👉 If you want to learn more on this topic, check out this video as well: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-b4d1URvfy7M.htmlsi=rAfZOJwbmRgC9Ngb
Another important distinction between the channel types is that you can add guest users ( _B2B Collaboration_ ) to both Standard and Private* channels, but you cannot add guest users to Shared channels. Conversely, you can add external users and teams ( _B2B Direct Connect_ ) to Shared channels but cannot add external users and teams to Standard and Private channels. *Note: to add a guest user to a private channel, like standard users, they must first be added to the team.
Hi, thanks for the video. Quick questions on Shared Channels- do we have to add one individual at a time or can we add people in bulk (teams, orgs, etc..). And how does the Join Team functionality get enabled, so people can find your team and join if interested? Is that a feature of the Shared Channel option?
Arguably the most important difference between these channel types is the capabilities and apps are vastly different. For example, a Private channel does not have the capability to hold meetings. Also you cannot use Planner, Tasks, ToDo or Forms. Shared channels have less limitations than Private but also you cannot use Planner. Channels are the main work stream of any Team, not having project management tools in them is a big deal and you cannot convert 1 channel type to another. With the new Planner overhaul coming soon, I wonder if it won't be available in private or shared channels either?
Only Team Owners can create Shared Channels: sharepointmaven.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-shared-channels-in-teams/. Team Members cannot. Either that or IT disabled that functionality.
13:35 Hi Greg, what could be the logic behind keeping the private teams channel files under a folder inside 'Documents' library and for the shared teams channel, files are directly saved under 'Documents' library? Out of curiosity I am asking. Any idea?
Great video, thank you. Question please ... I have a large project that I have set up as a Team. Stakeholders are spread across internal and an external service provider. Within that Team I have a series of Channels for the different project phases (1,2,3 etc). Each phase is with a different country and set of stakeholders. The collaboration of documents has been really tricky when trying to open the documents in a naitve app vs. web browser. Main issue is log in and sometime being forced to sign in as client or supplier depending on who worked on the document last. All the Channels are Private, might this issue have anything to do with the way the channel is set-up or is this a different issue? I would have thought by now you can easily collaborate with documents in the naitive apps with external guests in a seamless way? Help ...
Important to note - share and private channel sites are *not* managed via an m365 group. That has all sorts of implications, e.g. if th channel is ever devoid of members, the channel and its site will be deleted.
We would like to create a teams for every project in our office. Our IT department wants to put all of our project in individual channels under ONE “master” team. Does this makes sense to you? It doesn’t to me. Intuitively I would prefer to have every project in an individual team. Would love to hear your take. I have researched this but don’t see a clear answer
It depends how your org defines projects. E.g. if you have a portfolio of small quite repetitive projects, then a team with a project or project type per channel makes sense. A programme of simple projects similarly. A large OR complex project will need its own team. Shared and private channels and libraries etc can then be used for cross-cutting coordination eg programme and portfolio meetings, bringing in an operational team for handover activities etc (although those could also be spawned from your support teams own team). Any org looking for one solution for complex needs is going to find any one size fits all solution is inadequate. At least, that's my take on it. In a small org of less than a couple of hundred people it very likely doesn't matter and one team for all projects or one project per team would both work and its about other factors like ease of technical management and information segregation requirements.
@@jezlawrence720thank you for your thoughts. Very helpful. I still think creating teams for every project is the way to go. We are an architecture firm. Making a Team for every project is best, in my opinion. I think the pushback from our IT is the information management .
@@noeltoro3890 thats an important part of the consideration. They may be making their decision based on factors you've not considered, or based on their own lack of knowledge about teams, SharePoint and 365's audit capabilities (i.e. from fear not knowledge) but ultimately that is their call & responsibility. I'm certainly not going to speculate which it is because it can be radically different depending on a given organisation and how seriously they skill up their IG folks on capabilities. They may be absolutely on top of it, have serious concerns and a clear design strategy as a result. That's just as likely as "we don't understand it so we're gonna make everyone put everything right here" in my experience.
@@SharePointMaven So I'm guessing that this makes it suitable for use with external Clients. They will only get access to the channels you have shared with them but they won't have access to standard or private channels. Nor the full Office365 SharePoint site and files This seems perfect for what I need if it is correct. Am I?
