There are more Teams than people, half of them abandoned, and nobody can find the final version of anything.

Give files, Teams, and permissions a structure that holds after handover.

SharePoint & Teams Cleanup

The agreed sites and Teams are reorganized into a structure that holds, permissions are corrected, lifecycle rules are applied, a content owner is named for each area, and the result is tested with real users.

Price

Fixed price confirmed before work begins

Delivery window

The fixed proposal contains the delivery calendar and the completion date.

The price is agreed in writing before any work begins and before any access is granted. Nothing is billed for the scoping conversation that sets it. What moves the number:

  • · Number of SharePoint sites and Teams in scope
  • · Volume of content to be restructured or moved
  • · Number of distinct permission groups and guest relationships to unwind
  • · Whether content migration is included or handled separately
  • · Whether the tenant has retention or compliance requirements affecting archival
Talk Through the Cleanup →

No tenant access, credentials, or sensitive files are requested through this website.

A named site and Team list, agreed up frontTested with real users before sign-offWorkflow automation quoted separately

What happened

Collaboration tools grow by accident. Every project spawned a Team, every Team spawned a site, and nothing was ever archived because nobody owned the decision. The cost is not storage — it is that people cannot find things, so they make new copies, and the copies become the version somebody sends to a client.

Nothing in the tenant separates a live Team from a finished one: each name was chosen by whoever created it, no expiry policy is set against them, and no review date exists. Each site kept the folder tree its creator happened to build, so the same kind of document sits under a different path from one area to the next, and nothing on the file itself records which project it belonged to or whether it is still current. No area has a named owner, which leaves a request to merge or archive anything stalled at the point where somebody has to be entitled to say yes.

What happens if it is left as it is

  • Work gets redone when somebody starts from the copy they could find, with the correction landing on whoever spots the difference later.
  • Where creating a Team is open to anyone with a licence, each new one brings its own site and its own permission set, and a Team made to escape the current mess becomes another place that later has to be inventoried and decided on.
  • Guest accounts and company-wide sharing links stay live until somebody removes them by hand, and with no owner named for an area there is nobody whose job it is to look.
  • Without an agreed retention position or a reversible archival window, an in-house tidy-up puts Teams away with no way to check first whether a finance or legal request will need what was in them.

What changes in production

Not findings. These are the things that are different afterwards.

  1. 1Every site and Team in the agreed scope is inventoried and carries a keep, merge or archive decision with a named owner.
  2. 2The target structure is built: the categories, naming and metadata that replace a folder tree nobody can navigate.
  3. 3Content is moved into the new structure for the areas in scope, and the merged or archived Teams are actioned rather than recommended.
  4. 4Permissions are corrected to match who should actually have access, including the guest and company-wide sharing that accumulated.
  5. 5Lifecycle rules are applied — creation, naming, expiry and review — so the clutter does not rebuild the week after handover.
  6. 6Real users run their real work through the new structure, and what fails in that test is fixed before sign-off.

Definition of done

The engagement ends when all of these are true and demonstrable.

  • Every Team and site in scope carries an actioned keep, merge or archive decision
  • The target structure is built and the in-scope content sits inside it
  • Permissions match the agreed access model, verified from real accounts
  • Lifecycle and naming rules are applied and documented
  • Each area has a named content owner who has accepted it
  • Real users have run their own work through the structure and the defects found are closed

What you provide

Named up front, because these are the things that stall an engagement when nobody owns them.

  • Approve the site and Team list before any archival
  • Nominate a content owner for each area
  • Provide the users who will run the real-work test
  • Own end-user communications and training
  • Confirm retention and compliance requirements before anything is archived

What moves the price

The figure comes from what is actually in the environment. Headcount is one input among several, and rarely the one that matters most.

  • Number of SharePoint sites and Teams in scope
  • Volume of content to be restructured or moved
  • Number of distinct permission groups and guest relationships to unwind
  • Whether content migration is included or handled separately
  • Whether the tenant has retention or compliance requirements affecting archival

Not included

Stated so the scope means the same thing to both parties on the last day as it did on the first.

  • Workflow or approval automation — that is One Workflow Automation Build
  • Migration from a third-party platform, which is a Safe Migration engagement
  • A full Purview classification or records-management programme
  • Help desk and end-user support
  • Ongoing content governance after handover

How change is staged and reversed

Production work carries risk. This is the method, not a reassurance.

  • Nothing is deleted. Archival is reversible for an agreed retention window, and the window is stated before the first Team is touched.
  • Permission changes run in batches verified from a real account in the affected group, so a correction that locks out a working team is caught the same day.

Evidence and handover

Yours to keep whatever happens next, including handing it to your own team or another provider. The documents are what prove the work happened; they are not the thing being bought.

  • The Teams and sites register, with the decision made on each
  • The target structure: categories, naming, and the metadata that replaces the folder tree
  • The permission map across the sites and Teams in scope, before and after
  • The naming and lifecycle rules as applied
  • The named content owners, and their acceptance

Is this another report, with the real work quoted afterwards?

It may sound like a consultant will inspect the environment, hand over a document, and then quote a second project. That is not the default here. Where the outcome can be scoped safely from a short working call, the implementation is sold directly, as this page does. Separate paid planning is used only where genuine complexity prevents a responsible fixed price, and where it is used the page says so plainly.

Talk Through the Cleanup

Describe what is happening, what has to be working differently, and any deadline behind it. A reply comes within one business day with the most direct next step, or a clear answer that AZ Innovations is not the right fit.

Talk Through the Cleanup →