Nested Teams and sub channels (Re-opened)
1541 have already voted for this, but Microsoft have disabled the option for addition votes. (https://microsoftteams.uservoice.com/forums/555103-public/suggestions/16954120-nested-teams-and-subchannels)
Sub channels or grouping of channels, createdand managed by the team owner.
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.
Jayesh Patil commented
Our training team need this feature wanted to know when this feature will be available.
Desperate for this feature. I am from a global school, multiple campuses and we moved onto Teams. We have a huge curriculum, classes, units and we need Team sub channels for each channel.
OneNote does this very well, why can't teams? Please implement this, will make things so much better!!
JEFF BERG commented
how is this not a feature. It really should be
B Washburne commented
At the very least, please enable sub-channels.
Gotta have. Makes no sense not to have
Yves Basquet commented
Teams is about enabling people to work collaboratively together, within set organisations. I guess many of us follow some sort of work breakdown, from the top of the organisation down to adhoc teams created for specific work items to be done.
Without subchannels, we can't replicate that work breakdown, set specific subchannels that represent that structure AND LIMIT THE COMMUNICATION TO THE ONES ACTUALLY IN AN ADHOC WORK ITEM SPECIFIC TEAM.
Result, no way to manage an efficient teams communication. As a consequence, WE CAN'T REALLY USE CHANNELS, a real shame !
We are down to using Teams by creating specific chats per work items, away from the channels. Basically, doing what we previously did with Skype.
A lot of effort and value in Teams wasted away because we don't have subchannels that allow to taylor communications to the actual work breakdown performed by the organisation.
Brian McFadden commented
We need a grouping to organize large numbers of channels within a Team (Team -> Grouping -> Channels). Separate teams are a work around but clunky and don't organize well in the application.
This is a must - I work in a multi-national and can't control how people create Teams. I'm already part of 50 teams and its just a mess.
Tim Sanson commented
Nested Teams makes no sense to me, but sub-channels are becoming a must...
Let me highlight that one of the key benefits for us with Teams is not only doing the work today, but being able to retrieve and update that work at some future time.
Creating a team creates a new SharePoint page for the Team, and each Channel creates a new Folder within the page file area. (We deploy the largest practical Team otherwise file collaboration is not possible across smaller teams.)
Within a large team, channels either end up being broad, and then specific discussion topics get lost in a large volume of discussion, or channels become very specific, and there are a large number of channels that may contain related content...
Sub Channels allow content within Channels (and the underlying file structure within the site) to be more logically organized and managed, and all the resultant conversations are more focused on the specific topic area.
This feature is a must.
Matthias Rettlinger commented
This would help us to better structure teams channels.
We would like to adapt the PARA method by Tiago Forte in Teams and currently this is not possible as we are lacking the top level to group the channels into Projects, Areas, Ressources & Archive.
The channels for our team are organized by work processes. The channels get pretty noisy very quickly, especially if someone new is onboarded and has questions. Sub-channels would be an excellent way of sub-dividing topics/projects under the same main channel so that users can find the information they need and filter out the noise, without creating multiple channels that they have to keep adding to their list.
We are a small workgroup and this would be a very helpful addition to us. I'm sure larger workplaces would find it invaluable!
That's a needed feature in schools.
We need structure like:
School name --- Group--- classs.
Saint Gregory School--- 7-1 --- Science.
7-1 --- Math
7-1 --- Languaje.
7-2 --- Science
7-2 --- Math
7-2 --- Languaje.
Yves Basquet commented
Here as well the nature of our business is to have nested channels:
1) we create one channel per release/sprint,
2) we would need to create subchannels within that release/sprint channel, each for the various items that conform the release/sprint.
Sub-channels is a must have! Dear Microsoft please make it happen!
Michael Bunney commented
Nested groups are used in every organization that uses Active Directory, including Microsoft. A department group is composed of the team groups, and a division group is composed of multiple department groups.
Not having nested groups in the enterprise would be unthinkable. You would have to duplicate all the individual members in each group in the hierarchy. This is labor-intensive and error-prone. It is also a huge security risk because even if you remove an individual from a team, he might still be granted permissions though a group higher up. Without nesting there is no inheritance.
Teams and Microsoft 365 groups fail to recognize this critical fact. By basing Teams teams on M365 groups, and not supporting the nesting of M365 groups, organizations are forced to manage users and groups in a way that is inefficient, cumbersome, and a security risk.
Agree with "A must in Class teams for education...Using Channels for subject topics needs sub channels." It's still needed to be able to better organize Projects and such without having to create a plethora of Teams for each sub Project.
Dale Smith commented
I can't believe that this isn't a feature. The existing implementation doesn't allow for granularity in working on various aspects of activities while keeping an overall structure of the workflow.
Definitely would be extremely useful for our organization. Government, with single instance so would like our work unit of 1000 people in a single Team with many smaller organizational units under that, channels don't really work as we would want to sub out work groups within the smaller teams. So either nested teams or nested channels needed do make this truly useful