SharePoint Reviews

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.

Collaboration with other Microsoft products has made SharePoint a real tool for us. You can use a personal OneDrive storage to share your own documents with others, but also use SharePoint sites to manage projects with external users.

All attachments are put under SharePoint. So, no more of network sharing is required to store documents. Document versioning is also a useful feature for our organization.

No need to worry any more about emails with attachments and obsolete versions with those attachments. People can edit an online version at the same time. You don’t have to save and send anything anymore.

Though Office 365 Groups is only partly based on SharePoint Online, it gives a great option to share team information with inside and outside users.

SharePoint Online is excellent as is, but licensing for the on-premises version is expensive.

I have been using this product for eight years.

I have not encountered any stability issues. It is an excellent product if you don’t have to customize it too much.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

I would rate the technical support level 9/10.

I did not use any other solutions prior to SharePoint and I would not change to another product either.

Setup is very straightforward when you know the architecture.

I didn’t evaluate other products.

Keep it simple. Make use of this product without huge amounts of custom applications and scripting.

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.