Item: Miro
Rating: 9
Author: Rajesh Balasundaram

Overall Satisfaction with Miro

Use Cases and Deployment Scope

Miro is widely used in WSAudiology. Started mainly in the R&D teams and projects, however the userfriendliness and simplicity of Miro have attracted more projects and teams from HR, Supply Chain and other areas of the orgainization to use it. We have teams and projects from multisite (Denmark, Germany, North Macedonia, India, Poland, Singapore,..), a tool like Miro is highly important to have for live collaborative sessions. I am using Miro for conducting interactive workshops and Retrospective meetings with my teams. I highly appreciate the templates library in Miro that is certainly saving lot of time in preparation for a meeting / workshop. The integration with Azure is also cool feature that we often use to integrate tickets from Azure for planning and the planner boards helps for PI planning. Miro helps individual participation especially in situations we can use the voting options quite efficiently. Thanks

Pros and Cons

Pros

Templates Library
Access control
Voting
Reaction time while scaling up
Integration to Azure
Presentation mode
other apps for estimation
single sign on

Cons

some times it hangs or crashes
planner addon could be improved
a mouse is highly recommended than only touch pad in the laptop
date of yearly calendar as header of tables as option
definition of sprints with date for reuse as header in tables as option
a review and approval cycle automation for referenced publishing

Return on Investment

Improve productivity: reduced preparation times and faster alignment
Low cost with high returns

Mural and Microsoft Teams

Key Insights

Do you think Miro delivers good value for the price?

Yes

Are you happy with Miro's feature set?

Yes

Did Miro live up to sales and marketing promises?

Yes

Did implementation of Miro go as expected?

Yes

Would you buy Miro again?

Yes

Other Software Used

Microsoft Teams, Azure DevOps Server

Likelihood to Recommend

When team collaboration is required even while onsite. It is not approriate while a Review or approval cycle is necessary and to be automated with proper publishing of documented outcomes.