Forum Discussion
Can IC work without SharePoint savvy?
There is a first step in setting up the internal communications for an organization and that is translating the requirements to a future proof information architecture taking into account all the bells and whistles in Microsoft 365. My experience, when that is done, is that it is very straight forward for IC-professionals to use/handle/improve IC. Noteworthy is that you need to let the functionality of the platform influence your requirements. Then you can fulfill 95% of the requirements by spending only ca 20% of the resources and on top of that get the possibility to use all built in functionality now or in the future.
Two important takes on the above:
- During the initial phase the combined knowledge of IC and MS 365 functionality is crucial. It is then possible to create very modern communications platform utilizing 100% standard functions.
- There are a lot of other tools/functions in MS365 that can/should be used. SharePoint will only get you half of the way. Stream for videos, Viva Connections for integration in Teams (makes it quite easy to target e.g. blue collars) and Viva Engage.
There is a lot more to say here but this is enough for now😀
In my experience IC and IT are rarely aligned on their respective requirements and limitations. IC have the challenge of reaching the organization across different channels (often for which there is no clear strategy for use), which increasingly includes frontline and remote working audiences. Pitching to the right audience via the right channel is still a real challenge in our hybrid world.
IT in the meantime often outsource their 365 expertise (making it difficult to relationship build) and don't take a consultative approach to requirements gathering. I have often been told something can't be done (when I know it can) either because its assumed I don't have the experience to challenge that or that person doesn't I'm speaking to doesn't have adequate knowledge of 365.
ALCorbett As @HelloBenTeoh states is always a struggle between the need of IC and the habit of IT to lock things down. But as a consultant working for IC, with an IT background and knowledge about what can be done and also how it should be done it is possible to achieve but you need to be trusted by both sides and that can take time.
The most common issue is the question from IT: Why should we use Viva Engage/Yammer when we already have Teams.
- kvadratmartin the kind of role you describe is absolutely essential; unfortunately much like a unicorn too. That conduit between IT and the wider business who understands all the pain points and bridges the silos is GOLD! - so thank you for sharing some invaluable insights here 🙂
In my experience a channels strategy can clearly articulate what to use which channel for - and when - distinguishing between the different communication requirements. I've always understood Teams to be a better tool for communicating on projects or with your own team on BAU matters; where information is valuable only to the team interacting with it. This could look like document collaboration in draft (before publishing to a more public space), for example.
Viva Engage would have a much broader audience and there is a clear distinction between the two models. But without that strategy, the needs of the comms team will be smoke and mirrors. - I think that question is possibly ok to ask if you are a small organization. But the moment you get bigger then the differences become obvious.
For instance, vast majority of teams are closed, but most communities on Engage are open. Teams is simply not used for cross-organizational knowledge-sharing. I'm writing this with some level of confidence as my company has published what I believe are the largest benchmarking studies of this.
Viva Engage has a set of features which really are great for communities, eg upvoting answers to questions, closing discussions etc etc.
I feel it is a bit like the folks in finance who say "Why do we need Word when we have Excel? I can write text in Excel too!". Yes - you can, but once you get to a certain level of sophistication it just isn't the right tool any more.
ALCorbett Yeah,this is an interesting topic too (and not just IC either).
ALCorbett wrote:
In my experience IC and IT are rarely aligned on their respective requirements and limitations.The role of technology in the workplace is so diverse now, there has to be better conversations about how we deliver great experiences and focus on delivering tech that solves problems for employees. There's plenty of opportunity now to diversify what the traditional 'IT' department looks like to deliver better internal service.
At the same time, upskilling staff to use the tools will go a long way but it means policies may need to be relaxed about who has permission to do what. So, let's say you have a hot shot IC person with all the SharePoint know-how but what good is that if everything's so locked down that you can't make the most of the platform?
It's about those internal relationships and workplace culture.
HelloBenTeoh "o, let's say you have a hot shot IC person with all the SharePoint know-how but what good is that if everything's so locked down that you can't make the most of the platform?"
This is for sure a big issue at least in large organizations.
- Maybe a controversial point, but I wonder if the reason things are locked down is because those responsible for managing them don't understand the capability of that feature, or the resource to put governance around it? In a recent role, much of the expertise around Microsoft was outsourced to agencies with whom we had no contact; so how can we move on from this command and control structure, if the ownership for our platforms sit with some random who has no personal investment?
