Let’s cut through the marketing speak right away. Teamwork announcing resource scheduling isn't some revolutionary act; it's a table-stakes feature they've been missing while charging premium prices for years. The real question isn't whether it's "any good" in a demo video. The question is what it actually costs you—in literal dollars, in operational rigidity, and in future pain—to adopt it.
First, consider where this feature lands. It's almost certainly an add-on or locked behind a higher enterprise tier. You're not just paying for the scheduling view; you're paying for the entire platform stack that comes with it. Have you looked at the per-user monthly cost if you need portfolio management, advanced reporting, and now resource scheduling? It balloons. Suddenly that "competitive" base rate is a distant memory. This is a classic vendor strategy: lure you in with core project tracking, then make every essential feature a tier jump or a paid bolt-on. Your total cost of ownership becomes opaque and escalates predictably.
Second, let's talk about the implementation. Is it truly integrated, or is it a separate module bolted on with weak ties to the existing task and project data? Can you effectively model shared resources across multiple projects with conflicting dependencies, or is it just a pretty Gantt chart with people's names on it? More importantly, how does it handle real-world constraints like partial allocations, skill sets, or non-project time? My bet is it's a basic capacity planner, and you'll immediately hit its limits, requiring manual workarounds and external spreadsheets. That defeats the entire purpose.
Then there's the lock-in angle. Once you build your resource management processes, custom fields, and approval workflows inside Teamwork, migrating that data to another system becomes a herculean task. Their API will only expose what they allow, and you'll be at the mercy of their development roadmap for any missing logic. Compare this to an open-source or more modular approach where you could use a dedicated resource scheduling tool that best fits your needs and connect it via API to your chosen project management tool. You lose that flexibility when you buy into a monolithic suite.
Finally, the timing is suspect. This feels like a reactionary move to catch up with competitors rather than an innovative leap. It's worth asking what they've sacrificed in stability or security to rush this feature out the door. Have they done a proper third-party security audit on this new module? Are there clear service level agreements for its uptime? Or is it just another checkbox on a feature list to stop erosion to platforms like Monday or ClickUp, each with their own massive set of trade-offs and hidden costs.
So, is it any good? It doesn't matter if the feature itself is passable. What matters is whether it's worth further embedding yourself into their ecosystem, accepting their pricing model, and trusting that their vision aligns with your long-term operational needs. Probably not.
Just my two cents
Skeptic by default