On this page
7.3) Advising
1. The Translation Framework (Policy vs. Practice)
Delivery teams (Project Managers, Business Analysts, Developers) often view governance as a roadblock because it is written in abstract compliance terms. Your role is to serve as the translator.
- The Anti-Pattern: “Your proposed solution violates the Data Handling Standard v2.4. Please revise.”
- The Consultant Pattern: “Because this project handles PII, the Data Handling Standard requires us to use a dedicated SharePoint site with the external sharing slider set to ‘New and Existing Guests,’ combined with a 90-day access review policy. Here is how we configure that.”
- The Goal: Never make the delivery team guess what the compliant solution looks like.
2. Building the “Pre-Approved Menu” (Architectural Patterns)
To avoid designing bespoke solutions for every request, mentally categorize M365 collaboration needs into standardized, pre-approved patterns. When advising, you are simply helping them select the right pattern from the menu.
- Pattern A: High-Friction/High-Security Collaboration
- Use Case: M&A, HR restructuring, Legal discovery.
- The Setup: Private Team, strict sensitivity label (Container & Item level), external sharing blocked, explicit ownership, and a short expiration policy.
- Pattern B: Standard Departmental Operations
- Use Case: The Finance team needs a place to work on monthly reporting.
- The Setup: Standard M365 Group-connected Team, internal sharing only, standard retention policies.
- Pattern C: Extranet / Vendor Collaboration
- Use Case: Working with an external marketing agency.
- The Setup: Isolated SharePoint site (no Hub connection), Entra External ID (B2B collaboration) guest access enabled, sharing links restricted to “Specific People,” mandatory guest expiration policies enabled.
- Pattern D: Broad Broadcast
- Use Case: The new company intranet homepage.
- The Setup: SharePoint Communication Site, read-only for “Everyone except external users,” distinct permissions for content authors.
3. Conducting a Technical Working Session / Design Review
When you are pulled into a meeting to provide “technical input,” structure your involvement to control the room without micromanaging.
- Phase 1: Discovery (Listen): Let the stakeholders explain the business process from start to finish without interrupting. Map their workflow to M365 workloads in your head (e.g., “They are emailing spreadsheets back and forth = SharePoint Co-authoring + version history”).
- Phase 2: Pattern Matching (Propose): Map their workflow to one of the Pre-Approved Patterns.
- Phase 3: Gap Analysis (Refine): Identify where the standard pattern doesn’t quite fit their needs and design a compliant bridge (e.g., “The standard Teams setup works, but you need an automated approval flow for these specific documents, so we will attach a Power Automate flow to the document library”).
- Phase 4: Roles & Responsibilities (Execute): Clearly define what you will do (e.g., provision the backend infrastructure, assign the labels) vs. what they will do (e.g., upload the files, train their users).
4. The “Show, Don’t Just Tell” Approach
Abstract architectural concepts are difficult for non-technical stakeholders to grasp.
- Rapid Prototyping: Instead of a 10-page design document, spend 20 minutes spinning up a Proof of Concept (PoC) in a dev tenant or an isolated site.
- Visualizing the Flow: Demonstrating how a sensitivity label actually looks when applied, or how an external sharing link behaves for a guest, instantly clarifies the “why” behind the governance.
5. Documentation & Leaving an Audit Trail
Because you are a contractor you will eventually need to hand-over back to the owner.
- Architecture Decision Records (ADRs): For any major deviation from standard patterns or any complex technical advice given, document the decision.
- Format: Context (Why were we asked?), Options Considered (What did we look at?), Decision (What did we build?), and Consequences (What is the ongoing maintenance?). Log this in Jira, ServiceNow, or the IT team’s internal wiki.