It’s a big decision deciding how you want to collaborate as an organization. More importantly, what tools will you use to help your team communicate? Susan from Accounting may not be so sassy all the time if she didn’t have to use a tool that hindered her efficiency rather than improved it.
“So, just get a better collaboration tool. The end. Thanks for reading.”
It’s not always that easy. From Workplace to Slack, Microsoft Teams, and back, you finally decide on two options… for blog’s sake, they’re Workplace from Meta and Microsoft Teams.
Let’s start with the questions you need to ask yourself:
- Is collaboration a priority for your organization?
- Does your organization currently collaborate effectively? Why do/don’t they and what attributes can be improved?
- How important is open-dialogue in your organization? Do you want everyone to have input in future direction?
- What does your tech stack look like? Are the tools you’re looking to adopt integrate with current technology?
I could go on, but let’s stick to the essentials. Now that you have those questions handy, here are the comparisons between Workplace from Meta and Microsoft Teams. If you’re rather time-poor, here is a quick summary:
Focus – What Is Each Tool’s Primary Focus?
Workplace was designed around improving connection and collaboration amongst fellow colleagues and future employees.
Teams is more of a unified communication platform that works well if your tech stack is purely Microsoft. Yes, it has integration functionality but feels more like a tech stack monopoly rather than an additional piece of the technology puzzle.
Use Case – Functionality and Purpose
Workplace is more of a centralized communication platform, allowing users to integrate applications and BOT’s to manage and automate work processes. It’s multi-level engagement abilities using Groups, chat, calls, and Live video, make communication interactive.
Teams has its functionality of being a collaboration tool amongst the Microsoft suite. Teams offers a newsfeed, chat functionality, meetings, and calls.
Design – Mobile or Desktop-First?
As the world becomes more mobile, technology has to take the leap and prioritize mobile design. Workplace has this in the bag, with the ability to use the tool solely on a mobile device. This is great for organizations operating mobile workforces and always on the run.
Teams was originally designed on desktop, but has its mobile application. Navigation can be challenging, but if your tech stack is all things Microsoft, it would feel like another application.
Training and User Adoption
This one is a no-brainer. If you have used Facebook for social media, then Workplace will feel like home. If you’ve never had a Facebook account, then be prepared to pop your cherry with an intuitive interface.
On the note of Teams, the desktop and mobile application are also quite intuitive. Being a veteran on Microsoft, I found it very similar to Outlook amongst other Microsoft tools.
Training ideally comes down to the individual’s technical ability and experience on similar platforms, but also how an organization implements a new collaboration tool. A Blueprint provides third-party experts to facilitate planning, workshops, implementation, and ongoing adoption.
Optimization – Are IT In or Are They Out?
Workplace does require IT support for initial set up. After this is completed, configurations can be made by Workplace owners and members. The ability to self-manage saves IT the million-and-one menial support tickets clogging up their inbox.
Teams requires IT throughout initial set up and ongoing support. Perhaps this is a blessing and a curse, as it may take longer to fulfil requests, but at least the not-so-technically-savvy won’t go on a ‘group creation’ spree.
We hope you enjoyed our blog on Workplace from Meta vs Microsoft Teams. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us. Alternatively, if you’re interested in Workplace from Meta and unsure where to begin your journey, just ‘book a Blueprint’ and Enablo will help you on your way!
