How can we make Microsoft Teams better?

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.

1,129 votes
Sign in
(thinking…)
Sign in with: facebook google
Signed in as (Sign out)

We’ll send you updates on this idea

Rhys shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
declined  ·  Warren responded  · 

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.

-Warren

155 comments

Sign in
(thinking…)
Sign in with: facebook google
Signed in as (Sign out)
Submitting...
  • Kevin commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Like most of the other comments here, I am seeing more and more Teams and Channels that truly belong organizationally below others. For example, I have a dev team that has several areas of responsibility and each of those areas has several projects. Instead of flat list of 15 channels, grouping the channels under the areas of responsibility would make logical sense and reduce clutter. It also will let those team members only interesting in some of the areas focus on them and not have to pick through items they are not interested in.

  • Lucie Harris commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Would be great to have sub-channels that could be expanded/collapsed on the side menu so that theyre visible if you need them

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Like every organization ever, ours has a hierarchy of groups within other groups. The fact that this isn't an option is just plain crazy and doesn't reflect the natural organization of the work environment.

  • Vibhor Agarwal commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Having a tree structure is a very common use case. I agree to the fact that the current single level hierarchy keeps it simple, but a mid way can be achieved by limiting the level of hierarchy up-to a maximum of 2 or 3. A team can always have sub-teams. Sub-Sub-teams can be prevented, but a sub-team is a must.

  • Graham commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    It is such an obvious requirement, I can't see why it wasn't included in the first place or refused by the "feature team". Perhaps they should be renamed the "blocking the obvious team".

  • Kali commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Having a "parent" Teams site would be amazing! We have a team that oversees the coordination of several teams for projects, for which channels wouldn't work, but having children teams would help centralize the oversight team while allowing for private/secure compartmentalization based on separate projects.

  • Jon Anderson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I have to question the judgment of this decision considering the lack of proposed alternative solutions from Microsoft. If you think this is such a bad idea, then what is your better idea?

  • Richard Roy commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Let's FACE IT, just about EVERYTHING is nested..... document libraries are, files/folders, email inboxes, the Tree View control is so popular in applications, it only makes sense people would have wanted this. You have taught us to use it across the ecosystem for so long now, why would you not have thought of that in the beginning of the application's lifecycle? Get this done

  • Frederic JECKER commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    A bit upset that this proposal has been refused, especially when you end up in teams with tons of channels.
    Having the ability to group channels in sort of a tree structure would really help.

  • Mike G commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    When training any of my groups of staff, sub-channels is one of the first things they ask for! Please reconsider implementing this enhancement as soon as possible!

  • c commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I could use sub-channels. Without them, Teams structure is very flat and can be very long. I was told to use more tabs but fewer channels which I found not realistic based on plugin availability/limitations and budget constraint.

  • DJ commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Sub-channels are a must and it is mind boggling this feature is not standard!!! I LOVE teams, however I'm about done trying to help push the product uphill in our organization because of the lack of organization sub-channels could easily mitigate. It is difficult to accurately organize and manage teams. A list that could be truncated into just a few lines becomes a massive list of channels to maintain and search through. Quite frustrating :-(

  • Jaime commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I can see how nesting teams/channels can get out of hand (like with folders); perhaps an alternative would be to implement a system of hashtags or key words, and a filter that includes these in Search... It could improve organization/search.

  • Kris Vigfusson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I'd love this feature, especially if the sub channels linked to corresponding sub directories in Sharepoint. If we had this all we would be missing is #s

  • Yasin Bahadori commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    +1 for subchannels.
    We need it bad!

    Or at least do sth about organizing teams so we won't have a long list of teams. Parent teams and subteams visually.

  • Anon commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Why would this feature not be incorporated? this is a basic feature in confluence and Atlassian products. sub channels and sub teams would be an excellent addition to the product.

← Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Feedback and Knowledge Base