SharePoint Reviews

• Site templates
• Document management
• Permissions
• Publishing features

The solution has helped host our intranet and thereby helped in content publishing and distribution.

• WYSIWYG needs improvement.
• Performance and UI can improve.
• Mobile rendering is not up to the mark.

I have used this solution for over three years.

I did not encounter any issues with stability.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

We did not use a previous solution. We did upgrade from SharePoint 2010 to SharePoint 2013.

The multi-server farm setup was not straightforward.

Pricing and licensing is not as complex as some of the other MS suite products.

We evaluated Jive and Cisco.

Plan for global deployments using a distributed deployment topology.

• Enterprise content management: It is one of the biggest features of SharePoint, which includes the use of enterprise columns for keyword searching and content organization.
• Collaboration tool: It provides seamless integration with other Microsoft Office tools like Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel.
• Enterprise search
• Other vital features are check in, check out and in-built approval workflows for documents/lists.

SharePoint provides enterprise content management, which includes the enterprise document management tools. Also collaboration tools such as workspaces and team sites improve the productivity and increase collaboration. My Site provides rich personalization features.

• SharePoint should provide more out-of-box templates. They should add more site templates like blog templates, forum templates, and so on.
• They should stabilize the platform more.
• Document management requires some performance tweaks as well.

I have used this solution for about four to five years.

When used with large data, SharePoint may produce performance degradation; that requires some optimization and tweaks.

Scalability is great, but again huge data will be a little cumbersome to manage.

The technical support is good.

We have always used the SharePoint content management system.

For document management, we use IBM FileNet, which is great for managing document but poor with collaboration tools.

The initial setup is not that complex, if the architecture is laid down properly.

There are multiple licensing options available. You should select the one that is suitable to your needs.

We evaluated some other products, like Telerik CMS.

Plan yourself properly in terms of the architecture. If you plan early for proper architecture, you will have a long-term solution.

• Team sites
• Reporting services
• Power pivot
• Excel services
• Search services.

• E-forms
• Workflows
• BPMN

I have used SharePoint for 10 years.

We did not have stability issues.

We did not have scalability issues.

Technical support rates a 3.5/5.

We did not have a previous solution.

Setup was complex. As an IT techie, it is setting up a farm that includes five servers.

It is a good solution for the enterprise level.

• Enterprise Content Management.
• eServices Platform for developing applications on top off it.
• Organization Portals.
• Collaboration, Team working and sharing.
• Document Management.
• Simple workflows.
• Enterprise Search.

• Team sites and collaboration.
• Main entry point for all applications.
• Utilizing as a sign-on.

• Workflows.
• Performance.
• Content Migration and sharing.
• Reporting.
• User experience and design response.

I’ve used and implemented this software since the 2007 version until now (almost 9 years). My last implementation was in 2014, but I’m still using this as an end user.

We did have stability issues in the old versions and there were too many hotfixes, in the 2013 version. It’s more stable now, but it can still be better.

I've never encountered any scalability issues. In the past, I’ve implemented it in with 3TB of information, without any problems.

Technical support was very good, very responsive and professional.

We used to employ Oracle UCM, but we replaced it because of the features provided in SharePoint along with the customizations, flexibility and ease of creating websites, workflows, pages and applications.

Initial setup was straightforward, easy and successful.

SharePoint is a suite of features and products within one product. Purchasing and implementing it needs optimal usage planning. I would recommend that you select the pricing or license type based on your usage. (In general, the internet license is the best).

We evaluated multiple alternatives including:

• Oracle UCM
• EMC Documentum
• FileNet IBM
• Alfresco
• Liferay

Based on two selection exercises in two organizations; SharePoint was the best fit solution. The 2nd was EMC Documentum, then Oracle followed by FileNet and Alfresco, with Liveray last.

Plan, Plan and Plan again! Usage planning is needed with up to 70% of your efforts being expended in information gathering and implementation and usage planning.

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 ability to create workflows.

Using the workflow as an example, it has helped to transform the conventional paperwork processes into digitized and faster processes.

Document libraries. At the moment, they still lack the flexibility you get in conventional Windows file systems. However, it has lots of features that make it a good replacement.

I have used SharePoint for two years.

The fact that it relies on the Internet and runs in a browser means it is bound to have performance issues.

I didn't encounter any issues with scalability. What I do know is that, when this is required, you will need the right skilled IT specialist to make the change. Often the right skilled specialists are not easy to find.

Microsoft provides both online and phone support. Phone support depends on the plan you are subscribed to.

We did not have a previous solution.

The initial setup is a simple process. However, planning requires more time in order to gather user requirements.

Setup an initial trial account with a pilot group to ascertain what is best for your environment.

We didn’t look at other options.

If your users are already familiar with an existing Windows product such as Office applications, you won't regret jumping in.

I have used SharePoint as an integrated solution with Team Foundation Server.

The most valuable features are the SharePoint lists and the documents feature.

SharePoint integrates well with the Team Foundation Server and provides collaboration features for team members on a TFS Team Project. This has helped developers and project stakeholders in the organization to collaborate better and share information in the form of documents/updates.

Migrating SharePoint sites can be a cumbersome process and it usually results in the incomplete migration of SharePoint sites and data.

I have used SharePoint for three years, mostly as an integrated solution with the Team Foundation Server.

The product is quite stable.

The product is scalable.

We were not using any other solution.

The setup and installation are straightforward. Microsoft provides a good installation wizard for the same.

I was not involved in the pricing and licensing activities.

As both the Team Foundation Server and SharePoint are Microsoft products, they can be easily integrated. Thus, we did not evaluate other options.

SharePoint works very well within a Microsoft ecosystem. Hence, SharePoint would be a good choice if the organization uses the Microsoft technology stack extensively.

The ability to assign an attribute to a library artifact allows the site owner to create the appropriate views based on artifact attributes (category, owner, etc.).

I have updated my project sites with views that apply to specific business uses, such as a project manager looking for a document assigned to a phase in the project (i.e., planning, design, execution) or an engineer looking for a document type (i.e., vendor contract, design build diagram, user acceptance testing worksheet).

Unless you have worked with a SharePoint business analyst, designer or power user, managing individual sites does require training to understand the components of the site settings and content. Folks usually start using SharePoint as a file repository without any structure. It can be overwhelming when you have 1,000's of document that a user has to parse through if just looking for a specific title. Without a consistent framework consisting of a standard nomenclature established in the initial strategy of rolling out SharePoint, using SharePoint as a file share becomes unruly.

I've worked with various SharePoint versions since 2008 but more recently with 2010 and 2013 as a power user in managing artifacts for various project and programs.

Most instances of SharePoint are stable. I have rarely experienced instability. Usually, it’s the management of user names and groups that results in problems.

I am not at the experience level to notice such an issue.

Most of the technical support has come from SME's and internal developers.

I always used Sharepoint.

I have no experience with rolling out templates or actual new instances.

Get training for IT and training for your base user. Developing a framework (nomenclature, categorization and user needs).