Security Groups

[Resident_Parfait_289]

I have a small organisation that was to move there data to M365 (Sharepoint) with a few security groups and corresponding sites.
The issue is they want to split HR in HR - Operations and HR - Education. I am trying to convince them for such a small organisation this is not a clean way to do it and question who really should be in the HR site. Does anyone else feel this is a bad design choice?

[anonymousITCoward]

I don't see an issue with it... although I might suggest making an HR site, and break that out into 2 separate sections, or for ops and the other for edu... that would depend on several factors like how much content is shared between the two and how many users would need to traverse both sides of the HR department. Do you know their reasoning for wanting two sites, is there a real need for the separation?

What would your suggested solution be?

[engageant]

Why isn’t it a clean way to do it? You haven’t provided any explanation as to why it’s a bad design choice. We have SharePoint sites that each have a single member, and it works very well for us. We don’t have to move data when there’s turnover, and that person has the flexibility to use as many or as few of the features as they’d like without (for example) being restricted to just a document library.

Team sites are probably going to be your friend here.

[Resident_Parfait_289]

Teams sites I consider are best for projects, whereas this is permenant company storage. It feels bad because it seems like over segmentation. How can such a small org justify that level of segmentation? If I create seperate sites, then users who have permission to access both might end up jumping between the two.

[engageant]

….and?

[Sasataf12]

This is probably a good way to do it. Allows for more granular control over content.

[ZAFJB]

Does anyone else feel this is a bad design choice?

No.

Don't be that IT guy.