Dec 20 2017 01:08 AM
Dec 20 2017 01:08 AM
After some months of planning and preparation we finally went live with our SharePoint Online implementation recently. All is generally well, but we're already seeing some real headache issues that have emerged only days after going live. I'd appreciate your views on some of the following approaches we took and the associated issues that have emerged from them:
SITE STRUCTURE:
We structured into site collections by business unit, eg. Technology, Ops, etc. - the problem is that we've already had a organisational reshuffle and various units have not only changed name, but have also been relocated under different business units, therefore we've had to recreate new sites under different site collections as they could not simply be moved or copied in any apparent straightforward way.
Early on in the project we were advised that organising by business unit would be a bad move as inevitably things change. How would you go about creating this sort of structure that doesn't get affected by change. I could change the navigation, but then you end up with subsites residing in old locations where people become confused as to why their site and their 'neighbours' are no longer in the same team and their URL still refers to their old department or business unit name.
IN SHORT: How have you structured your site collections & subsites?
CONTENT TYPES:
We created our own set of content types with the understanding that we'd use these for our standard company templates for generic word documents, powerpoint presentations, etc. We're finding that if someone uploads a document to a document library (customised template library with managed content types enabled). The problem now, so it seems is that people are uploading file types that aren't in the default content types we created (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Visio) - they've uploading PDF's, Project files, images, etc. How should we handle this? If we add new content types in the content type hub the changes will propagate to the various site collections, but then they won't automatically be added to the list of available content types for that list - and importantly if someone has created custom columns how will these new content types have those custom columns applied?
IN SHORT: How have you used content types?
thanks!
Dec 20 2017 02:37 AM
Dec 20 2017 05:53 AM
Dec 20 2017 08:15 AM
Think about using Communication Sites for your publishing/broadcast content (intranet) and Groups (team sites) for your collaboration activity. All of these site collections should be "flat" - nothing hanging off of anything. If you use navigation to connect the sites, re-orgs will not matter. If you want every document to have two special columns, create a content type called [Company]-Document and use the out of the box Document as its parent. Add your two custom columns to that Content Type. You will then have to associate that content type with each of your document libraries. You can then associate a Word template with that content type - so that if a user goes to a library and says + New Word doc, they will have your template. (Most people don't do that, by the way, so there's that! I understand what you are trying to do, but from a practical perspective, my guess is that you will not get the outcome you want. An alternative approach would be to make all of your templates available in a Brand Central type site collection and then train your staff to use these templates - whether they create a document from Word or from SharePoint.)
Once you have [Company]-Document associated with all of your document libraries, ANY type of document (Word, PDF, PPT, etc.) uploaded to a library will have those two attributes. If they are required, then users will be prompted to enter them no matter what type of document they are actually uploading.
As @Rob Ellis says, you should think about using content types for a functional document like a Project Charter or an Expense Report, not for a format (type) of document like Word or PPT. Your "base" corporate document doesn't care about the format of the document (though you can associate one and only one template with it). However, your base document can include any enterprise-wide required metadata that you want to include. Note that you will not necessariliy be able to easily force the custom content type in to document libraries set up by your users but you can probably use code or training to encourage its use. I never recommend trying to force metadata into Team Sites. It tends to discourage users from storing documents there. However, on Communication Sites, with limited publishers and lots of readers, this is much easier to govern.
Dec 20 2017 08:19 AM
Dec 20 2017 05:17 PM
Totally agree. Definitely how I would do it if needed. Just trying not to over-complicate! :)
Dec 21 2017 02:15 AM
I believe we tried this approach and it turned out that it wasn't possible to point the content types in the content type hub to a centralised template location (in a different site collection)
Dec 21 2017 04:24 AM
@Deleted, I wouldn't use content type hubs. In on premises SharePoint it was just about ok in some scenarios but in Office 365 I would not go for any content type hub solutions.
To get similar functionality to the content type hub I use PnP technology to replicate the content types and columns across sites. The big advantage here is that I have full control over which sites are updated when and with what content types/columns.
Dec 21 2017 04:57 AM
Did you try putting all the templates in the Content Tyoe Hub Site Collection? Not that I am recommending doing that, to be honest because I am still not convinced that it is going to get you your desired outcomes. I think I am trying to get you to really think about whether you need the templates at all and whether they will add value. It is so hard to get users to start a Word document from SharePoint (except in fit for purpose solutions) that you really could be over-planning and not getting the outcomes you want - and it may or not work technically or consistently. I think it is important to balance what is maybe technically possible with what is practical and truly adds business value. Some practices are more easily implemented with training (I know, hard to believe) than trying to use every technically possible feature of SharePoint.