Forum Discussion
Jaap Slot
Apr 21, 2017Brass Contributor
Considerations on Setting up office365 groups
As I get a better insight in the use of Microsoft Office365 groups it becomes clear to me that the Office365 Group is an object in the Azure Active Directory. This object in conjubction with one or m...
Brent Ellis
Silver Contributor
I think Groups should be looked at as a collaboration tool (the same way you now look at Teams).
No way in heck business end users understand if I explain Groups as a membership service, but as a "collaboration in a box" package, that they can get behind.
I think it would behoove Microsoft to start labeling it and treating it as such, and that would help push user adoption and usage. Groups is way more useful in our organization than Teams because of how we work, but Groups has put an arbitrary ceiling on its own head IMO.
To me, Groups (as a product) = slow collaboration whereas Teams (as a product) = fast collaboration, both are ultimately accomplishing the same goal though.
No way in heck business end users understand if I explain Groups as a membership service, but as a "collaboration in a box" package, that they can get behind.
I think it would behoove Microsoft to start labeling it and treating it as such, and that would help push user adoption and usage. Groups is way more useful in our organization than Teams because of how we work, but Groups has put an arbitrary ceiling on its own head IMO.
To me, Groups (as a product) = slow collaboration whereas Teams (as a product) = fast collaboration, both are ultimately accomplishing the same goal though.
May 01, 2017
It would be so much easier if the membership service had a different name than the UI instantiation.