For intranets nobody has opened since the last migration
SharePoint
SharePoint intranets erode in a specific way: permission exceptions granted one at a time and a migration that skipped validating its metadata. Search stops returning anything useful long before anyone notices the site is failing. This practice treats information architecture as the actual deliverable, with permissions, migration and integration owned as one connected piece of work.
How a SharePoint information architecture gets designed here
Permission groups, migration validation and where custom code actually earns its place.
90 secSample frame · video pending01Before a single web part gets built
SPFx or native configuration is a real decision.
Reaching for a custom SPFx web part before checking native options is a common and costly habit. Four questions settle the call before a single line of code gets written.
Can a list, library or Power Automate flow do this?
Column formatting, views and Power Automate cover most customization needs without touching code. SPFx should be the second choice, not the first instinct.
Does the requirement need a genuinely custom interface?
SPFx earns its complexity when the interface itself is the actual requirement. A workflow-shaped need rarely justifies building and maintaining a custom web part.
Who maintains this after the project ends?
Out-of-the-box configuration can be maintained by your site administrators. An SPFx component needs a developer on call for every tenant update going forward.
Does it need to survive a future migration?
Native configuration moves cleanly between tenants and SharePoint versions. Custom code needs deliberate testing after every migration to confirm it still behaves the same way.
| Native configuration | SPFx | |
|---|---|---|
| Who can maintain it | Site administrators | A developer on call |
| Survives tenant migration | Cleanly | Needs re-testing |
| Best fit | Views, formatting, simple workflow | A genuinely custom interface |
| Build and test effort | Low | Higher, ongoing |
02Agreed before a single site is touched
The ledger that keeps a SharePoint build honest
SharePoint engagements slip when permission scope gets assumed instead of agreed before a single site gets touched. This ledger fixes what you bring, what we design or migrate, what returns to you, and what your team keeps control of throughout.
- Your side
You bring
- How your teams currently share and find information
- Any existing sites, libraries or shared drives in use
- Who needs to see what across departments
- Our side
We build
- An information architecture designed around real usage, not a template
- Permission groups modelled on actual job functions
- Search and navigation tuned to how people actually look for things
- Your side
You receive
- A working intranet with a defensible site structure
- Documented permission groups your admin can maintain
- Search that returns what people are actually looking for
Never leaves you
- The decision on how departments should be organised
- Ownership of the site once it launches
- Authority over what content lives where
Where the line sitsWe design the structure around how you work; the decision on how your organisation should actually be organised stays with you.
03From architecture to a trusted intranet
Four stages, each closing on real evidence
Intranets that decay again usually skipped a stage here rather than a step inside one. This system closes each stage with something your IT lead can actually verify.
Design the permission model deliberately
Sites get modelled around a small number of clear permission groups instead of one-off exceptions layered on over time. Every exception granted later has to justify itself against this model.
Groups first, exceptions neverPlan the migration around content, not just files
Metadata, versioning and permission mapping get planned before a single file moves between tenants or versions. A migration measured only in file count misses what people actually depend on.
Content mapped before it movesMigrate and reconcile against the source
Content, metadata and permissions get validated against the original site after cutover, not assumed to have copied correctly. A migration report closes this stage, not a completion email.
Every object validated after the moveBuild SPFx and Graph integration where it earns its place
Custom components and Graph API integrations get added only once configuration genuinely cannot meet the need. Each one ships with the same testing rigour as any other production code.
Extended only where native options run out
04What actually moves the number
Four drivers, priced from the assessment
SharePoint work is priced against the scoping assessment, because these four factors change effort well beyond what a per-site estimate assumes.
Number of sites and permission exceptions
A single well-structured site costs less than untangling years of one-off exceptions across dozens of sites.
Migration volume and content age
Recent, well-tagged content migrates quickly. Years of undocumented metadata and broken links demand real discovery work first.
SPFx and Graph integration depth
Native configuration is quick to price. Custom components with Graph API calls need more design and testing time.
Cross-tenant complexity
A single-tenant migration is simpler than consolidating several tenants with different governance histories into one.
05Evidence and proof
Intranets people can search, trust and actually use.
SharePoint proof is a site people can search and trust, not a migration completion email. Every record here waits for written client approval before production.
Explore case studies
A hundred permission exceptions replaced by twelve clear groups.
Nexa Foundry's SharePoint sites carried years of one-off permission exceptions nobody could fully explain. An audit consolidated them into twelve clear groups before the site's next migration began.
- Permission exceptions removed
- Over 90
- Groups replacing them
- 12
Search that finally returns what people are looking for.
Tern's intranet held years of undocumented metadata, and search rarely returned anything useful. Rebuilding the information architecture and managed properties made search trustworthy again for the first time in years.
- Managed properties rebuilt
- 22
- Search complaints since launch
- Zero
Nobody could explain our permission structure before this, and now every group has a stated reason.
Sample · pending client approval
06Read this first
When a new SharePoint build is the wrong answer
Rebuilding a full intranet for a need that one well-configured Teams channel could solve is more platform than the problem needs. The exits below are marked plainly.
A Teams channel or simple document library already works
A narrow, single-team need is often served better by a plain library than a custom-built intranet site nobody else will maintain.
The organisation structure is still being decided
Designing permission groups around a structure still under negotiation means redesigning them again shortly after. Settle the structure first.
- Team extension
You need SharePoint developers, not a delivery team
If your team already owns the collaboration roadmap and needs capacity, team extension fits better than a commissioned build.
| Shape | Best when | You direct | We carry |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scoped build | Site and permission scope is known | Access decisions and priorities | Design and delivery |
| Delivery pod | A migration or rebuild spans many sites | Product decisions each cycle | Engineering and migration |
| Team extension | Your leads own the collaboration roadmap | Architecture and standards | Named developers and continuity |
07Straight answers
Asked before a SharePoint budget is signed off.
01Do you design the permission structure or just build the site?
Both, and usually the permission structure matters more. A well-designed site on a sprawling, exception-ridden permission model still fails, so the model gets designed before the site takes its final shape.
02Do you build SPFx components or stick to native configuration?
Whichever the requirement actually needs, decided against those four questions. Most needs are met natively, with SPFx reserved for genuinely custom interface requirements.
03Can you migrate us between SharePoint versions or tenants?
Yes, and migration is planned and validated as its own stage with a reconciliation report for every site. The old environment does not retire until that report confirms nothing was lost.
04How do you handle permission sprawl on an existing site?
It gets audited and rebuilt around a small number of clear groups instead of patching more exceptions on top. That model gets documented so the next person inherits a design, not a guess.
05What does SharePoint consulting cost?
Priced against site count, migration volume and SPFx or Graph integration depth, from the scoping assessment. A single well-structured site costs far less than a multi-tenant migration.
06Can you connect SharePoint to Power BI or Dynamics 365?
Yes, SharePoint libraries and lists are common data sources for both, and that connection gets scoped as part of the same engagement rather than treated separately.
07Will search actually work once the migration is done?
That is one of the things the reconciliation report checks directly. Metadata and managed properties get validated after migration specifically because search quality depends on them being intact.
08Is this a staffing arrangement or a delivery engagement?
It is delivery work, not a placement. Our team designs the architecture, builds the extension, or runs the migration, and you receive a working site rather than a candidate's resume.