Chat & Messaging
Part of Reducing collaboration tool overload
Mapping where team conversations currently happen
Build a practical map of requests, discussions and outcomes across the places your team uses, then identify competing routes.
Map conversations by recording where recurring requests actually begin, who sees them and where their outcomes end up. The result should show competing entrances and missed handoffs across the team. It is an inventory for a later decision, not a count of apps to remove.
Set the unit of the map
Choose several conversation types: a project request, an announcement, a decision question and a restricted matter. Include an outside collaborator if that is part of normal work. Ask people in different roles where they would start each exchange and where they would expect to find its answer later.
Use recent examples people are authorised to inspect. A description of a sensitive route is often enough; do not copy private messages into a wider inventory.
Field / What to record
- Trigger
- What starts the exchange?
- First location
- Email, direct message, channel, meeting or work record?
- Audience
- Who sees it, and who needs it later?
- Action
- Who accepts the request or settles the question?
- Working material
- Where is the related file or task?
- Outcome
- Where would an absent colleague find the current answer?
- Duplicate route
- Was the same work posted or answered elsewhere?
Record the actual route, including detours through personal inboxes. Do not substitute the route the team intended people to use.
Mapping a Typical Team Request Flow
- TriggerProject request from client via email
- First LocationEmail (sent to team manager)
- AudienceTeam manager, designer, developer, finance contact
- ActionManager forwards to Teams channel and assigns task in Asana
- Working MaterialAsana task with attached proposal PDF and budget spreadsheet
- OutcomeDecision recorded in project tracker; summary posted in Teams channel
- Duplicate RouteSame request also posted in Slack (unauthorised but common)
Compare views across roles
Ask the sender, recipient and later reader about the same kind of work. Their answers may differ: one person may expect a channel update while another waits for email. Mark disagreement as an open question and inspect a suitable safe example before settling it.
Check access from the relevant roles. An administrator who can see every space may miss a gap faced by an ordinary member.
If history is unavailable, label the route incomplete rather than concluding that no conversation occurred. Activity counts can point to busy spaces, but they do not show whether a particular answer was understood or duplicated elsewhere.
Comparison of Conversation Routes by Role
- Sender (Project Manager)
- Starts in Microsoft Teams channel, expects outcome in shared project tracker
- Recipient (Designer)
- Expects request via email; checks inbox daily; rarely sees channel updates
- Later Reader (New Team Member)
- Looks for answers in documentation portal; finds outdated notes from past discussions
Label the overlap
Use four labels while reviewing the inventory:
- Competing entrance:
- the same request has two plausible starting places.
- Split discussion:
- the answer develops in one space while affected people watch another.
- Missing handoff:
- a conversation ends without a clear task or outcome record.
- Deliberate separation:
- similar topics need different audiences or permissions.
A private partner conversation and an internal project channel may share a topic without being duplicates.
Produce a route map for the next decision
For each conversation type, list its observed routes, affected roles, an example of confusion and the person who can settle the route. Prioritise work that requires repeated posting or searching. Leave an access-limited case open until an authorised person can inspect it.
The map describes where work goes now. Use it to decide where future work should go; it need not become a permanent catalogue of every channel.
Pros and Cons of Using Microsoft Teams for Internal Conversations
- ProsCentralised chat and file sharing; integrates with ATO-approved tools like Excel and Outlook; supports GST-compliant document tracking
- ConsManagers may see private chats without consent; some roles lack visibility into all channels; risk of duplicate conversations across platforms
Priority of Conversation Types Based on Repeated Posting or Searching
- Project RequestHigh – often reposted due to unclear ownership
- Decision QuestionMedium – split between email and Teams, causing delays
- AnnouncementLow – usually delivered once, but missed by remote staff
- Restricted MatterCritical – requires strict access control; currently handled inconsistently
