Forum Discussion
O365 Groups-based Places - Yammer + Teams + Outlook Groups
Nice work!
I agree with @KevinCrossman here about replacing Graph with Delve.
I'm not sure I picked up on it, but another element of "which tool when" is transparency. While it's up to the organization on how to position this, Outlook is basically opaque while Yammer is transparent with more opportunities for discovery and connection-making. Other tools are somewhere in between.
Turnover frequency is another element. How easy is it to onboard new people to your group in Outlook vs. Teams vs. Yammer? I almost want a survey tool where a user can answer some questions and get a recommendation.
Maybe build on capability terminology. As MS continues to build out tools, your chart will quickly become dated. If people understand common capabilities, they'll be better prepared to receive new tech that is designed for them.
Consider whether different groups might need different versions of something like this. Maybe you rollout capabilities to specific audiences with a chart like this specific to key use cases and let other uses evolve from there. Example: I can see Teams being really useful for projects. We're currently recommending Yammer/SharePoint for project collaboration. Based on what I've seen so far, Teams seems like a possible replacement--especially for anything that's not ready or applicable for open discussion.
Delve I'm sure you're both right but I'm shooting for the moon here in getting my colleagues to begin to get that Delve is just the manifestation of the artifact discovery service and that they will eventually see 'delve' INSIDE a bunch of other tools and places. Check in with me in three months and I'll likely be saying 'you told me so'
I'm beginning to think that transparency is a subconsciously charged term and can lead to more rather than less consternation when used by itself --it seems like its meaning is clear but it's not. Transperency has too quite different meanings: Compliance = subject to inspection; Knowledge = open to sharing. Furthermore MS appears to be trying to guide users to make some elements of Outlook (Outlook Groups) more 'public' as Kevin notes above. In my enterprise I care almost completely about the latter -- I am interested in exchanging knowledge both within a known circle and with unknown current and future colleagues. So terms like 'discoverability' and 'access' and 'proximity' are more important to me than 'transparency'. If I was going to grade just transparency I'd have to use odd terms like O=rarely, T=sometimes and Y=mostly.
Turnover frequency is a great term!
Capability - sadly we've already used up the term 'capability' as a formal term of art inside our firm that we've built our whole performance review process around (sort of skills on steroids) so I can't use it here.
Dated - you're probably right about dated but right now I'm trying to get people to see that not everything is a 'tool'. These boards are littered with complaints about 'why is MS releasing another TOOL for collaboration' which sounds almost legimate if Teams, Yammer and Outlook were, in fact, just 'tools'. But they are not in much the same way that Facebook is not a 'tool' and YouTube is not a 'tool'. MS seems to be flirting with the term 'workspace' and I'd happily follow if they'd pick something and stick to it. But whatever term it is it seems quite tactically usefull to say there are a basket of Xs designed to do a specific thing and then they are a basket of Ys that are spaces in which you choose to get work done in over a span of time.
- I like "discoverability" instead of "transparency." You're right in anticipating that some folks would freak over the term. (Can we work in "serendipity"? It's just fun to say!)
