Now, IMO, when it comes to making those governance decisions, two things are true:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Truth #1 – There are no right or wrong answers.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The only wrong answer (IMO) is “I am not going to think about governance. I’m going to let it be the “wild west” and see what happens. “<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Why do I say this?<\/strong> There are some extremely useful benefits to using serial numbers over words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n From an IT perspective, they think “Yes! I’m not going to be asked to change this URL every time this business area rebrands or reorganizes and changes their acronym”.<\/em> There are also some extremely helpful benefits to using words over serial numbers:<\/p>\n\n\n\n From an end user perspective, they see a random string of numbers and think “Ugh… this means nothing to me! Where am I? Who am I?” <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Every decision should come back to your audience, your consumer, your user. What is going to work for them?<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you are going to make an org-wide decision like “we are going to be using serial numbers for all site URLs”<\/em> then: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Truth #2 – <\/strong> There are no simple answers either.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Governance decisions are like sports teams; it often comes down to preference; but people can be fiercely loyal to theirs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Every decision has an impact and there are some key ones to consider.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So how do you know what to choose? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, honestly, ask questions that help your users think towards their future needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you don’t ask enough questions up front, you can make decisions that have an unexpected impact later. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Let’s use Private Channels as an example:<\/strong> To that I say, cool! Private channels aren’t bad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But why do you want to use Private Channels? Is it because it “looks neater” and it is “less clicks”? I totally agree. <\/p>\n\n\n\n However, do your users want to have a private Planner board in their private channel? <\/p>\n\n\n\n They do? I haven’t found an ETA on the roadmap either. ?<\/p>\n\n\n\n If their Planner board must be locked down and only visible to the members, then they need to take the “site it out” philosophy from SharePoint Online architecture and create them a private Microsoft Team. Let’s use Communication sites as another example:<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n What if an organization wants a Communication site to store files?<\/p>\n\n\n\n To that I say, cool! Communication sites are great!<\/p>\n\n\n\n But why do you want to use a Communication site over a Team site? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Is it because you just want a “standalone” SharePoint site to store files that isn’t connected to a Microsoft Team?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do these same users also want to keep using email to communicate (since they clearly aren’t opting in to the Microsoft Teams experience)?<\/p>\n\n\n\n They do?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, unfortunately, sharing files via Outlook attachments doesn’t work with Communication sites. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And I haven’t found an ETA on the roadmap either. ? <\/p>\n\n\n\n If you want to see all the lovely details of One Gotcha About Using a Communication Sites for Collaboration<\/a>, consider reading my blog post<\/a> on the topic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are just two of the many examples of why there are no simple answers when it comes to making decisions around Microsoft Teams governance policies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If you are concerned about how to go about setting up good governance practices for MS Teams<\/a>, consider reading my blog post<\/a> on the topic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Ok, pick a topic, any topic… let’s use SharePoint site URLs:
Using serial numbers instead of words for a site URL isn’t right or wrong. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
[By the way…. do you know how long it takes<\/em> to correctly change a Microsoft Team Name and URL? <\/em>
Read Stephanie Kahlam’s blog<\/a> to learn more.<\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
What if an organization wants to deviate from the Regroove “site it out” methodology (which by the way I’d say Microsoft is endorsing in their MS Docs here<\/a>) and create a site collection for each unit of work… they agree that sub-site are not the modern way to work, so they decide that they want to use MS Teams with private channels…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Well, unfortunately you can’t create a private planner board in a private channel. Any planner board you pin will be visible to the entire MS Team the private channel is a part of, and those other members may be subject to all the lovely notifications and other noise that comes with membership. ?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you want to see all the lovely details of Why Many Organizations Lock Down Private Channel Creation to All Users<\/a>, consider reading my blog post<\/a> on the topic.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n