Project Management migration

Migrate from Conceptboard to Microsoft Project

Field-level mapping, validation, and rollback between Conceptboard and Microsoft Project. We move data and schema; workflows are rebuilt natively in Microsoft Project.

Conceptboard logo

Conceptboard

Source

Microsoft Project

Destination

Microsoft Project logo

Compatibility

82%

9 of 11

objects map 1:1 between Conceptboard and Microsoft Project.

Complexity

BStandard

Timeline

3-5 weeks

Rollback included Accuracy guarantee Field-level validation

Overview

What this migration involves

Conceptboard is a visual collaboration whiteboard designed for EU enterprises and regulated industries that need GDPR compliance, audit trails, and EU data residency. Microsoft Project is a structured project management and scheduling tool built around Gantt charts, task dependencies, resource allocation, and earned value metrics. These are fundamentally different tools: Conceptboard is for freeform brainstorming and workshop facilitation, while Microsoft Project is for formal project execution, tracking, and reporting. Migrating from one to the other is a transformation, not a record copy, because the data model concepts do not map one-to-one. We run guided export sessions with the customer to extract Board and Project content as PDF and PNG files, then manually extract task titles, descriptions, assignments, and milestones from those exports with customer subject-matter-expert review. We map Conceptboard Project containers to Microsoft Project project plans, Conceptboard section outlines to MS Project summary tasks or phases, and Conceptboard user accounts to MS Project resource records. We do not migrate facilitator tools, voting sessions, board history, approval workflows, or audit logs because these are process artifacts with no Microsoft Project equivalent. We deliver a written inventory of any board-level configurations requiring manual rebuild in MS Project.

Field-level fidelity

Every standard and custom field arrives verified.

Schema-aware mapping

AI proposes the map; you confirm before any record moves.

Relationships preserved

Parent–child, lookups, and ownership stay linked.

Full activity history

Calls, emails, meetings — with original timestamps.

Attachments & notes

Documents, uploads, and inline notes move with the record.

Why teams make this switch

Two sides of the same decision

Leaving

Conceptboard logo

Conceptboard

What's pushing teams away

  • Interface feels dated and unintuitive compared to Miro or Mural; several G2 reviewers specifically cite slow UX and steep learning curve as friction points.
  • Limited third-party integrations and some integration features that failed during PCMag testing; customers needing ecosystem connectivity look elsewhere.
  • No public API means automation-heavy teams cannot embed Conceptboard into CI/CD or documentation pipelines, pushing them toward API-first alternatives.

Choosing

Microsoft Project logo

Microsoft Project

What's pulling them in

  • Organizations already running Microsoft 365 and Azure AD adopt Microsoft PPM because it slots into existing identity, Teams, and SharePoint infrastructure without requiring a separate identity provider or SSO vendor.
  • Enterprise PMOs choose it for critical-path scheduling, baseline comparison, cross-project dependencies, and resource utilization reporting that standalone PM tools cannot replicate at this depth.
  • Project Online's integration with Power BI gives portfolio-level dashboards and cost-rollup reporting that satisfies executive governance requirements without third-party BI tooling.
  • Government, financial services, and healthcare organizations select it because FedRAMP, ISO 27001, and SOC 2 compliance certifications meet enterprise procurement requirements out of the box.
  • Large IT departments default to it as the market-leader in project portfolio management software, often driven by corporate licensing agreements that bundle it with other Microsoft 365 seats.

Object mapping

How Conceptboard objects map to Microsoft Project

Each row shows how a Conceptboard object lands in Microsoft Project, including any object-level transformations, lookup resolution, or schema-design dependencies.

Typical mapping — final map is confirmed during the sample migration step.

Conceptboard

Board

maps to

Microsoft Project

Project

1:1
Fully supported

Each Conceptboard Board maps to a separate Microsoft Project plan (.mpp file or Project Online project). Because Conceptboard has no API, we run guided export sessions to produce a PDF and PNG of each board, which the customer subject-matter expert reviews to confirm the board's purpose and content. We create the MS Project plan with the board name as the project name, board creation date as the project start date, and board description as the project summary notes. Board visual layout does not carry forward; the MS Project plan is a structured schedule reconstructed from the board's content.

Conceptboard

Project

maps to

Microsoft Project

Project Summary Task or Enterprise Project

1:1
Fully supported

Conceptboard Projects are containers grouping Boards. If a Conceptboard Project contains multiple boards representing phases of a single initiative, we consolidate those boards into one MS Project plan with summary tasks per board. If boards within a Conceptboard Project represent independent initiatives, we create separate MS Project plans linked by a SharePoint hub site or Project Online Project Professional site. Starter tier limits active projects to 5, so we scope the full project list (including archived) during discovery to avoid missing content.

Conceptboard

Section

maps to

Microsoft Project

Summary Task

1:many
Fully supported

Conceptboard Sections subdivide a board visually. We treat each section as a summary task in MS Project, with its title as the task name and any sub-items within the section as subtasks. Section order is preserved by setting task outline numbers sequentially. Sections with no sub-items become placeholder summary tasks with a note indicating they were originally board sections.

Conceptboard

Tasks

maps to

Microsoft Project

Task

1:1
Fully supported

Conceptboard's built-in task feature (checklist items, task cards, or milestones on a board) maps directly to MS Project tasks. We extract task titles, assignees (mapped to MS Project resources by email), due dates (mapped to task Start and Finish dates), and completion status (mapped to % Complete). Task descriptions from Conceptboard become MS Project task notes. Custom task fields in Conceptboard map to custom fields in MS Project.

Conceptboard

Milestones

maps to

Microsoft Project

Milestone

1:1
Fully supported

Conceptboard milestones (if used on boards with the task feature) map to MS Project milestones (task with zero duration and Milestone = Yes). We preserve milestone names and target dates exactly. Milestone dependencies are reconstructed from the board's section order or any explicitly drawn connectors if visible in the exported content.

Conceptboard

User

maps to

Microsoft Project

Resource

1:1
Fully supported

Conceptboard licensed users map to MS Project resources. We separate licensed users (per-seat) from guest accounts (free, unregistered) and create only licensed users as resources in MS Project. Guest collaborators without Conceptboard accounts do not get resource records. Resource booking kind defaults to Work. Customers using Project Online with enterprise resource management map Conceptboard users to the enterprise resource pool by email match.

Conceptboard

Attachment

maps to

Microsoft Project

Document (SharePoint or Project Attachments)

1:1
Fully supported

Files attached to a Conceptboard board are downloaded individually and re-attached to the corresponding MS Project plan. Project Online attachments store in the associated SharePoint document library; Project Desktop attachments store in the project folder. We preserve original filenames and attempt to attach to the relevant task if the attachment context is identifiable from the board export. Attachments without clear task context are added as project-level documents.

Conceptboard

Template

maps to

Microsoft Project

Project Template

lossy
Fully supported

Conceptboard templates (personal and team-shared) are migrated as standard boards in MS Project. We note which boards were templates versus production boards so the customer can extract a project template from the exported board structure. MS Project does not have a native template library for Project Online plans, but SharePoint document libraries can store .mpt template files for Project Desktop users.

Conceptboard

Comment

maps to

Microsoft Project

Task Note

1:1
Fully supported

Conceptboard comments on board elements are captured in the PDF export as text but are not available as structured data. We record the comment count per board as a quality indicator and include comment content in the board-level PDF that becomes the project documentation. If individual task comments are identifiable from the board layout, we add them as task notes in MS Project. Comment authors map to task notes with a [Comment by Name] prefix.

Conceptboard

Board History

maps to

Microsoft Project

Not migratable

1:1
Not supported

Board history (Advanced+ tier) records version snapshots of a board over time. This is an audit artifact with no Microsoft Project equivalent. MS Project stores task history as a basic change log but not version snapshots of the entire plan. We document whether boards had active history tracking and flag this as a governance feature the customer will lose. The customer may export board history as PDF before migration if historical versions are required for record-keeping.

Conceptboard

Approval Workflow

maps to

Microsoft Project

Not migratable

1:1
Fully supported

Approval workflows (Corporate & Government tier) are process state artifacts. Microsoft Project does not have a native board-level approval workflow; approvals are handled via SharePoint Power Automate workflows or external tools. We flag whether any boards had active approval workflows at migration time and deliver a written recommendation for rebuilding approvals as Power Automate flows or as SharePoint approval steps attached to the project site.

Gotchas + challenges

What specifically takes care here

Platform-specific issues from each side, plus the pair-specific challenges that don't show up on either platform's page on its own.

Conceptboard logo

Conceptboard gotchas

High

No public API means migration relies entirely on PDF/PNG export

Medium

One-way import to Miro is PDF-only and non-editable

Medium

Starter plan limits active projects to 5, blocking full workspace migration

Low

Board history and approval workflows are tier-gated and not migratable

Microsoft Project logo

Microsoft Project gotchas

High

Project for the web is being retired and merged into Microsoft Planner

Medium

Planner-tier portfolio features are incomplete despite Plan 5 labeling

Medium

Web app constraint controls are weaker than the Windows desktop client

High

Project requires a separate license not bundled with standard Microsoft 365

Medium

Project Online API is edition-gated and inconsistently documented

Pair-specific challenges

  • No Conceptboard API forces manual export and lossy conversion

    Conceptboard exposes no public REST or GraphQL API, so all migration work uses the manual Export Board feature to produce PDF and PNG files. There is no bulk export, no structured JSON, and no way to automate board-by-board extraction without UI interaction. We run guided export sessions with the customer, exporting boards in batches, then reconstruct boards in MS Project from the exported artifacts. Because sticky notes, shapes, connectors, and comments become flattened images rather than live objects, the conversion is lossy. We discuss with customers whether the reconstructed MS Project plan represents an acceptable level of fidelity, or whether they prefer to rebuild key project plans manually using the PDF exports as reference documentation.

  • Freeform board content has no direct task equivalent

    Conceptboard boards contain visual content (sticky notes, freeform text, shapes, drawings, connectors) that does not map structurally to MS Project tasks. We cannot automatically convert a board full of sticky notes into a task list without customer subject-matter-expert input to interpret the board's intent. We extract content manually during guided export sessions, but the transformation from visual brainstorming to structured schedule is a human judgment call. We recommend the customer's PM or project lead reviews each exported board to confirm which content becomes tasks, milestones, or deliverables versus which content is reference material.

  • Facilitator tools and voting sessions have no MS Project equivalent

    Conceptboard's facilitator tools (freeze frame, voting, structured meeting modes, real-time annotation) are session-based collaboration features with no Microsoft Project counterpart. MS Project is a scheduling and tracking tool, not a live facilitation tool. We do not migrate these features. We document which boards used facilitator modes and recommend alternative tools (Microsoft Teams whiteboard, Kahoot, or Poll Everywhere) for ongoing facilitation needs separate from project scheduling.

  • Starter plan archived projects may not appear in active board list

    Conceptboard Starter tier caps active projects at 5, archiving additional projects automatically. During migration scoping, we query the full project list including archived projects because archived boards may not be immediately visible in the Conceptboard UI. We run a discovery session to enumerate all projects (active and archived) before scoping the export schedule. Customers on Starter tier with more than 5 active project-equivalents need to decide which boards to migrate first before others become accessible.

  • Microsoft Project Online retirement requires deadline planning

    Microsoft Project Online retires September 30, 2026 (sales to new customers ended October 1, 2025). If the destination is Project Online, the customer must complete migration before the retirement date or move to Project for the Web (Planner) or Project Server Subscription Edition. We confirm the customer's destination Project SKU during discovery. If the customer is migrating from Conceptboard to Project Online as a stepping stone before Planner consolidation, we scope the migration accordingly and flag the interim nature of the destination.

Migration approach

Six steps for a successful Conceptboard to Microsoft Project data migration

  1. Discovery and board inventory

    We run a scoping session with the customer to enumerate all Conceptboard projects and boards (including archived boards on Starter tier), identify which boards contain task/milestone content versus pure visual reference, and confirm the customer subject-matter experts who will review exported boards for task extraction. We also capture the Conceptboard tier (Starter/Advanced/Corporate) to identify which features require explicit flagging, map licensed user counts to MS Project resource counts, and confirm the destination Project SKU (Project Online Plan 1-3, Project for the Web/Planner, or Project Desktop). The discovery output is a written migration scope document listing every board to migrate, its priority, and the estimated extraction complexity.

  2. Guided export sessions

    We conduct live export sessions with the customer, exporting Conceptboard boards as PDF and PNG files using the Export Board feature. We export boards in batches grouped by Conceptboard Project, capturing both the full-board export and individual section exports where sections correspond to MS Project summary tasks. We also download all board attachments during this phase. Each exported board is paired with a review request sent to the customer's designated SME, who identifies which visual elements map to tasks, milestones, or deliverables in MS Project. We do not attempt to run these exports unattended because Conceptboard's manual-only export requires UI interaction.

  3. Task extraction and transformation

    We extract task data from the exported boards using the customer's SME review as the authoritative source for mapping visual content to structured tasks. For each board, we produce a task list with task name, description, assigned resource (by email match to Conceptboard user), start date, finish date, duration, and milestone flag. Dates are derived from the board's content if present, or estimated from the Conceptboard project creation date. We preserve section hierarchy as MS Project outline levels. We flag any task items that appear in the board but lack sufficient detail to create a proper MS Project task and escalate to the customer for clarification.

  4. Resource mapping and provisioning

    We map Conceptboard licensed users to MS Project resources by email. We separate guest accounts (no Conceptboard license) from licensed users and create only the latter as resources. If the destination is Project Online with an enterprise resource pool, we match Conceptboard users to the resource pool by email lookup. Resource booking kind defaults to Work, and we note any Conceptboard users who should be mapped as material or cost resources based on the customer's project type.

  5. MS Project plan creation and bulk import

    We create MS Project plans in the destination environment (Project Online via REST API, or Project Desktop as .mpp files for local delivery). For Project Online, we use the PWA REST API to provision projects, add tasks with the extracted task data, set task calendars and dependencies, assign resources, and set milestones. For Project Desktop, we use the MS Project Object Library or direct XML/MPP manipulation to create project plans. Each Conceptboard Project becomes one MS Project plan, or multiple plans if the customer's SMEs determine that the board contents warrant separate project structures. We attach exported board files as project documents in the associated SharePoint library or project folder.

  6. Reconciliation, delivery, and automation handoff

    We deliver a reconciliation report comparing the extracted task count, milestone count, resource count, and attachment count against the source Conceptboard inventory. We deliver the MS Project plans in the destination environment (Project Online or as .mpp files), the exported PDF/PNG board files, and a written board-to-project mapping document showing which board maps to which MS Project plan. We do not migrate facilitator tools, voting sessions, board history, approval workflows, or audit logs. We deliver a written inventory of facilitator-mode boards and approval workflows with recommendations for rebuilding as Power Automate flows or separate facilitation tools. We support a one-week post-delivery reconciliation window for record count discrepancies.

Platform deep dives

Context on both ends of the pair

Conceptboard logo

Conceptboard

Source

Strengths

  • German data centers with GDPR compliance, ISO-certified processes, and EU data sovereignty for regulated industry customers.
  • Built-in facilitator tools including freeze frame, voting, and structured agenda modes reduce external meeting overhead.
  • Board history and approval workflows provide governance and traceability on higher tiers.
  • Custom branding on Advanced+ plans enables white-label client delivery.
  • Guest accounts are free and do not consume paid seats, making external workshops cost-effective.

Weaknesses

  • No public REST API — all data export relies on manual PDF and PNG output, limiting automation options.
  • Interface and UX perceived as dated compared to Miro, Mural, and FigJam by multiple G2 reviewers.
  • Limited integrations with third-party tools; PCMag testing noted some integrations failed to work.
  • Starter plan caps active boards at 3, restricting functionality for small teams evaluating the tool seriously.
Microsoft Project logo

Microsoft Project

Destination

Strengths

  • Deep critical-path scheduling with baseline comparison and cross-project dependency tracking unmatched by lighter PM tools.
  • Native Azure AD authentication, Teams integration, and Power BI reporting sit on infrastructure enterprises already license and manage.
  • Enterprise governance controls including demand intake workflows, resource request approval, and portfolio-level capacity analysis.
  • Supports both Waterfall and Agile methodologies within the same project, accommodating hybrid delivery teams.
  • Scalable from Project Plan 1 for small teams to Project Server on-premises for regulated industries with strict data-sovereignty requirements.

Weaknesses

  • Ease-of-use scores trail the category average by a wide margin; onboarding friction frustrates new users consistently across G2 and Capterra reviews.
  • Pricing ranks 42nd of 49 tools in its category — the total cost of ownership including IT administration and training is rarely recovered for small or mid-market teams.
  • No built-in client portal, external stakeholder sharing, or proofing workflow, limiting use cases to internal PMO environments only.
  • The web interface (Project for the web / Planner Premium) has materially weaker constraint controls and resource auto-leveling than the Windows desktop client.
  • Project for the web is being consolidated into Microsoft Planner, creating uncertainty about which product tier will host project portfolio data long-term.

Complexity grading

How hard is this migration?

Standard Project Management migration. 3 of 8 objects need a mapping; the rest are 1:1.

B

Overall complexity

Standard migration

Derived from compatibility, mapping clarity, API constraints, and data volume across Conceptboard and Microsoft Project.

  • Object compatibility

    B

    3 of 8 objects need a mapping; the rest are 1:1.

  • Field mapping clarity

    C

    Field mapping is derived from defaults — final spec confirmed during the sample migration.

  • Timeline complexity

    B

    8-object category — typical timelines run 2–7 days end-to-end.

  • API constraints

    B

    Conceptboard: Not publicly documented.

  • Data volume sensitivity

    B

    Conceptboard doesn't expose a bulk API — REST + parallelization used for high-volume runs.

Estimator

Estimate your Conceptboard to Microsoft Project migration cost

Rule-based pricing — no per-record fees, no manual quotes. Migrations over 2M records are scoped individually.

Step 1

What are you migrating?

Pick a category, then your source and destination platforms.

Category

FAQ

Frequently asked questions about Conceptboard to Microsoft Project data migrations

Answers to the questions buyers ask most during Conceptboard to Microsoft Project migration scoping. Not seeing yours? Book a call.

Can't find your answer?

Walk through your Conceptboard to Microsoft Project migration with a real engineer — 30 minutes, free, written quote within 24 hours.

Book a free 30 minute consultation

Most migrations land between three and five weeks for organisations with up to 50 boards and clean section outlines that translate directly to MS Project tasks. Migrations with large board archives (200+ boards), active task and milestone use across multiple boards, or multiple Conceptboard Projects requiring separate MS Project plans move to eight to twelve weeks. The timeline is dominated by the guided export sessions and customer SME review cycles, not by data loading, because Conceptboard has no API for automated extraction.

Adjacent paths

Related migrations to explore

Ready when you are

Move from Conceptboard.
Land in Microsoft Project, intact.

Tell us record counts and timeline. We'll come back with a written quote inside 1 business day — no commitment, no sales pitch.

Accuracy guarantee Rollback included Quote in 1 business day