For small NGOs - What do you think of this doctrine:

Copper Contributor

We are a small NGO who recently migrated from the G suite, none of us admins are very experienced. We chose to setup our collaboration files in a way I believe is counter intuitive and I cannot convince the master admin to change.

All our members are part of a single MS365 group, let's call it "The Family". We use its Team for general chat and announcements etc. We also have ALL our working files (historical archive as well) inside the SP for that "The Family" group but with customized access so that each department can access only the folders they should.

We do have an MS365 group for each department, and they use their respective Team to communicate but we keep encouraging them to only use "The Family" SP for collaboration - forcing a disconnection between SP and Teams. Every time a new project/team is assembled, we make them use a private channel within "The Family" Team.

The leadership doesn't want to utilize multiple SPs out of fear for cluttering overtime and generally disorganization of that historical folder setup which resides in "The Family". However, overtime I am noticing more and more issues arising which I feel are because we are not using MS365 as it was intended.

As an example If we want to have a MS Form which stores responses and attachments into a shared space "The Family", the form is actually owned by the entire organization and we cannot restrict any of its data.

Is it not that the intended doctrine is to have a new MS365 group, SP, Team for each project/initiative/small team?

If yes what are the real issues with not having it that way?

0 Replies