A little confused about some of the best practices

Frequent Contributor

in the yammer planning and deployment documentation, especially on the leadership guides, it suggests making a communication sharepoint site to go along with the leadership connection channel.


So the question is why create the second site.  When you create a yammer group, you get a team site.  As far as I can tell you can't have it create a communication site.  So why create the communication site.  From what i can tell there are just some UI differences between a Team Site and a Communication site.  And when you click on the Office 365 connected groups links in yammer you wont get the communication site, you will get the team site.  


So how does the yammer team see using these two site in practice?  What is the specific purpose of each site?


It seems like a lot of duplication for a small org like mine, but I am sure there is a reason, and I would prefer to get started on a good path now rather than have to do a bunch of migrating as we grow.


I really want to start to use the yammer more, It really came to my attention with some problems we are facing as an org.  We are a really small team (5ppl),  But we are a non profit.  We have a Board that we want to open up communications with as well as thousands of volunteers (we currently use consumer public social for them but would like to bring some key volunteers a little closer to the core).  We currently just use teams, witch seems fine but doesn't reach out to things like the board and volunteers as well (i think this is sort of our outer loop).  Anyway,  looking into how to better handle this communication I found yammer. 


Just looking at really scaling it up for easily scaling out.  We are about to introduce 2-3 more programs in the next year or so.  Which means doubling staff at least, increasing the volunteers, and needing to communicate Board and leadership directives to more than one functional.  We work with mainly volunteers as you can see so it becomes difficult to make large changes to thing after implementation, so I would rather avoid pitfalls now.  Hoping to learn the best we can from best practices and the community.

6 Replies
best response confirmed by Jeff Williams (Frequent Contributor)

@Jeff Williams Within Office 365, Microsoft presently offers two solutions oriented to leadership comms.


1) Yammer ("Ask the CEO" group, etc.)


2) Communications Sites in SharePoint

These don't have the O365 group resources associated with them and they have some features that are specific to the intranet / company portal use cases (notably: header/footer, navigation options, no left nav). Comms site are also tuned well for limited authors, larger audiences/readers.


To you point - wouldn't it be great if these two were more closely aligned? Yes.


To your point - couldn't you just use the Team Site associated with the Yammer group for your pages and such? Yes, I think so -- as long as you understand the limitations.


You'll also likely have to play with some of the permissions so that anyone who joins the Yammer group doesn't then have the ability to publish pages/edit existing ones.

 As noted elsewhere here in the MTC, there are issues with changing the default SharePoint Groups associated with an Office 365 Group connected Team Sites.


@Kevin Crossman 


Maybe I dont understand the limitations.  If I made a yammer group that was public (which is what I would assume you do for a CEO connection/Ask the CEO style site) you would get a associated teams site that would have permission so that everyone could at least read, correct.


I am trying to understand why it is best practice to also make a communcation site.  Asside from the nav/header/footer being better suited (which I agree).


The problem I am seeing is that people you use yammer, with see the office 365 connected team site/planner/doc library.  click and use those things, and then you have to maintain the comm site. 


I suppose you can just make the comm site aggregate all the data from the team site up to it.  but the question really then seems to be why have the two.  if all the one does is display the content from the other. 


I think i am missing something, either big picture, or some sort of limitation that is the reason for this to be considered beast practice. 


@Jeff Williams 

you would get a associated teams site that would have permission so that everyone could at least read, correct.

Yes. But because it's a public group then anyone could join it and then immediately have read/write on anything in the Team Site.


That's probably why for this use case they recommend a Comms Site. Where it ISN'T easy for anyone in your org to give themselves read/write permissions.

@Kevin Crossmanahh, I see.  this makes some more sense.  You wouldn't want the news posts or files from the CEO, getting deleted or edited. 


The problem is then discovery.  A team member you uses yammer more would possibly be expecting the content to be in the office 365 group that is connected to the yammer group.  So they would possibly follow those links and nothing would be there.


You can share everything in the comm site to the yammer site, I guess.


I dont use yammer a ton myself. It just seems to me that it would almost always make sense that yammer group would just be connected to a comm site.  At least with the whole inner/outer loop story.


I wish MS would spend a littlel more time on how they actually see content/data move and flow withing their best practices.  Instead of saying very general thing like "create a comm site for your yammer group for even better engagement with your team"


Probably is a little bit of a left-hand/right-hand problem.


Groups-connected Yammer Groups (with SharePoint and Planner) were launched in early 2017, before Comms Sites were announced.  The Yammer team took the method available at the time to get a SharePoint site connected to a Yammer group. 

@Kevin CrossmanSure,  but they could tell a better narrative with their best practice docs, etc.  Anyway, thanks for the discussion.