising the architecture.

More than 75% of our interactions now are with clients that already have Office 365 (which includes SharePoint), so the pricing is normally bundled with that. We do discuss specifics when it comes to the amount of storage included. For on site deployments, clients need to license each server, as well as each client access license (CAL).

As a vendor, our typical scenario is that the product was already chosen, and we are just implementing it. As SharePoint is a platform with many capabilities, plenty of products compete with specific areas of SharePoint, but hardly anyone can offer everything that SharePoint does.

Before starting the project, it’s critical to understand what you want to achieve. Just installing it because IT owns it, will not accomplish your goals. If you have well-defined use case for it, and the solution is geared toward delivering on that ROI, SharePoint is a great fit. Special attention must be given to ongoing adoption and training and it’s critical that you choose your vendor very carefully. Many vendors understand a bit, but only a handful have walked the walk and know the many pitfalls of splash and dash deployments.

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.

• Ability to be used from a .NET programming environment

We were able to introduce a CMS, which had never been implemented before.

For sure, it should offer customisation of data grids, which is not possible, as it seems to use some proprietary OCX control.

I have used it for three years.

I have not encountered that many stability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues so far.

I did not previously use a different solution.

As with any other product, initial setup is a bit complex to understand how/what is happening, but with a good background and understanding, how it works it is very easy.

For simple solutions, I recommend this solution. But going large scale, you might consider going with an open-source solution.

Before choosing this product, I did not evaluate other options.

Look at alternatives, and understand your goals and possible future implementations.

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.