Top 10 Cons or Disadvantages of Using Microsoft Planner Software

Every organization strives for seamless execution, but managing complex deadlines, resources, and dependencies can quickly overwhelm even the most capable teams. This is the universal business challenge that effective project management software must solve. Microsoft Planner (Formerly Microsoft Project) is one of the oldest and most recognized tools in the project management space. It is backed by Microsoft’s vast ecosystem and often cited for its robust scheduling and resource allocation features. Following the consolidation of the entire task ecosystem into the unified Microsoft Planner (integrating Project for the Web, To Do, and the original Planner), the platform is now the single tool for work management across the Microsoft suite.

Table of Contents

Despite its powerful capabilities, especially in the high-end subscription tiers, Microsoft Planner still presents significant hurdles, particularly regarding cost, learning complexity, and suitability for modern, agile teams. This article provides a comprehensive look at the practical drawbacks that impact cash flow, user experience, and strategic flexibility, guiding businesses in their evaluation of this classic but complex platform.

If you feel that the pricing for Microsoft Planner (Formerly Microsoft Project) is too high for your budget, consider AceProject. By charging per project instead of per user, this software offers the potential for significant cost savings.

What is Microsoft Planner (Formerly Microsoft Project)?

Microsoft Planner is Microsoft’s unified work management solution that specializes in detailed scheduling, critical path analysis, and financial tracking for complex projects (via its Plan 3 and Plan 5 subscriptions), while also offering basic task and team management features for all Microsoft 365 users. The platform integrates the functionality of the classic Microsoft Project desktop application (the core scheduling engine) and the retired Project for the Web interface into a single, cloud-first experience.

Key Features:

Gantt Chart Scheduling: Industry-leading tools for defining tasks, dependencies, and critical paths for complex, time-bound projects.
Advanced Resource Allocation: Allows project managers to assign resources by time percentage and track their overall workload capacity and leveling across projects.
Integrated Budgeting and Cost Tracking: Tools to input cost rates, track expenses, and manage the project’s financial baselines against projections.
Portfolio Management: Features to visualize and prioritize multiple projects across an organization to optimize strategic alignment (requires Planner Plan 5).

Real-Life Example: A construction firm uses the advanced features of Microsoft Planner (Plan 3) to meticulously plan the 500 tasks and interdependent sub-projects required for building a new commercial tower, leveraging the classic desktop client for initial setup. They successfully manage all contractor schedules and material delivery dependencies. However, the firm relies on the basic, integrated features of Microsoft Planner in Teams for daily task updates and quick check-ins with field teams, recognizing that the core scheduling logic is highly detailed and requires specialized management.

Top 10 Cons & Disadvantages of Using Microsoft Planner

Understanding the drawbacks of Microsoft Planner is crucial for making informed decisions. Knowing its limitations, such as workflow inefficiencies, high costs, and integration gaps, helps teams plan effectively, avoid hidden operational challenges, and choose the right tools to maintain productivity and project success.

1. Steep and Unforgiving Learning Curve

Microsoft Planner’s advanced features are known to be complex to learn, thanks to its legacy Project roots. Operating the sophisticated scheduling engine, understanding task constraints, and applying resource leveling requires substantial, dedicated training for users to master its operation without inadvertently corrupting the project schedule.

This complexity creates several tangible operational and cost drawbacks.

High Training Overhead: Requires investment in formal courses or expert consultants for new team members.
Delayed Project Start: Project planning is prolonged as managers spend weeks mastering the software mechanics before fully defining the schedule.
Data Integrity Risk: Incorrect usage can lead to scheduling errors that propagate through the project timeline.

Real-Life Example: A mid-sized engineering consultancy adopted the advanced tier of Microsoft Planner. Three months later, the project executive noticed multiple schedule conflicts and resource over-allocations that the manager, who was a new user, had failed to spot because he didn’t understand how to properly apply task constraints, leading to a projected two-week delay in the first major client deliverable.

Solution: Implement a hybrid system where only the dedicated project scheduler uses the full scheduling tools (often via the classic desktop client), while the rest of the team updates tasks and logs time via the simpler Microsoft Planner web interface.

2. High and Complex Pricing Structure

The cost of Microsoft Planner is complex. While basic features are integrated into Microsoft 365 licenses, accessing the advanced scheduling, resource, and portfolio features requires the dedicated Planner and Project Plan 3 ($30/user/month) or Plan 5 ($55/user/month) subscriptions. This cost structure is high, particularly for organizations where only a few users need the full scheduling power.

The tiered structure results in clear financial pain points and accessibility limitations.

Scalability Expense: Costs become prohibitive as team size grows, forcing a choice between cutting licenses or increasing the budget.
Feature Inaccessibility: Essential enterprise features are blocked behind the $55/user/month Plan 5 tier, creating significant cost barriers for advanced resource management.
Hidden Costs: Maintenance, support, and necessary external training fees further inflate the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).

Real-Life Example: A technology startup needed 50 team members to access premium features like Baselines and Sprints. They quickly realized that licensing 50 users for the necessary Planner and Project Plan 3 would cost $18,000 annually, exceeding their entire software budget for the year and forcing them to downgrade to a less capable tool.

Solution: For basic task collaboration, leverage the features included in the free tier of Microsoft Planner, which is included with most Microsoft 365 subscriptions, and is sufficient for simple, iterative work, and avoids the high cost of the dedicated Project plans.

3. Limited Integration Outside the Microsoft Ecosystem

While Microsoft Planner integrates seamlessly within the Microsoft ecosystem, its connection to non-Microsoft, best-of-breed software (like CRM, HR, or financial platforms) is often weak, with limited integrations. This siloed approach requires complex workarounds, custom APIs built via the Power Platform, or expensive third-party connectors, which increases friction for organizations relying on diverse software stacks.

A lack of native external integration leads to operational friction and increased cost.

Manual Data Entry: Requires project data to be manually replicated in other systems (e.g., finance, CRM), leading to errors.
Reduced Visibility: Creates project data silos, making it difficult for non-PM users to get a holistic view of resources or costs.
Development Cost: Forces internal IT teams to build and maintain custom APIs or middleware for essential data transfer.

Real-Life Example: A creative agency needed to link project hours from Microsoft Planner to their payroll software, ADP. Because no native integration existed, they spent two days every pay period manually exporting, cleaning, and uploading timesheet data via CSV files, introducing a constant risk of clerical errors and delayed payments.

Solution: Utilize Power Automate to build simple automated triggers between Planner data and core third-party tools, or adopt a modern PM tool with a robust, open API for custom connection development.

4. Retirement of Roadmap Feature

With the August 2025 transition to the unified Microsoft Planner, the dedicated Roadmaps feature in Teams and on the web was retired and not carried over. Users who relied on this functionality for cross-project visualization must now manually rebuild these views using the new Portfolio feature in Planner, which is limited as it does not support adding rows for external systems like Azure DevOps or Project Online.

This loss of functionality impacts executive visibility and incurs migration costs.

Loss of Functionality: Teams lose a critical executive visualization tool, requiring a change in reporting processes.
Data Silo Creation: Portfolio views do not integrate with key external tools, reducing the centralized visibility of enterprise-wide initiatives.
Time-Consuming Migration: PMOs must invest time in manually re-creating and re-training teams on the new Portfolio views.

Real-Life Example: The Program Management Office (PMO) at a logistics company relied on ten distinct Roadmaps to brief executives monthly. After the transition, they spent two weeks rebuilding the reports as limited Portfolios in Planner, only to realize the new tool lacked the necessary external system integration, forcing them to revert to manually compiled reports in PowerPoint.

Solution: PMOs should proactively use the Planner Portfolio feature to visualize projects within the Microsoft ecosystem, but rely on an external, dedicated Portfolio Management (PPM) system for comprehensive, cross-tool visibility.

5. Inability to Import .mpp Files into the Web Application

The proprietary .mpp file (the file type for the classic Project desktop client) is not directly supported by the unified Microsoft Planner web interface for import. This critical file migration function must instead be performed through the specialized, less user-friendly Planner Power App or Accelerator, creating a cumbersome, technical hurdle for migrating or sharing detailed, legacy plans with cloud-based users.

The import limitation creates friction and workflow bottlenecks.

Workflow Bottleneck: Project managers are forced to use a complex, low-code/no-code interface just for basic file migration.
Increased Training Needs: Requires specialized knowledge of the Power Platform just to perform a simple data transfer task.
Adoption Friction: Hinders the smooth transition from the classic desktop client to the more collaborative cloud platform.

Real-Life Example: A new PM tried to upload a detailed client-provided .mpp schedule to the collaborative Planner environment. Discovering the direct import failed, they spent a full afternoon navigating the unfamiliar Planner Power App interface and documentation just to get the schedule visible to the team.

Solution: Use the Planner Power App only for the specific migration task, or alternatively, use the classic desktop client’s XML export feature to transfer data, then use a third-party tool to convert the XML into a Planner-compatible format.

6. Propensity for Data Bloat and Over-Detailing

The core scheduling engine of Microsoft Planner (inherited from Project) allows for granular control over tasks, dependencies, and resources. This power often becomes a disadvantage, as project managers feel compelled to input unnecessary levels of detail, transforming the project plan into a monolithic, unmanageable database (often called “Big Project Syndrome”) that is difficult to maintain.

The tendency for over-detailing leads to inefficiencies and resistance from team members.

Maintenance Burden: Excessive detail increases the time required to update, review, and maintain the project plan.
Reduced Adoption: Team members are overwhelmed by the level of detail, leading them to ignore the official plan.
Fragile Plan: Overly complex schedules are brittle and break easily when a simple variable changes.

Real-Life Example: A new PM tried to track every single email response and internal review as a separate task in Microsoft Planner. The plan quickly ballooned to over 3,000 line items. Updating one minor task took 15 minutes due to the cascading effect of hundreds of dependencies, leading the PM to abandon the plan entirely and manage the project via a simple spreadsheet for the final quarter.

Solution: Enforce a strict Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) policy where tasks below a certain time threshold (e.g., 8 hours) are grouped into single summary tasks. Leverage the Milestone feature to track key phases without creating excessive underlying detail.

7. Limited Support for Modern Agile and Hybrid Workflows

The core scheduling engine of Microsoft Planner remains rooted in the Waterfall methodology. Its strength lies in fixed deadlines and detailed dependencies, making it cumbersome for fluid, iterative processes like Scrum or Kanban. Although the platform now offers features like Sprints and a Board view, the underlying scheduling logic still clashes with the fast, flexible, and iterative needs of true Agile development teams.

The methodology conflict causes operational friction and forces external licensing.

Methodology Conflict: Project teams using Agile find the rigid data structure restrictive and non-compliant with their methods.
Software Duplication: Organizations may be forced to license a dedicated Agile tool (like Jira or Azure DevOps) in addition to Planner, increasing complexity and cost.
Inefficient Sprints: Attempting to force Agile workflows into a Waterfall-centric tool reduces the productivity gains expected from the methodology.

Real-Life Example: A software development team, instructed to use the Microsoft Planner environment, struggled to manage their two-week sprints. They were forced to manually create and update task dependencies in the Gantt chart after every sprint planning session, wasting approximately four hours every two weeks trying to make the tool fit their Agile process.

Solution: Utilize the dedicated Azure DevOps or Planner’s basic plan for teams practicing pure Scrum/Agile, and reserve the high-end Planner features exclusively for the overarching program-level roadmap and highly detailed resource management.

8. Poor Handling of Portfolio and Multi-Project Resource Management

Achieving true Enterprise Resource Management (ERM) is challenging, even with the high-end Planner and Project Plan 5 tier. Effectively managing shared resources across multiple distinct projects (e.g., ensuring a key architect isn’t 150% allocated across three simultaneous projects) is a cumbersome, manual process that lacks the automated demand-management and central resource pooling features of true dedicated EPM systems.

Inaccurate resource tracking leads to project risk and financial cost.

Resource Burnout: Inaccurate cross-project resource tracking leads to frequent over-allocation and potential employee burnout.
Project Delays: Failure to accurately forecast resource conflicts results in unexpected bottlenecks and schedule slippage across multiple projects.
License Upgrade Pressure: Forces users toward the most expensive Plan 5 simply to get basic enterprise resource features.

Real-Life Example: A PMO was managing ten projects, each in a separate Planner plan. They manually checked the availability of shared technical experts by merging Excel reports. This led to a key data scientist being unknowingly allocated to three projects concurrently, resulting in a one-month delay for the lowest-priority project once the error was discovered.

Solution: Centralize resource tracking in the shared Planner People Management view, or if the organization requires high-fidelity resource forecasting, invest in a dedicated EPM tool that integrates with the Planner data.

9. Vendor Lock-In and Proprietary File Format

The legacy .mpp file format, though no longer directly imported to the web app, remains the native format for advanced scheduling files. This creates a significant barrier to exit, as migrating large amounts of detailed project data to a non-Microsoft platform is technically difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. This dependency on the Microsoft product line leads to vendor lock-in.

The proprietary format creates significant switching costs and external sharing limitations.

Limited External Sharing: Non-licensed stakeholders cannot view or edit files, creating bottlenecks for external collaborators.
High Switching Costs: Migrating large numbers of project files to a new platform is technically difficult, time-consuming, and expensive.
Legacy Data Access: Requires maintaining high-end Planner licenses indefinitely just to access historical project records.

Real-Life Example: A global manufacturing company decided to switch from Planner to a cloud-based PMIS. They found that exporting their 50 most critical historical project files and remapping the complex resource and dependency data to the new system took a specialized vendor over 80 hours, costing them nearly $15,000 just for data migration.

Solution: Adopt a policy of regularly exporting key project snapshots (baselines and final reports) to a universally accessible format like PDF or XML for long-term archival and external sharing purposes.

10. Reliance on the Legacy Desktop Client for Advanced Scheduling

Despite the consolidation of the web-based tools into Microsoft Planner, the most powerful scheduling and resource features, such as advanced resource leveling, applying complex task constraints, and deep customization of tables and views, remain confined to the classic Microsoft Project desktop application (which is accessed via the Plan 3/5 subscription). This forces project managers to constantly jump out of the collaborative cloud environment and into the isolated desktop client to perform necessary high-level planning tasks.

The dependence on the desktop client causes frustrations like workflow interruption and feature avoidance.

Workflow Interruption: PMs are forced to pause collaborative work to use an isolated desktop tool for core scheduling tasks.
Adoption Disconnect: The team operates in the modern Planner environment, while the critical schedule manipulation happens in an entirely different, complex interface.
Suboptimal Feature Use: PMs may avoid using powerful features simply to stay within the familiar cloud environment.

Real-Life Example (Negative Context): A project manager tried to apply resource leveling across a portfolio of shared resources in the new Planner interface, only to find the feature was missing. They had to download the necessary plan files, open them in the standalone desktop client, perform the leveling, save the changes, and then ensure the file was correctly synchronized back to the cloud, adding hours to the planning cycle.

Solution: Define clear organizational guidelines: use the classic desktop client exclusively for scheduling and resource leveling by the PM, and use the Microsoft Planner web app exclusively for team task updates and communication to minimize platform hopping and maximize collaboration.

How Could These Disadvantages Be Overcome?

Mitigating the common challenges associated with the advanced features of Microsoft Planner requires a combination of strategic licensing, process discipline, and focused user training. By acknowledging the software’s strengths and weaknesses, organizations can implement policies that maximize efficiency, control costs, and improve team adoption across the platform’s unified interface.

Phased Adoption and Training: Introduce the unified Planner features incrementally, focusing training only on the modules relevant to the user role (e.g., team members use basic Planner; planners use Planner and Project Plan 3/5).
Strategic Tier Selection: Select the lowest-cost subscription tier that meets the minimum business requirement (e.g., using basic Planner for simple tracking), and only upgrade licenses for PMs who require the advanced features like Baselines and Advanced Dependencies.
Leverage the Microsoft 365 Ecosystem: Use the complementary power of Teams for communication and Power BI for executive reporting, rather than trying to force all visualization into the core Planner interface.
Enforce Strict WBS Guidelines: Implement a policy that limits the detail within the Gantt chart to only high-level milestones and tasks that are critical to the project’s timeline and budget.
Hybrid Tool Strategy: Accept that no single tool is perfect; use a dedicated Agile tool or Azure DevOps for software development teams and reserve the high-end Planner features for the complex, long-term Waterfall projects that match its core strengths.

Video About Microsoft Planner

If you want to learn more about Microsoft Planner, watching a short video can make it a lot easier. Seeing Planner’s features in action, like boards, buckets, and scheduling, hearing tips, and replaying tricky parts helps you pick things up faster. It feels more natural than reading and lets you learn at your own pace.

Conclusion

Microsoft Planner, now positioned as the unified work management solution, has its share of disadvantages when utilizing its advanced scheduling features. Its steep learning curve, high cost, reliance on the legacy desktop client, and the retirement of key features like Roadmaps can be significant drawbacks for many organizations. While the unified platform resolves previous fragmentation, the high-end scheduling remains complex and best suited for specific use cases.

The decision to adopt the advanced Planner capabilities should be based on a careful evaluation of the total cost of implementing the software, technical resources (the availability of trained PMs), and strategic flexibility. If your projects are complex, Waterfall-based, and deeply integrated within the Microsoft technology stack, the Planner platform remains a powerful, if complicated, solution. If your organization prioritizes simplicity, low cost, and native support for Agile methods, an alternative may provide a better fit.