The glue of every collaboration.
Overall Satisfaction with Miro
The main business problem that the tool addresses is how to work closely with a team that can no longer work in the same physical space. We use Miro + other tools to ensure that the team can collaborate and, share data, and capture our notes and annotations on the shared material. We use it as the corporate whiteboard in many ways. As a whiteboard in a workshop setting (folks together for just this event) with structured activities and inputs. As a whiteboard for longer-term work. As a way to - co-author content with a lot of people. To socially organize our thinking (put up the stickies and then sort them out). The scope for this is massive across my org. I work as a design strategist, so I use this tool for visual organization of info. Making maps, service blueprints, and designing new frameworks. Anything where I would have scribbled on a piece of paper or on a whiteboard.
Pros
- Bring in large .pdf, word, or .ppt files, spread them out, and put stickies on them for extracted learning.
- Allow a group to put ideas together on stickies and then organize them in various ways.
- Capture visual and written info together and imagine new visual organizations.
- Capture notes from many interviews (same questions) side by side for analysis.
- Make maps of processes or services or technology flows.
Cons
- Miro can't hold a lot of text in one text frame, which is sometimes hard to manage.
- Miro doesn't have very sophisticated vector drawing tools, so you can't always make what you are used to making in PowerPoint, Illustrator, or Figma. Sometimes, we make visuals there and drag them into Miro.
- Miro doesnt cut and paste very well to .ppt, so you have to treat things as pictures or rebuild things in .ppt. You have built-in Miro.
- When boards get big, they get VERY SLOW TO LOAD, and we often find we have to start new boards for the same project, bringing only the parts we need for the next phase to speed things back up.
- People's cursors can obscure the thing you want to read, and they don't know it because they don't have their own ID on their own cursor.
- Reduced overhead of emails and messages to share versions of documents.
- Improved meetings, allowing actual work to happen in the meeting.
- Provided a simple enough tool that finance, operations, technical, design, analytics, and executive leadership can all view/participate.
- Its ability to manage "project" and file spaces is underpowered for an org of our size. It's almost impossible to find a board you don't already have a link for.
- It saves time in meetings if you show not just a decision but the material leading to the decision.
It's the only way. We have brought together people from across our business, at all levels and disciplines, to share ideas. It is simple enough for beginners to use without making a mess and for senior management to use without being embarrassed by a lack of skill. I haven't worked on a project that didn't have a dedicated miro board since the beginning of the pandemic (Mar 2020), and likely even before that. Arguably, the project IS the Miro board. We build other artifacts, software, and presentations, but it's not likely that didn't have a precedent on a Miro board.
Mural flunked our internal procurement process. We are healthcare, and our legal and compliance guidelines for data are not for everyone. Figma is too complicated for the uninitiated. When you understand it, it's powerful, but like Illustrator, it's hard to get it to do a few simple things without a bunch of setup or learning.
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?
I wasn't involved with the selection/purchase process
Did implementation of Miro go as expected?
Yes
Would you buy Miro again?
Yes


Comments
Please log in to join the conversation