SharePoint Reviews

We have used SharePoint for more than eight years.

In the 10+ years of being in traditional IT, I have never once heard of a happy customer of SharePoint, only happy contractors and IT personnel who feel safe in their jobs because SharePoint never quite works. I’ve even tried to find a happy customer. I couldn’t. 

This is probably harsh criticism to some readers, but in my honest view, SharePoint is a system that only really works for IT departments and the contractors who develop SharePoint, because the solution is folded into the existing enterprise agreements. It’s free because it wouldn’t have value on its own. There are no happy customers of SharePoint, only happy contractors.

Let’s talk UX. Employees today have little time for systems that don’t address their needs. If a team needs the ability to share files and that system restricts them, then IT has failed. SharePoint doesn’t really help in today’s world of mobile access, collaboration and sharing of content. 

SharePoint doesn’t provide real workflow so common practices are always having to be redone. This frustrates end-users and always makes IT look less than capable, which is unfair, because it’s SharePoint.

When systems require lengthy timelines to spin up, require additional expert staff to create and then ultimately under-deliver solutions to end users who then feel constrained, force-fed and unable to use the system, then the only conclusion I can make is that the product is sub-standard. While Microsoft has no doubt put tremendous resources into developing SharePoint (and is now saddled with a massive contractor partner channel that refuses to change its ways), the world has moved on. 

SharePoint requires too much administrator-level effort in order to launch. Typical installations of SharePoint require conversations regarding hardware, storage and access permissions which slow business down. SharePoint requires all of these things because the architecture is — in IT time — ancient and inflexible. Once those lengthy conversations are finished then the actual work begins in order to ensure SharePoint can function. This takes business time, money, and contractors are usually very happy in making sure everything is just right. 

Software should not require additional effort to operate effectively. Business should not need additional outsourced expertise in order to get a fileshare running. Then there are the operating concerns of security, governance and collaboration. SharePoint offers only read or read/write ability to files which is far less than competitors offer for a lower price. 

SharePoint isn’t necessarily any more secure than anything else and doesn’t offer the level of governance required for many companies. It cannot report in-depth user activity or provide policy automation out of the box. Ultimately SharePoint offers less than what you need for more than what you bargained.

Competitors are solidly in the market who offer better workflow, security, governance and collaboration. Box.com offers higher degrees of collaboration AND Office integration than SharePoint. 

If you’re a business that needs to collaborate on content, and has the desire to share that content outside your building to your executives on their phones or vendors in other locations, SharePoint is not the solution for you.