05-20-2019 08:48 AM
05-20-2019 08:48 AM
I know this topic has been discussed by many, but I still cannot get my head around it. The idea of linking a team to an existing SharePoint site seems SO critically important to me. The more we use Teams, the more apparent this becomes.
There are a few workarounds, such as using a link to an existing SP Doc Library, but that doesn't really help us control sprawl.
Here is an example of how this creates issues for us. We'd LOVE to have people operate primarily in MS Teams. Bowever, we have a corporate Intranet that is the starting place for everyone and everything. It is where all of our company wide documents exist, where many of our existing team documents exist, all our company news, events...etc.
So this disconnect with the TEAMS structure is leaving us with a gap in our workflow, and creates tons of unused resources.
Each department has their own Intranet site. This includes that department announcements, news, contacts, events, documents, FAQ's...etc. Let's use Marketing for example. Marketing Portal is a subsite on the Intranet Root with quite a few FLOWS that process different pieces of information and events for the team members. They utilize the Doc Libraries for all documents related to their daily work.
If they post news or alerts on the site, they have the option of rolling that news up to the Intranet Home Portal. So working in that structure is important to allow them to utilize their site to the fullest.
When we create a new TEAM for Marketing, then they get a new SharePoint Site that is disconnected form that Intranet Portal. I can go link the doc library, but that still puts them in a position to jump between TEAMS and SharePoint depending on the information that they wish to utilize (Calendar, Events ,Announcement etc...). It doesn't really allow them to have ONE location that they can utilize from either interface.
I have tried to figure out ways to adapt the Intranet to use the site created by TEAMS instead, but that has been a big fail as well since the Intranet Portal itself is in a different Site Collection.
It seems so intuitive that you'd be able to connect TEAMS to an existing site.
I found a promising option of creating a SharePoint site, and then creating a GROUP from that site...then connecting a TEAM to an existing Group. BUT, that only works for root level sites...which none of our Internet Sites are as they are subsites of the main Intranet site.
I am really struggling to figure out a logical way to get TEAMS and out SharePoint sites to play nice and avoid creating double the number of SharePoint sites necessary.
Inevitably, the users end up with files in two places in the current model.
Someone hit me with the magic bullet of understanding so I can figure this thing out!
05-20-2019 09:01 AM
05-20-2019 02:50 PM
05-21-2019 07:15 AM
@Chris WebbHey Chris. The company uses SPMarketplace Intranet Portal, and that is where the subsite model comes from. They have custom SPMP webparts that manage the rollups.
It is pretty slick in many ways, but it is also limiting. For one, they re-invent the wheel at times by doing things like creating a project tracker that doesn't really take into account technology such as Planner. Same goes for Teams...they seem to disregard that as a useful tool in the Intranet world, but that is a primary tool for our users. So figuring out how to consistently provide an experience that allows for the use of Teams in the model is very restricting. It doesn't always utilize AD for user information, but instead relies on Lists...that too is troublesome, but can be worked around.
Tasks assigned in the portal utilize lists as well, and thus don't notify or sync to the Outlook task lists.
Those shortcomings are manageable, but the Teams integration is problematic.
They use a subsite model. I have spoken with them about a hub model and they seem to discourage it. Some customers have failed trying to do that, although it appears that one has been rather successful. I believe if we utilized that model, we could use the group conversion method to potentially solve that issue. I have another meeting with them soon to discuss it.
Bottom line is, I need it to play nice with Teams or it really defeats the purpose. At minimum, it needs to account for Teams in a much more meaningful way. Teams is a central focus for our users.
05-21-2019 07:22 AM
05-21-2019 08:09 AM
05-21-2019 09:19 AM