Microsoft permanently switched off SharePoint 2013 workflows in Microsoft 365 on 2 April 2026, with no option to extend. SharePoint 2010 workflows had already been removed in 2020. There is no automatic conversion: every flow must be rebuilt. Many organisations used the deadline to rebuild their workflows one-to-one in Power Automate. Others now have processes that no longer run or are kept alive with workarounds. For both, a step back is worthwhile.
Why a one-to-one rebuild is rarely best
Workflows grown over ten years rarely reflect today’s process. They contain special cases for people no longer there, approval steps nobody needs and workarounds for limitations that new tools no longer have. Rebuilding them unchanged carries this legacy into a new platform and costs licences and maintenance. Microsoft itself acknowledged that Power Automate does not cover every capability of the old workflows, for example because of the runtime limit on flows.
Step 1: inventory
First establish which flows existed and which were actually used. Microsoft provides an assessment tool that reports the use of legacy workflows in a tenant. For each flow record purpose, owner, frequency, data affected, forms and interfaces. Experience shows that part of the flows are orphaned and can be dropped entirely, the cheapest gain of the whole project.
Step 2: requirements
For the remaining processes, requirements are gathered afresh from the process, not from the old workflow. Sound requirements engineering helps: who is involved, which decisions are made, which exceptions are necessary, which evidence does audit need? This yields criteria against which platforms can be measured: complexity, forms, roles and delegations, auditability, integrations, data residency, licensing and operations.
Step 3: options
Typically there are five options:
- Power Automate and Power Apps in the existing Microsoft 365 environment, obvious for simple to medium flows and existing licences
- a specialised workflow or forms platform from a third party, often strong on forms and approvals
- a process or BPM engine for complex, modelled flows with many exceptions
- custom development for core processes that are a competitive advantage or have no standard solution
- a business application that already covers the process as part of a larger system
Rarely is one option right for every process. Often a hybrid results: standard flows in the platform already licensed and individual demanding processes in a better-suited environment. The trade-off between platform and own solution is covered in our decision guide low-code or custom development.
Step 4: decision
In public institutions and larger companies this choice belongs in a study with an options comparison, as HERMES provides for in initiation: starting point, requirements, options, weighted evaluation, risks, lifetime costs and a reasoned recommendation. In mandates at Swiss institutions, lifetime costs have proven decisive: per-user licences, operations, maintenance and the effort for changes weigh more over five years than the introduction.
Do not forget governance
A new platform without rules creates the same problem as the old one within three years. Who may create flows, who approves them, where are they documented, what happens when the creator leaves? These questions belong in Microsoft 365 governance, not in a later clean-up.
Next steps
We offer a structured evaluation with inventory, requirements, options comparison and recommendation as workflow platform evaluation. What automation costs is described on the page on process automation costs.