When to Use Teams

Decision framework for implementing teams in your organization

Teams add structure but also complexity. This guide helps you decide if teams are right for your organization.

The Core Question

Should we use teams for access control, or just for organization?

This depends on your Team Access Control setting:

TEAM access control:

Teams control Decision Site visibility
Team membership matters for access
Adds structure and privacy

ORGANIZATION access control:

Teams don't control access
Everyone sees everything
Teams are organizational only

Decision Framework

Start Here: Company Size

< 10 people:

Probably don't need TEAM access control
Use ORGANIZATION access (everyone sees everything)
Teams optional, for organization only

10-50 people:

Consider TEAM access control
Depends on natural divisions
Evaluate other factors below

50+ people:

Probably need TEAM access control
Without it, too much noise
Teams help organize at scale

Natural Team Divisions?

Clear divisions exist:

✅ Geographic regions (US-East, US-West, EMEA)
✅ Product lines (Product A, Product B)
✅ Account size tiers (Enterprise, SMB)
✅ Functional teams (Sales, Engineering, Support)

No clear divisions:

❌ Everyone works on everything
❌ Flat structure
❌ Single team handles all deals
❌ No logical groupings

If yes: Teams make sense If no: Teams add complexity without benefit

Privacy Requirements?

Need privacy between teams:

Competitive regions shouldn't see each other's deals
Confidential accounts need restricted access
Compliance requires data segregation
Sensitive deals must stay within team

Full transparency preferred:

Small company culture
Cross-selling opportunities important
Collaboration more valuable than privacy
Trust-based environment

If privacy needed: Use TEAM access control If transparency preferred: Use ORGANIZATION access control

Structural Clarity?

Clear structure:

Defined reporting hierarchy
Obvious team boundaries
Stable team composition
Clear team ownership

Unclear structure:

Fluid team composition
Matrix organization (people on many teams)
Frequent reorganization
Unclear boundaries

If clear: Teams reinforce structure If unclear: Teams may create confusion

Use Case Analysis

✅ Good Reasons to Use Teams

Geographic Separation

Scenario: Sales reps in different regions shouldn't see each other's deals.

Setup:

text

Teams:
├─ US-East Sales
├─ US-West Sales
├─ EMEA Sales
└─ APAC Sales

Team Access Control: TEAM

Benefits:

Regional privacy
No cross-region confusion
Focus on relevant deals
Clear ownership

Product Segmentation

Scenario: Different products with specialized teams.

Setup:

text

Teams:
├─ Product A Team (specialized training)
├─ Product B Team (different process)
└─ Product C Team (separate go-to-market)

Team Access Control: TEAM

Benefits:

Product-specific access
Specialized knowledge stays within team
Clear product ownership

Account Size Tiers

Scenario: Enterprise and SMB teams have different processes.

Setup:

text

Teams:
├─ Enterprise Accounts (long sales cycles)
├─ Mid-Market Accounts (medium complexity)
└─ SMB Accounts (high velocity)

Team Access Control: TEAM

Benefits:

Tier-appropriate access
Different methodologies
Clear account ownership

Confidential Deals

Scenario: Some deals require restricted access.

Setup:

text

Teams:
├─ Strategic Accounts (confidential)
├─ General Sales
└─ Partner Deals (NDA required)

Team Access Control: TEAM

Benefits:

Compliance
Confidentiality
Need-to-know access

Scaling Organization

Scenario: Growing from 15 to 100 people.

Setup:

text

Current (15 people):
- Everyone sees everything
- Team Access Control: ORGANIZATION

Future (100 people):
- Regional teams
- Team Access Control: TEAM

Benefits:

Reduces noise
Improves focus
Enables scale

❌ When Teams Add Unnecessary Complexity

Small, Collaborative Organization

Scenario: 8-person startup, everyone collaborates on everything.

Problem with TEAM access control:

Artificial boundaries
Reduces collaboration
Overhead not worth it

Better approach:

Team Access Control: ORGANIZATION
Optional teams for organization only
Full transparency

Flat Structure

Scenario: No natural team divisions, people work across everything.

Problem with teams:

Arbitrary groupings
Constant access issues
Doesn't match workflow

Better approach:

Team Access Control: ORGANIZATION
No teams, or minimal teams for labeling

High Collaboration Need

Scenario: Cross-selling is critical, teams need to see each other's work.

Problem with TEAM access control:

Blocks collaboration
Hides opportunities
Creates silos

Better approach:

Team Access Control: ORGANIZATION
Teams for organization, not restriction
Full visibility

Frequent Reorganization

Scenario: Teams restructure every quarter.

Problem with teams:

Constant access changes
Member churn
Configuration overhead

Better approach:

Team Access Control: ORGANIZATION
Stable team structure
Access not tied to structure changes

Single Sales Team

Scenario: Everyone is on one sales team working together.

Problem with multiple teams:

No natural divisions
Everyone should see everything
Teams create false boundaries

Better approach:

One team (plus default)
Team Access Control: ORGANIZATION
Simple structure

Access Control Setting Decision

Choose ORGANIZATION Access If:

Result: Teams are organizational only, don't control access.

Choose TEAM Access If:

Result: Teams control Decision Site visibility.

Choose OWN Access If:

Individual contributor model
Maximum privacy required
Consulting/law firm structure
No collaboration between individuals
Client confidentiality paramount

Result: Only owners access their Decision Sites, teams don't matter.

Common Scenarios

Scenario 1: Growing Startup

Current state:

10 people
Everyone sees everything
Informal structure

Should we use teams?

Not yet. Use ORGANIZATION access control.

Revisit when:

20 people
Natural divisions emerge
Privacy becomes concern

Scenario 2: Regional Sales Organization

Current state:

50 sales reps
4 regions
Regional managers
Some deals should stay regional

Should we use teams?

Yes. Use TEAM access control.

Setup:

text

Teams: US-East, US-West, EMEA, APAC
Access Control: TEAM
Result: Regional privacy

Scenario 3: Product Company with Cross-Selling

Current state:

30 people
3 products
Cross-selling critical
Product-based teams exist

Should we use teams?

Use teams but ORGANIZATION access control.

Setup:

text

Teams: Product A, Product B, Product C
Access Control: ORGANIZATION
Result: Organizational clarity, full visibility for cross-selling

Scenario 4: Law Firm

Current state:

20 partners
Each has own clients
Maximum confidentiality
No sharing between partners

Should we use teams?

Yes, but use OWN access control.

Setup:

text

Teams: Practice areas (organizational)
Access Control: OWN
Result: Each partner sees only their cases

Implementation Timeline

Phase 1: Evaluate (Week 1)

Tasks:

Assess company size
Identify natural divisions
Determine privacy needs
Survey team preferences

Questions:

How many people?
Clear team structure?
Need privacy?
Collaboration vs structure?

Phase 2: Decide (Week 2)

Choose:

ORGANIZATION vs TEAM vs OWN access control
Team structure (if TEAM access)
Number of teams
Team naming convention

Document:

Access control choice
Team structure
Reasoning

Phase 3: Pilot (Weeks 3-6)

Start small:

Create 1-2 teams
Assign subset of Decision Sites
Test access patterns
Gather feedback

Validate:

Access works as expected
No unintended restrictions
Team membership correct

Phase 4: Roll Out (Weeks 7-12)

Full deployment:

Create all teams
Add all members
Assign all Decision Sites
Communicate changes

Monitor:

Access issues
User confusion
Team adjustments needed

Changing Your Mind

You can change Team Access Control later:

Warning: Changing affects all Decision Sites immediately.

ORGANIZATION → TEAM

Impact:

Suddenly people lose access outside their team
May cause confusion
Communicate clearly

When to do it:

Company outgrew ORGANIZATION
Privacy now required
Natural divisions emerged

TEAM → ORGANIZATION

Impact:

Everyone suddenly sees everything
Privacy reduced
May expose sensitive deals

When to do it:

Teams creating too many silos
Collaboration more important
Company culture shifted

Any → OWN

Impact:

Massive access restriction
Teams stop controlling access
Collaboration very difficult

Rarely recommended:

Only for maximum privacy
Individual contributor model
Understand tradeoffs

Validation Checklist

Before committing to teams:

Organizational:

Team structure matches org structure
Clear team ownership
Stable team composition expected
Naming convention established

Technical:

Access control setting chosen
Tested with pilot teams
Admin access verified
Default team understood

Cultural:

Team gets why teams exist
Access restrictions acceptable
Communication plan ready
Training provided

Operational:

Process for adding members
Process for assigning Decision Sites
Team audit schedule
Escalation path for access issues

Next Steps

Once you've decided to use teams:

Choose access control: ORGANIZATION, TEAM, or OWN
Plan team structure: Team Structure Patterns
Follow best practices: Best Practices
Create teams: Quick Start
Configure access: Team Access Control

Team Structure Patterns - Common organizational models
Best Practices - Effective team management
Team Access Control - Deep dive into access settings
What Are Teams - Understanding the basics