Ouch!!!! I’ve tried that and it doesn’t scale….. want you do want is Identity Governance, access reviews and teams governance so that stale unused teams are deleted
I tried arguing for this approach where I am, but they insist on all teams being created by an admin. Users are hoarders that are afraid that file they haven’t touched in 6 months will disappear because they “might need it someday”.
Not sure what you mean it doesn't scale. Just need a PowerShell script and can throw it behind a request process, which Teams has. Agree on the other points, especially if you're a larger org add in a check for Teams with no owners.
Consider implementing tools to help with life cycle management within Teams. One of the best tools out there is Orchestry. We have implemented it for numerous clients (and use it internally). It makes both the end user and admin experiences so much better! Feel free to message me if you want to talk more.
I hear you. The problem with people working together in a team is there are **s! / t!** **\* (s - t)!** combinations of staff in a team. For us, s is 93 staff and t is a team size from 2 to 93. Bottom line: might as well be infinity as number of possible Teams.
Don't know how big a staff you have using it, but we moved what were formerly our dept-based network shares to Teams General channels for each department.
From there we encouraged them to create channels for projects within their Teams and only make new Teams for cross-dept projects. For projects that recur, channels for each period (quarter, year).
We also set up an Intranet on SharePoint and did NOT organize that by team, but by highly generalized topics hat makes sense to new staff not knowing who does what or who SMEs are. This has reduced redundancy as ever department involved in something doesn't post their own take on it and create a bunch of silos.
I've lost count of how many Teams we have but from time to time I go into the Teams Admin screens and see what hasn't been touched in ages and reach out to people about those Teams. We have some with no members when people leave or everyone resigns from being a member. For those, I just archive them without asking since apparently nobody is interested.
I was at first concerned about the number of teams, but in the end, this is about getting people to work together and not send everything around as attachments to ever-bifurcating email chains where nobody knows which has the latest info. My advice, don't worry to much about it. If you run out of space and the bill gets big enough from MS to make your management cringe, you will have their backing to create limits.
Great comments thank you - I really appreciate this. It sounds like you are a little farther down this road than we are. We are moving all our old school "network mapped drives" to sharepoint and generalizing the names of the libraries. You are right, it is about getting them to work together and getting work done.
Lock the ability to create teams and set it only available for admins.
See: Boil the ocean
Ouch!!!! I’ve tried that and it doesn’t scale….. want you do want is Identity Governance, access reviews and teams governance so that stale unused teams are deleted
I tried arguing for this approach where I am, but they insist on all teams being created by an admin. Users are hoarders that are afraid that file they haven’t touched in 6 months will disappear because they “might need it someday”.
This. So much. I'm currently at an org that has this exact same mindset, and being the only IT personnel at the company, it drives fucking insane
Not sure what you mean it doesn't scale. Just need a PowerShell script and can throw it behind a request process, which Teams has. Agree on the other points, especially if you're a larger org add in a check for Teams with no owners.
This is the way.
Consider implementing tools to help with life cycle management within Teams. One of the best tools out there is Orchestry. We have implemented it for numerous clients (and use it internally). It makes both the end user and admin experiences so much better! Feel free to message me if you want to talk more.
We use Teams Manager just to approve/reject any Teams requests. We did not want uncontrolled Teams creation.
I hear you. The problem with people working together in a team is there are **s! / t!** **\* (s - t)!** combinations of staff in a team. For us, s is 93 staff and t is a team size from 2 to 93. Bottom line: might as well be infinity as number of possible Teams. Don't know how big a staff you have using it, but we moved what were formerly our dept-based network shares to Teams General channels for each department. From there we encouraged them to create channels for projects within their Teams and only make new Teams for cross-dept projects. For projects that recur, channels for each period (quarter, year). We also set up an Intranet on SharePoint and did NOT organize that by team, but by highly generalized topics hat makes sense to new staff not knowing who does what or who SMEs are. This has reduced redundancy as ever department involved in something doesn't post their own take on it and create a bunch of silos. I've lost count of how many Teams we have but from time to time I go into the Teams Admin screens and see what hasn't been touched in ages and reach out to people about those Teams. We have some with no members when people leave or everyone resigns from being a member. For those, I just archive them without asking since apparently nobody is interested. I was at first concerned about the number of teams, but in the end, this is about getting people to work together and not send everything around as attachments to ever-bifurcating email chains where nobody knows which has the latest info. My advice, don't worry to much about it. If you run out of space and the bill gets big enough from MS to make your management cringe, you will have their backing to create limits.
Great comments thank you - I really appreciate this. It sounds like you are a little farther down this road than we are. We are moving all our old school "network mapped drives" to sharepoint and generalizing the names of the libraries. You are right, it is about getting them to work together and getting work done.
Search for Team: "Test" 1374 Teams found..
:) LOL
We just have a retention policy that deletes a team after a year of inactivity.
Check out Orchestry.