Project Management migration
Field-level mapping, validation, and rollback between Favro and Microsoft Project. We move data and schema; workflows are rebuilt natively in Microsoft Project.
Favro
Source
Microsoft Project
Destination
Compatibility
7 of 11
objects map 1:1 between Favro and Microsoft Project.
Complexity
BStandard
Timeline
3-5 weeks
Overview
Favro and Microsoft Project are architecturally different project management tools. Favro organizes work around Cards that live simultaneously on multiple Boards with a Collection layer providing aggregated portfolio views. Microsoft Project uses a task-and-schedule model where each task belongs to exactly one project plan, task dependencies form the critical path, and resources are assigned at the task level. These differences require deliberate design choices during migration. We map Favro Cards to Microsoft Project Tasks, Boards to Project plans (or groups of tasks within a single project), and Collections to Summary tasks that span multiple sub-projects. Cross-board Card existence — Favro's signature pattern — cannot be replicated natively in Microsoft Project; we preserve the cross-team context as a multi-value text field listing all originating Board names. Relations between Cards map to predecessor links between Tasks. Comments migrate as Task Notes. Labels and custom fields require pre-creation of the destination schema. Automations do not migrate; we deliver a written automation inventory for the customer's PMO to rebuild in Microsoft Project or Power Automate.
Every standard and custom field arrives verified.
AI proposes the map; you confirm before any record moves.
Parent–child, lookups, and ownership stay linked.
Calls, emails, meetings — with original timestamps.
Documents, uploads, and inline notes move with the record.
Why teams make this switch
Leaving
What's pushing teams away
Choosing
What's pulling them in
Object mapping
Each row shows how a Favro 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.
Favro
Card
Microsoft Project
Task
1:1Favro Cards map directly to Microsoft Project Tasks. Card title becomes Task Name. Card description migrates to the Task Notes field as plain text. Assignee maps to the Task's Resource Names field. Due date maps to either Deadline or Start/Finish depending on the Card's date model in Favro. Labels migrate to a multi-value text custom field or to the Task's Flag field for color-coding. Each Card becomes one Task record, and the full set of Cards from all Boards concatenates into a flat task list within the destination Project.
Favro
Board
Microsoft Project
Project (or grouped task set)
1:1Each Favro Board maps to a Microsoft Project file (.mpp) or a Project Online project plan. Board columns (workflow stages) do not map directly — Microsoft Project uses Stage as a drop-down custom field rather than a horizontal lane. We create a BoardStage custom field on Task and populate it with the originating Board column name so the customer can filter by Board origin in the destination. Board-level permissions do not migrate; Project-level permissions are managed through SharePoint Online sharing settings or PWA security groups.
Favro
Collection
Microsoft Project
Summary Tasks (grouped within a Project)
lossyFavro Collections aggregate multiple Boards for management visibility. Microsoft Project has no native Collection equivalent, so we create Summary Tasks at the top level of the destination Project plan, with each constituent Board's tasks inserted as sub-tasks beneath the Summary Task named after the Collection. If the destination is Project Online, Collections map to separate project plans linked via a Project Site in SharePoint, and we document the linking structure in the migration inventory.
Favro
Relation
Microsoft Project
Predecessor (Successor fields)
1:1Favro Relations linking one Card to another map to Microsoft Project Predecessor links on the Task form. We resolve the Card IDs at migration time and assign FS (Finish-to-Start) as the default dependency type. Circular dependency detection is run against the full relation graph before import; any circular links are flagged for the customer's PMO to resolve manually before the project plan is finalized. Lag time from Favro Relations does not map to Microsoft Project lag fields without manual review because lag interpretation varies by project.
Favro
Labels/Tags
Microsoft Project
Custom Text Field or Flag Items
lossyFavro Labels applied to Cards migrate to a multi-select text custom field on the Task or to Flag Items for color-coded tracking. We deduplicate label names during import and create the destination custom field schema before migration. If the destination is PWA (Project Web App), we use Enterprise Custom Fields configured at the Task level. Label colors do not map; the customer assigns Flag colors post-migration based on the label name inventory we deliver.
Favro
Custom Fields (Card-level)
Microsoft Project
Enterprise Custom Fields
lossyFavro custom fields on Cards (dropdown, date, number, text) require pre-creation in Microsoft Project's schema. For Project Online and Project Server, we configure Enterprise Custom Fields at the Task level via PWA Server Settings before import. For Project Desktop, we use custom Text, Number, Date, and Flag fields. Field type mapping: Favro dropdown becomes a Lookup Table custom field in PWA; Favro number becomes a Number custom field; Favro date becomes a Date custom field. Custom field values are imported as part of the task CSV or via the REST API for PWA.
Favro
Comments
Microsoft Project
Task Notes
1:1Favro Card comments, including threaded replies, migrate into the Task Notes field. We concatenate comments chronologically with author attribution and timestamp prefixes so the full comment history is preserved in a single Notes field. If comments exceed the typical Notes field character limit for very active Cards, we split into primary Notes and a secondary Notes extension record referenced in the migration inventory. Threaded replies preserve their parent-child order in the concatenated output.
Favro
Attachments
Microsoft Project
Document attachments (linked or stored)
1:1Favro Card attachments migrate as linked files in Microsoft Project. We extract attachment URLs from Favro's stored file references and re-attach them during migration. Files that were uploaded directly to Favro are re-downloaded and attached to the corresponding Task record. Microsoft Project attachments have a practical limit of approximately 50 attachments per project plan; for Cards with more than that, we flag the excess and recommend the customer migrate those files to SharePoint and link them by URL instead.
Favro
Guest/External Members
Microsoft Project
Resources (non-generic)
1:1Favro guest accounts and external members with limited Board access require a decision during scoping: promote to full users in the destination or preserve their access restrictions as Resource-level restrictions in Project. We flag all external member records during discovery. If the destination is Project Online, external members map to Resources with the Booked As set to Material and no calendar association, or to Windows accounts with external tenant access depending on the customer's Azure AD configuration.
Favro
Timesheets (Enterprise only)
Microsoft Project
Project Server Timesheet data (if migrating to Project Server SE)
1:1Favro's timesheet tracking is available only on the Enterprise plan and captures hours logged against Cards. If the destination is Project Server Subscription Edition, timesheet entries migrate as timephased task assignment data against the relevant Task. For Project Online, Project for the Web, or Project Desktop, timesheet migration is not available natively; we document the timesheet data as a separate export and the customer can load it into a SharePoint list or Power BI dataset as a supplemental reporting layer.
Favro
Automations
Microsoft Project
Power Automate flows (documented only)
lossyFavro Automations (triggers and actions) are not accessible via API in a migratable form. We document each active automation as part of migration discovery, describing the trigger, conditions, and actions in plain language with a recommended Power Automate equivalent where one exists. The customer's PMO or Power Platform admin rebuilds the automations post-migration. We do not migrate Automations as executable code.
| Favro | Microsoft Project | Compatibility | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Card | Task1:1 | Fully supported | |
| Board | Project (or grouped task set)1:1 | Fully supported | |
| Collection | Summary Tasks (grouped within a Project)lossy | Fully supported | |
| Relation | Predecessor (Successor fields)1:1 | Fully supported | |
| Labels/Tags | Custom Text Field or Flag Itemslossy | Fully supported | |
| Custom Fields (Card-level) | Enterprise Custom Fieldslossy | Fully supported | |
| Comments | Task Notes1:1 | Fully supported | |
| Attachments | Document attachments (linked or stored)1:1 | Mapping required | |
| Guest/External Members | Resources (non-generic)1:1 | Fully supported | |
| Timesheets (Enterprise only) | Project Server Timesheet data (if migrating to Project Server SE)1:1 | Fully supported | |
| Automations | Power Automate flows (documented only)lossy | Mapping required |
Gotchas + challenges
Platform-specific issues from each side, plus the pair-specific challenges that don't show up on either platform's page on its own.
Favro gotchas
Standard plan API limit is 1,000 calls/month
User bucket billing creates overage on growth
Cross-board Card existence has no direct equivalent
Guest and external member access scoping
Automations do not migrate programmatically
Microsoft Project gotchas
Project for the web is being retired and merged into Microsoft Planner
Planner-tier portfolio features are incomplete despite Plan 5 labeling
Web app constraint controls are weaker than the Windows desktop client
Project requires a separate license not bundled with standard Microsoft 365
Project Online API is edition-gated and inconsistently documented
Pair-specific challenges
Migration approach
Discovery and workspace audit
We audit the source Favro workspace across plan tier (Lite/Standard/Enterprise), total Boards, total Cards, Collection membership, Relation graph density, custom field schemas, active automations, external member accounts, and attachment volume. We also confirm the destination Microsoft Project variant (Project Desktop .mpp files, Project Online with PWA, or Project for the Web) because the migration path and API access differ significantly. The discovery output is a written migration scope with record counts per object type, a decision log for cross-board Cards and nested Collections, and a destination schema design document.
Schema design for Microsoft Project
We design the destination schema before any data moves. For Project Online, we configure Enterprise Custom Fields (Task-level and Project-level), Lookup Tables for dropdown custom fields, and resource pools via PWA Server Settings. For Project Desktop, we design the custom field set at the Task, Resource, and Project levels. We also design the Summary Task structure that replaces Favro Collections and the BoardList__c custom field that preserves cross-board Card context. The schema is deployed or validated in a test environment before production migration begins.
Cross-board Card resolution and relation graph analysis
We extract the full Relation graph from Favro and run circular dependency detection before mapping. Cards that appear on multiple Boards are flagged with a BoardList__c value listing all originating Boards, and Cards on four or more Boards are escalated for manual PMO review before import. We also resolve which Cards are primary (the first Board in the list) versus secondary appearances so the task assignment and resource mapping is unambiguous in the destination.
Test migration and reconciliation
We run a full migration into a test environment — a Project Desktop .mpp file for desktop destinations or a Project Online sandbox for PWA destinations. The customer's PM lead reconciles task counts, spot-checks random Cards against their migrated Task records, verifies that predecessor links resolve without circular errors, and confirms that custom field values transferred correctly. We correct any mapping errors before the production migration begins.
Production migration in dependency order
We run production migration in record order: resources (from Favro members), projects (from Favro Boards), tasks (from Favro Cards), predecessors (from Favro Relations), custom field values, comments (as Task Notes), and attachments. Each phase emits a row-count reconciliation report before the next phase begins. For Project Online, we use the PWA REST API with rate-limit handling and exponential backoff. For Project Desktop, we use the MPP file format via the Microsoft.Project.MPP library or the MPXJ library for .NET environments.
Cutover, delta sync, and automation handoff
We freeze Favro writes during cutover, run a final delta migration of any Cards modified during the migration window, then mark the destination as the system of record. We deliver the automation inventory document to the customer's PMO with a recommended Power Automate equivalent for each Favro automation. We support a five-day hypercare window for reconciliation issues. We do not rebuild Favro Automations as Power Automate flows inside the migration scope; that is a separate engagement.
Platform deep dives
Favro
Source
Strengths
Weaknesses
Microsoft Project
Destination
Strengths
Weaknesses
Complexity grading
Standard Project Management migration. 2 of 8 objects need a mapping; the rest are 1:1.
Overall complexity
Standard migration
Derived from compatibility, mapping clarity, API constraints, and data volume across Favro and Microsoft Project.
Object compatibility
2 of 8 objects need a mapping; the rest are 1:1.
Field mapping clarity
Field mapping is derived from defaults — final spec confirmed during the sample migration.
Timeline complexity
8-object category — typical timelines run 2–7 days end-to-end.
API constraints
Favro: 50 calls per hour at the user level. Organization-level routes are limited based on the organization's payment plan, enforced via a token-bucket algorithm. Requests that would exceed a 10-second back-off fail with HTTP 429..
Data volume sensitivity
Favro doesn't expose a bulk API — REST + parallelization used for high-volume runs.
Estimator
Rule-based pricing — no per-record fees, no manual quotes. Migrations over 2M records are scoped individually.
Step 1
Pick a category, then your source and destination platforms.
Category
FAQ
Answers to the questions buyers ask most during Favro to Microsoft Project migration scoping. Not seeing yours? Book a call.
Walk through your Favro to Microsoft Project migration with a real engineer — 30 minutes, free, written quote within 24 hours.
Book a free 30 minute consultationAdjacent paths
Other ways to leave Favro
Other ways to arrive at Microsoft Project
Same-Project Management migrations
Ready when you are
Tell us record counts and timeline. We'll come back with a written quote inside 1 business day — no commitment, no sales pitch.