Information architecture in a flat SharePoint world


agriculture-bloom-blossom-355312

There’s a tectonic shift taking place in the world of SharePoint information architecture. The deep nested webs of SharePoint 2007 and 2010 site collections are a thing of the past, as is the exhausting task of combatting site urban sprawl. We’re now being told to rest easy and create a multitude of modern SharePoint sites. And these modern SharePoint sites don’t exist in a hierarchy with many sub-sites. Since each modern site is its own site collection, all modern sites exist in a flat architecture. Managing hordes of these modern SharePoint sites is easier than ever, with stronger built-in management capabilities (e.g. retention policies and labels), meatier reporting, and an advanced Office 365 modern admin center. But why is a flat information architecture better? And how do we help our users connect the dots between our multitude of modern SharePoint sites?

Before we examine why flatter is better, I want to ensure we have a common definition of information architecture. I define SharePoint information architecture as the art and science of organizing, storing, and labeling content (e.g. documents, list data, Office 365 groups, SharePoint sites, etc.) to support content findability and usability. Information architecture helps your users find what they need and ensures your content is stored once and not multiple times.

Now let’s review why a flat SharePoint site architecture is advantageous:

  • Flat = modular. Flat SharePoint sites can be assembled in an endless array of logical families (as opposed to a physical hierarchical architecture of nested site collections). These logically-grouped SharePoint sites support quick navigation and contextual flow without requiring sites to move and data to be migrated anytime an information architecture change is required. Microsoft released SharePoint hub sites in March 2018 to help us manage families of SharePoint sites using these logical links. No physical relocation is required for hub sites–sites are linked together and links can be updated quickly and easily.
  • Adapts to ever-changing organization structures. A flat information architecture eliminates the need to migrate sub-sites to new site collections based on departmental reorganization. Re-orgs may require updates to the navigation links between your site collections (or updates to your hub site’s navigation bar), but it will not require a physical migration of your SharePoint site or result in a site URL change.
  • Supports new Office 365 capabilities. Functionality like Office 365 groups are heavily reliant on a modern information architecture. Office 365 groups serve as the security foundations for a wide array of functionality in Planner, Yammer, Exchange, and Microsoft Teams. New Office 365 groups cannot be nested–each exists at the same layer as all other groups. Quite simply, a hierarchical information architecture cannot be used easily alongside Office 365 group-enabled capabilities.
  • Enables sites to operate independently. As I mentioned previously, every SharePoint site in a flat architecture is its own site collection. This enables each site to operate independently, with custom permissions and unique governance settings. There’s no longer a need for all sub-sites in a site collection to be ruled by the governance requirements of one site. Each modern site has independent settings.
  • Shorter site URLs. When you create a nested series of sub-sites in SharePoint, you end up with long URL addresses for your sites. If you have an Information Technology site collection with a child Help Desk site, your URL would look something like this: https://splibrarian.sharepoint.com/sites/Information%20Technology/Help%20Desk/
    If you create these same sites in a flat information architecture, you will have shorter, easier-to-use URLs:
    https://splibrarian.sharepoint.com/sites/Information%20Technology/
    https://splibrarian.sharepoint.com/sites/Help%20Desk/

Mind-mapping our SharePoint sites
This new flat architecture requires us to change the way we conceptualize and present our SharePoint sites. Instead of building pyramid-style site hierarchies, we need to build a logical links and connection points based on subject matter, user base, etc. Tying sites together by department or organizational division is no longer enough. We must account for how users will think about the content stored on our sites and the connections they’ll make as they access SharePoint Online.

A good model for this new conceptual model is mind-mapping. Mind-mapping is the visual representation of thoughts, discussions, and ideas. It connects thoughts and ideas together in a documented, visual map (almost like a cognitive diagram). While many strategists and information architecture practitioners have advocated using mind-maps for years to capture group conversations and decision-making processes, the new flat architecture model for SharePoint now requires us to apply this same mind-map thinking to the logical ties between our multitude of modern sites.

The example mind-map below shows how ideas and data points can be connected to a central ideal/theme in a visual way. If we apply this mind-map idea to connecting our SharePoint sites or hub site families together, we’ll be in a better position to build navigation links and “connect” our flat SharePoint sites together in a usable way.

Example mind-map. Illustration credit: Meagan Haase
Sketchnote

 

5 comments

  1. Thank you for this explanation. I will keep it on file come the time we venture out of our on-premises environment. I find it funny that Microsoft calls SharePoint online the “Modern experience”. What are they going to call the next version they push on us in three years?

  2. Thanks Sarah this summarises the advantages well. Would you consider doing a similar post on the downsides too? Some governance inheritance like content types were pretty handy in site hierarchies.
    I also feel that the current limitation of sites only associated with one hub greatly reduces the potential benefits. Until we can have a true polyhierarchy it’s really just a hierarchy model all over again isn’t it?

    1. Agreed–there are potential downsides. Fortunately, the Content Type Hub still allows for tenant and farm-level sharing of content types. And at Ignite 2018 Microsoft announced they’re examining nested hubs, multi-hub parenting, and hub metadata & content types. No word yet on timing of these features, but good to see Microsoft is considering.

      We’re still in the infancy stages of managing and governing sites and hubs in this new “flat” model. Much more content to come!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s