Microsoft Teams Reviews

The solution is being used for Collaboration. 

The Audio Call feature is its most valuable feature. Through this feature, seamless discussions can take place, files can be shared through one single application and the voice quality is also good. Organizations can also build their org chart and share information through emails and phone calls.

The Teams functions can be improved and some other package should be introduced. 

I have been using Microsoft Teams for two years. 

It is a stable solution. I rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. Three hundred users are using Microsoft Teams in our organization. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. 

I used Slack previously. 

The initial setup is straightforward. It only took a few minutes to deploy Microsoft Teams. I rate the setup a ten out of ten. 

I would like to recommend this solution because it's a native package of Office 365. Once you have combined your ADAP account, you can use it directly. You log in to your Office 365 account and then launched the application. Also, the solution is very simple to use.

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten. 

We use the solution as collaboration software to schedule meetings with our core team members.

The solution allows us to invite members to attend the meeting efficiently.

The solution's user interface needs to be friendlier. It is challenging to navigate the setting when I want to stop the screen-sharing feature.

We have been using the solution for a year.

We have 220 solution users in our organization.

We have never contacted the solution's technical support team, as our organization has a dedicated support team for Microsoft 365. They handle all the queries.

The solution's initial setup process is easy.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for all the meetings that we used to have on premise. In the current situation, Teams is a good alternative. We are customers of Microsoft and I am chief specialist of MMS. 

I think the screen sharing feature is the most valuable. 

I think it would be helpful if the whiteboard tool was embedded in the solution rather than having to deploy or download a tool for this. I also don't like it that the toolbar sticks to the screen during meetings. There should be an option to remove or at lease minimize it as it obstructs the view. 

We've been using this solution for four months. 

Stability is very good, we've had minimal crashed. In fact, the internet infrastructure that we have is also good, so I haven't had any problems.

I have also used Zoom which I think is more popular than Teams in terms of being able to include more people and ease of use in video conferencing. Nevertheless, I think both are good tools.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward even if you're not an IT person. It's just a matter of downloading the application and it will be set up on your desktop. There are probably close to 500 users in our company that use it regularly. 

I'm a business user so I'm not talking from an IT perspective but I believe there has been a return on investment because Teams has seamlessly allowed us to continue to do our work over the lockdown period. I can't put a value on that but it has benefited the company.

There is some room for improvement, so I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

Our company is moving from their Skype for Business to Teams. So I've seen it, I've looked at it, I've used it somewhat enjoyed the UI. Teams has been very friendly. I have no qualms about going to Teams from Skype. I have yet a lot to discover.

There's one thing that I was disappointed in when I was trying to invite my whole team to a meeting. I had to type the team members versus being able to set up a team's group of names as you can do with Outlook. It would be nice if you could take the ones that dial in with their phone numbers and it had some type of translation. The idea is to get the name of the person dialing in. I don't know if they can get tricky and pick up a name that's associated with that number or prompt the user as they do on Skype.

I'm a new user of Microsoft Teams, I've only used it for a week.

I haven't encountered any stability problems at this point

I would rate Microsoft Team on an even par with Skype for Business. I would give it an 8 on a scale from one to10.

The features in this solution are better than Skype for Business.

The group chat is very good.

In the next release, I would like to have the interface modernized and brought more up to date.

This is a stable solution.

Scalability and adding licenses is a straightforward process. We have had no issues at all.

We have a hundred or more people using this solution. They are all end-users.

We have an enterprise agreement with premium support for this solution. We haven't had an issue but we're covered in case we do. I would not be able to judge the quality of support for a normal user.

We were using Skype for Business, but Microsoft has stopped supporting it. In 2020, they will only provide new features for Teams, and not Skype for Business, which is why we switched.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

The helpdesk configured this solution for the users.

We are satisfied with the price of this solution. We have an enterprise agreement.

This is a solution that I recommend. Neither myself nor the end-users have had issues since we began using this solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Microsoft Teams is used, in our case, to collaborate with all internal employees, to work on offering some proposals, and to work together online on files in Word and Excel. We largely use it to collaborate online and to have video meetings with customers. 

We can integrate SharePoint sites with other people. We have libraries that are available within Teams so that people can sync those libraries to their local drives and therefore will have the most up to date information and documents at their disposal.

The integration of online jobs and documents is one of the most valuable aspects of the solution. The ability to integrate tasks and to assign tasks to certain people is great. 

I'm really waiting for the release of Lists to be included. Lists is a new feature that will probably come into Teams in August. It will be a way of using some sort of database to enter interlinked lists.

I don't like the online version of Word and Excel. It skews the layout. It is no longer representative of the layout that you actually have in a document. You always have to open it in the desktop application to get an accurate representation of how the document will look. 

If you open a document in Teams, it opens online first. If you have, for instance, an entire image on the front page, that image is descaled to the right and to the bottom. So you have a lot of white space on the page, while in reality, it's pretty nicely aligned. You basically have a borderless page. That's one of the main things that they can improve on. If they had a workaround where you can open it in the desktop apps first, it would be better. 

The solution needs to adjust the number of protected channels within a team.

The solution should maybe include breakout rooms within a team meeting. For example, let's say you are with 10 people, within one meeting space. You can have three accounts in separate smaller "meeting rooms" with just two or three people accessing them and still be within the same larger meeting environment. Let's say if you have a team where you have some technical members, some solution architects, a bid manager, a capture manager, an account manager, etc., you should be able to break up a meeting into multiple smaller sessions on certain topics, and yet still stay within the same meeting space. 

They should include a visual application also within Teams, so drawings that are made can attach to that space within the proposal with the ability to add Word or Excel files, as well as tasks, etc.

We've been using the solution for two years now. That's well before everyone started using conferencing systems during COVID-19.

It's a stable solution. We haven't had any hiccups. Its been working flawlessly for the two years that I'm using it now.

The solution is easy to scale, however, you need to take into account best practices so that you don't lose oversight on the number of teams that you have. 

There are other things that can be improved of in terms of scaling. For the moment, you can have approximately 5,000+ different teams within your Office 365 license. In each team, you can have multiple channels. The number of channels with limited access rights is limited to 256 or 250. If you create a channel where you want to find all your different projects and you have more than 250 customers within one team, you run into issues. Then you have to create separate teams for each customer. In those teams, you have various possibilities on channels. We started using a team, for instance, for customer projects. However, in customer projects, you are limited. It's only on about 25 channels that you can give access rights to certain people. If you are working on the project with company X together for a customer, you don't want them to see another project for another customer with a competing solution. That's the tricky part.

That was a limitation that we encountered with scaling. We changed the approach from having a team customer project to creating teams for each customer where we have projects.

Currently, in our organization, we have 250 employees using Teams. We use it quite extensively every day.

We haven't really reached out to technical support. If we need support, we first reach out to our IT department and they will figure it out on our behalf, or contact Microsoft directly. In my experience, until now, with Office 365, I haven't had any issues. I'm satisfied with the product but I can't speak to any specific experience related to customer service.

We use a bunch of solutions at any given time. We have Cisco Webex, for example. We also have the Mitel My Call app and for some of our customers, we also need to use Zoom and BlueJeans. So we have quite a few solutions that are active.

If you look at just the feature of video conferencing and you look at Zoom and BlueJeans and Microsoft Teams, they're all pretty much alike. It's mainly the integration of everything document-wise and the consistency that I really liked within Microsoft Teams.

Out of all of the other solutions, BlueJeans is the one that I found the least reliable. We had quite a few hiccups where we eventually fell back to Cisco WebEx for video conferencing instead of the BlueJeans solution.

Then we have Zoom, which I have less experience with. It's used by a few vendors with whom we collaborate from time to time. They use Zoom predominantly, so when we conference with them, it's largely through that.

In terms of Cisco WebEx, the thing that I don't like is that if someone invites you for a meeting and you connect to the meeting early, you don't get notified when the meeting actually starts, so you constantly have to reload until the meeting organizer starts the meeting and accepts you. For instance, last week, I went into a Cisco WebEx meeting. I connected two minutes before the actual time that the meeting should have started. I opened the WebEx application and the meeting didn't start. 10 minutes later, I reloaded the application and reconnected to the session and they were already actively meeting. The application didn't notify me when the meeting actually started. That's a big drawback.

The solution is installed by our IT department. In the beginning, we had some issues with assigning rights. Not everybody was able to create a team or to invite people into a team or to share files. However, now they have changed a few things around. There are quite a few people now that can create teams, add members, etc., and you can add external members and there are a few new policies internally about best practices.

I was one of the first parties to implement a solution like Teams. Our company bought a few companies and every company was using different tools as their main resource. The one thing that they all had in common was Microsoft Office 365, and yet they didn't use Teams at that time. I was one of the people asking our organization to implement Teams because my position requires me to have to collaborate with people from all of the different companies that our company bought.

The deployment was done in less than a week. That was due largely due to the availability of our IT staff. Once they began doing the implementation, however, it was done within a few hours. It was activated, rights were assigned, and people with rights could begin working and downloading the team's application on smart devices, on their computers almost right away. 

It's as easy as using Skype for a private person. You just download the application and you can start.

I believe we've been using the latest versions of the solution. We use whichever version is pushed out with Office 365.

I would recommend the product. It works with everything. I have an iPad Pro, I have an iPhone, I have my computer. It's installed on all three devices. It works flawlessly. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten, simply because there are a few things the solution still needs to improve upon.

We mainly use Microsoft Teams for our project teams, and of course also for remote virtual meetings. We mainly use it internally but also for external communication when we have remote meetings. We're customers and I'm the CEO of our company. 

The feature I find to be the most valuable is the integration with document management capabilities and video conferencing, screen sharing, etc. It's a powerful tool for when you need to work in teams and to communicate with storing files and meetings. I like Teams very much. 

I would like to see some improvement in the file hierarchy and team hierarchy. Right now it's not as powerful as when using SharePoint for files. They could develop more complex hierarchies for files and teams. I think there could also be improvement at the authorization level, who can see what and things like that. It's not that easy to work with.

I think the idea of authorization could be included as an additional feature. In addition the video conferencing is not as good as Zoom, which is a more powerful solution. Zoom provides the ability to see many people on the same screen and to break out into different virtual rooms. Those are a couple of features that Teams could implement. 

I've been using this solution for two and a half years. 

This is an extremely stable solution. I think I restarted only a couple of times over the past  two and a half years. And in the last couple of months, of course, we've been using it all day and it's very stable.

The solution scales automatically for our needs. We add users and it scales accordingly. 

We've never had to contact technical support. 

The initial setup is extremely straightforward. It's all Office 365 right so it's quite simple. We have two people in our company of 400 that can assist if we need anything. They deal with anything Microsoft related but they do other things as well, it's not a full-time job. 

Potential users of the solution should be aware that it's very good at what it does as long as you don't try to stretch the usage to something that it isn't meant to do. It's mainly for internal communication and internal projects. It's not Slack and it's not Microsoft Yammer which is for larger organizations. This is really for small teams of up to 30 people. After that, it becomes clumsy and a bit rigid.

I would rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

We mainly use this solution for project collaboration. It could be, for example, when we are developing a new product or taking a new product to market. We use it for designing, publishing and marketing assets, so basically team collaboration where we are working on a project. It helps with communication in the team and it allows us to share different documents or content with each other.

We used Skype for business in the past and we had a reasonable audio and visual experience when communicating with teams, if you have a scheduled meeting, for example. But now, with Microsoft Teams, we are able to communicate in real-time and share documents in real-time. And that is a really big improvement for us. The solution has a lot of capabilities in one application. Whereas in the past we had to use multiple applications. That, I would say, would be the biggest benefit that we've experienced, in that we have only one application that we can use to collaborate and speak with each other. 

I think what the team likes most is the improvements when it comes to communication. We've been using Skype for business in the past but the audio and visual communication is really good with Microsoft Teams. I also really like the speed of the product and the way that the channels can be leveraged.

There is nothing that annoys me at the moment but perhaps the layout can be improved. In my experience working with Microsoft tools, they continuously work on usability. There are a few minor issues when scheduling meetings, and that is that some of the descriptions are really long. And there seems to be very little control over what a user could control in terms of the texts that appear. An invitation, for example, can look very complicated. So I would say that Microsoft Team invitations from the calendar within the solution could be improved.

The solution is stable, I've never experienced it being unavailable or behaving in a peculiar way. 

We are only 30 people using this program, but what I have not noticed any issues when more colleagues participate in Microsoft Teams. When usage increases, the program still offers a seamless, consistent experience. We may even add more users, so I believe the program is very scalable.

I haven't used the technical support yet, because I contact our administrator directly. But I know that he was working with Microsoft's technical team from time to time, as well as a third party that delivers hosting services.

We used Skype for Business before but Microsoft Teams came along with the Microsoft Office subscription that we had. We had subscriptions to Office. And then we moved from On Premise Exchange to Exchange Online. It was the natural choice to make. We do use other services from other providers, but I would say that Microsoft Teams is the most stable one. 

From an end-user perspective, the initial setup was really straightforward. We started to use Microsoft Teams when we deployed Microsoft Exchange Online earlier this year, and as part of that, we adopted the use of Teams and Yammer. I have been using Microsoft Teams in the past, but it wasn't really until we as an organization had deployed it and exchanged online that we were all able to enjoy the benefits. Testing the application before was very fragmented.

Deployment took a couple of days. When we started to go from using Microsoft Outlook for mail, we started to integrate Yammer and Teams. 

My advice to others would be that, if they're working with a similar product, they should have a change management program in place. They should also give themselves a few days at least to deliver some training for the users. I think the training is really important to enhance the user adoption experience. It doesn't have to be a lot, but at least give them an introduction and a guided tour through the program's features. 

The biggest lesson I've learned is actually using a single application that can deliver all of the services that are required. Since I've only been using the solution for six months, I haven't even used all the features yet. I think that Microsoft Teams may replace Microsoft Outlook in the future.

On a scale from one to 10, I will rate this solution a seven. I think there's always room for improvement, even if it's not obvious what those improvements can be. I guess I could be tempted to say eight but not higher than that. I am very satisfied with Microsoft Teams.