Forum Discussion
O365 Groups-based Places - Yammer + Teams + Outlook Groups
1) O365 apps grouped by 'places', 'tools' and 'infrastructure'
I looked at the PDF. I like the v2 horizontal orientation better.
I definitely view Planner as a destination akin to O365 Video or Group sites. Seems different from Office Online apps.
- Yes, Planner certainly feels like a destination in my own practical use over the past several weeks. I'll go there and hangout and check in on multiple teams.
I'm beginning to think that Planner, Skype and Video are in a hybrid category. They can both be called as a tool from elsewhere AND be a destination of their own?
2) Comparitive Characteristics
Characteristic
Outlook.
Yammer.
Teams.
Interaction type
Correspondence
Discussion
Conversation
Message volume
low
.medium
high
Replies per message
low
Medium
high
Formality
High
Moderate
Low
Audience breadth
Very low
High
Moderate
Discovery possibility
None
High
Low
Variability of group membership
Very low
High
low
Default participant inclusion
Closed
Open
Closed
Self-selection into group
Very low
Very high
low
Potential for knowledge re-use
Very low
Very high
moderate
Time period for knowledge re-use
Short
Longterm
midterm
Use of group calendar
High
Low
High
Use of group files
High
Moderate
High
Use of Planner
Very low
Low
High
Group Purpose
Organizational connection
Topic Exploration
Shared Work (project)
Expected duration of activity
short
long
moderate
I'm not sure I agree about some of these characteristics as listed in the Outlook column.
1. Message Volume - probably lower than Teams, but it can be as high. I have a large group composed mainly of external guest users and the volume is pretty high, with multiple (> 20) replies per item. Remember, an Outlook group is built on top of an Exchange mailbox and that mailbox is capable of storing more than 100,000 items in the folder where conversations are kept.
2. Formality - depends on the organization.
3. Audience breadth - up to 1,000 users (600 for teams, much higher for Yammer). Remember that Groups are created with public access as default, so users can easily find (Discover) new groups and join them as they want. Teams are created as private by default. Also, both OWA and Outlook offer users suggestions about Groups that they might like to join based on signals gathered in the Office Graph, so these groups are pretty open. I think your assessment of "Discovery possibility" is badly flawed as is "Default participant inclusion" (because groups are designed to be open).
4, Potential for knowledge reuse - depends on how the group is used. If groups are used to generate documents, then the knowledge contained in those documents can be shared.
5. Use of Planner - why is this low for Outlook Groups?
6. Expected duration - I have Groups running since their launch in November 2014 and there's no sign of them going away. Again, it depends on the organization.
7. Group purpose - Groups are very good at projects (shared work). IMHO, they are as good as Teams. The choice between the two might be determined by your communication preference.
One thing you miss is compliance. The information held in Yammer and Teams chat is totally invisible to the standard Office 365 compliance functionality. That's a huge gap for Microsoft to fill. Another you could cite is manageability. PowerShell isn't available for Yammer, so the only things you can do is whatever options are provided by Microsoft; the same is largely true for Teams but some of the underlying cmdlets available for Groups work with Teams too. Data soverignity is a further issue for both Yammer and Teams - Outlook Groups use Exchange and are part of Office 365 core data so are held in all datacenters. This is not true for Yammer, Teams (and Planner).
TR
TonyRedmond great response. Thanks. I think this provides a good point/counter-point for any others wrestling with positioning these 'places' in their enterprise.
I think if one starts with your 7 then everything flows from there. That is, if an individual/enterprise is generally happy and satisfied with the email 'experience' then Outlook Groups can be used to cover most (all?) Teams practical use-cases precisely because of its PROXIMITY to email. On the other hand, if one starts -- as I do and most of the people in my small (less than 500 person) enterprise do -- by finding the email experience ennervating and frustrating then Teams will be more appealing precisely because of its DISTANCE from email.
Note also, that with my 'table' I was primarily summarizing the perspective from my enterprise's actual experience -- rather than attempting to assess for all possible users at all enterprises. In our case Outlook Groups has been around for a year or so and has had very limited pickup and what limited pickup it has had is with inveterate email users who have mostly used it as a file collection and group calendaring tool (which it is quite good at!). I get that it is POSSIBLE to use Planner, to have vibrant conversations, etc. in Outlook Groups. Just hasn't happened organically/naturally in my shop.
Similarly I get that being limited to 'whatever options are provided by Microsoft' can be a 'bug' -- but for my enterprise its a 'feature' (less customization to pay for and manage, less stuff to unwind over time, etc.).
3) When I want to create a groups-based 'place'...
You create a group in Yammer if...your core purpose is to learn and share knowledge about a topic. You are also more likely to not know all of the individuals that will end up as part of that group. You expect to be reading or 'broadcasting' to that community of interest around the 'topic' You're less likely to have urgent or time-sensitive posts and replies. Your expectation that someone you may not even know or know yet will be able to read through a thread a learn something is HIGH. You expect that the knowledge developed collaboratively will have long-lasting value.
You create a group in Teams if...your core purpose is to execute shared tasks, or a project. SO you're likely to know right away most of the members of the Team. So while some individuals may be added or subtracted over time group membership is generally well known to all members at any point in time: these are the members of this TEAM. Knowledge exchange is generally happening at a fast pace amongst the known members of the Team; it is likely to be intense but only for the duration of the project. Although the ease of adding/subtracting members make this place congenial to a mid-stream member being able to get up to speed quickly. As a fair number of posts/replies are specific to members and tasks the LONGTERM value of the knowledge in Team posts is likely to be moderate to low once the reason for the team has gone away (ie, the project is complete).
You create an Outlook Group if...your core purpose is to collect files, calendaring and some correspondence amongst a defined list of individuals who have activity around a recurring organizational responsibility. You likely expect the 'conversational content' to be fairly low while the file collection and calendar use might be high. You'd also likely expect that the knowledge content of the 'conversations' would be low as they will most likely be about notifications of new material or formal notices related to events of the list of individuals.
Very Neat. Thanks for the detailed information.
