Nested Teams and subchannels
Could it be possible to create teams within teams. For example, we have a Development Team at our company which consists of two sub-teams, tech support team and project team.
I’d love to be able to have a “home” top-level channel for my project team, and then have sub-channels for each project that we are working on.
This request has been reviewed and declined by the feature team.
You can continue to up vote this topic as well as leave comments. Depending on the ongoing feedback, there is always a chance a topic will be revisited based on user demand.
Anton Gubarkov commented
Was astonished to see it is declined. My team became a big mess once everyone on the project was onboarded and the channels became really chatty. We keep @ addressing people individually in posts to draw attention. And I can't make a group to @ address quickly. Inefficient.
In order to keep users engaged, we need to create channels within a channel. If there is too much noise in the channel, everyone ignores the messaging/activity since there would be activity unrelated to users in the channel.
Please reevaluate this as a future feature.
Would like to add my interest in having sub-channels within teams. We use for projects and it would be good to separate 'stages' within 'phases. Thanks
Just adding my voice - I'm really surprised this isn't possible. It's literally one of the first things we needed to do when setting up a workflow using Teams.
The alternative of having multiple un-nested channels that focus on the same project is pretty awful.
This would be a great feature
Jort Jacobs commented
Please revise this one.
I would like to +10 actually.
This feature being missing shows how disconnected the Microsoft project managers are from the actual user experience.
Think of a team, a few people who come together to work on many different projects. If it is like most companies, here is partially what a group would want to accomplish in a single "Team":
-A channel for sales or business development with a sub channel for each market
-A channel for shared resources and links to common material with a sub channel for each business line or discipline
-A channel for active projects with a sub-channel for each project
-A channel for inactive projects with a sub-channel for each project
-A channel for software and tools with a sub-channel for each software or tool
-A channel for finances with sub-channels for group finance and project finance.
The overall channel would carry links, general information, and direction as a whole while the sub channels would help someone work on that specific sectors, disciplines or projects.
The real problem is there are multiple aspects to any department or group (finances, marketing, projects, group management, software coordination, standards, etc.) and all of these aspects have sub-categories. Without this feature, you have to make a team for each category, and suddenly your entire Teams screen is filled with different teams, because you are not only part of your team, but other people's teams, and everyone made a separate team for each category.
Now you have to find the team that you are looking for, when you have the realization, "Why did I do this to myself?". I should have just used the good old file folder structure, and just used Skype till Microsoft kills it, and make my life way easier, because I can actually find things and don't have to read through a significant number of different team names every time to find the right team. So you search online for a better solution, or even an example of someone who was able to do this better, and this is the thread you come upon. I have now wasted a lot of time thinking I was getting better organized, but what I have really done is become way less productive, and more annoyed.
Good job Microsoft, you deserve a trophy for declining this request!
This is based off a true story.
You need to add this, no way to get a large complex organization onboard with Teams if we can not do this!
Really surprised to discover this. Sub channels would be really useful. Please can you review the decision
The requirement to have a Team hierarchy within a tenant or a channel hierarchy within a team is going to be a standard requirement among almost all adopters. This decision needs to be reversed.
This. This is by biggest issue with teams. The lack of ability to properly organise files is pretty poor on MS part. As a team, we have multiple sites with no easy way of organising efficiently. Sub-channels within channels would be an easy fix for this.
Sub channels would be of great help, especially since you can restrict access to channels. We have 50+ audits that we would like to share with different set of individuals. Creating a channel for each of these makes navigating through the site onerous, as with creating permissions on the SharePoint side. Please consider sub channels (with permission restrictions).
This is a much needed part of any project. Imagine if you could only create one layer of folders and have no sub folders. We have multiple projects going on with many sub categories. Makes for a pretty ****** application when people either have to search through a who channel to find a sub topic. Might be better off finding a 3rd party application instead.
Dale Gardner commented
Sub-teams would be extremely useful. Channels do not cover the same use cases.
R Miller commented
I think it was a bad decision to dclin sub-teams and sub-channel
+1 for this feature the ability to @ a certain group of people inside a team would be a benefit instead of sending it to the whole team.
In my use it would be a group of experts to a certain topic you need to get the request to. currently we are making an e-mail distribution to get around this but the @ ability would be a much cleaner solution
Nicole Bailey commented
we have multiple groups of people working on a given project, we have the project group, marketing group, technical group, it would be ideal to assign people a given group where you can '@' a specific group for an action item or question. Please please please make this a functionality.
Working for a large corporation, we have very leveraged teams, but also want a team specific to an organizational unit. The leveraged/external resources to the organizational unit may need to see collateral for a given project on our team site (implemented as a "channel" for a specific project), but not for other channels (projects which a given leveraged/external resource really may not need to see) on our team site. This seems like a very valid use case to me.
While we are in the process of beginning with Teams, using subchannels really was one of the first questions we had.