With Microsoft Project Online retiring on 30 September 2026, regulated manufacturing and med-tech teams face a decision that most general "migration guides" do not address properly: the replacement is not just a scheduling tool. It is the project management software your teams rely on to create the governance evidence that auditors, QA leads, and regulatory bodies review.
Choosing the wrong replacement creates a compliance gap. Defaulting to Microsoft Planner because it is already in your Microsoft 365 licence sounds pragmatic, but it is the wrong lens for regulated project management. This guide sets out the criteria that matter and maps three main options against them.
In a general commercial environment, the key question when replacing project management software is: can we manage our schedules, tasks, and team communication in the new tool? For regulated manufacturing and med-tech, the question is broader. The project management software is also the system of record for:
None of these is a scheduling function. All of them are compliance functions. Project management software that handles schedules but not governance is half a tool for regulated teams.
Can the software define formal gates, record gate decisions (proceed, conditional proceed, hold), attach conditions with named owners, and store gate records as part of the project audit trail? This is a hard requirement, not a feature preference.
Does the platform provide a structured RAID log linked to the project record? A risk register in a separate spreadsheet creates traceability and version control problems that a regulated environment cannot absorb.
Can the software track approved budget, committed spend, and forecast to complete at project and phase level? For capital and product development projects, budget traceability is an audit requirement, not an optional report.
Does the platform log changes to key records (schedule baselines, risk ratings, gate decisions) with timestamps and user attribution? This is the difference between a project management tool and a compliance-grade project management tool.
Can programme managers and heads of engineering see schedule status, gate status, open risks, and resource loading across all active projects without opening individual files? For teams running three or more concurrent projects, this is an operational necessity.
| Criteria | Microsoft Planner | Project Server Sub. Edition | Purpose-built regulated PM software |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stage gate governance | No native support | Partial (customisation required) | Yes built-in |
| Integrated RAID log | No | No (separate tool required) | Yes |
| Budget tracking | No | Partial (resource cost tracking only) | Yes |
| Audit trail | No project-level audit log | Partial | Yes |
| Portfolio visibility | Limited (within Planner only) | Yes (with significant setup) | Yes |
| Deployment | Cloud (M365) | On-premise | Cloud |
| IT overhead | Low | High (server infrastructure required) | Low |
The Planner trap: Microsoft Planner is the path of least resistance because it is already in your Microsoft 365 licence. The risk is that "least resistance" becomes "least visible compliance gap." Teams that move to Planner from Project Online will find themselves rebuilding the same collection of supplementary spreadsheets for risk, gates, and budget that created the governance problems in the first place. The tool changes; the problem does not.
When evaluating project management software as a Project Online replacement, these are the questions that separate scheduling tools from compliance-grade project management platforms:
The most controlled approach for active regulated projects is to time the migration to a phase gate boundary. At a gate, you have a natural point where the current phase is closed out, the phase record is complete, and the next phase starts in the new platform. This preserves the integrity of the phase record in the old system while the new project record starts cleanly.
If a project cannot be timed to a gate boundary before 30 September 2026, document the migration cut-over explicitly in the project record: what was held in Project Online, what transfers to the new platform, and what was exported for archive. Your QA lead should sign off on the migration approach for any regulated project.
For the compliance background on what regulated project records need to contain, the post on Project Online retirement and compliance risk covers the data migration requirements in detail.
Regulated manufacturing teams need project management software that goes beyond scheduling. The replacement must support stage gate governance with formal gate decision records, an integrated RAID log, budget tracking at phase level, and an audit trail of changes to key project records. These are not optional extras in a regulated environment; they are the evidence base that auditors and regulatory bodies review.
Microsoft Planner is a general-purpose task management tool. It does not provide native stage gate governance, a structured risk register, or the project record audit trail that regulated manufacturing and med-tech projects require. Teams that move to Planner as a direct replacement will need to supplement it with additional tools, which recreates the multi-spreadsheet problem that Project Online already had.
A Project Online migration for a regulated team typically takes two to four months when you include data export and validation, platform setup and configuration, team training, and a parallel running period for at least one active project. With the September 30, 2026 retirement deadline, teams should be starting the evaluation and selection process now.
Arcturus Pro is project management software built for regulated manufacturing and med-tech teams. Stage gate governance, integrated RAID, budget tracking, and a full project audit trail. Book a 30-minute walkthrough and bring your evaluation criteria.
Book a Demo