Option 1: Manual Rebuild by Center of Excellence

Option 2: Manual rebuild by Site Owners, with guidelines and support from the Center of Excellence

Option 3: Hybrid 1 + 2: Rebuild of most used & critical Sites by CoE, and rebuild of other Sites by their owners with guidelines

Option 4A: Migrate with 3rd party tooling - Bit Titan

Option 4B: Migrate with 3rd party tooling - Cloudiway

(Easy) 

 Rebuild by a team of skilled technical experts who master the M365 solutions

(Easy) 

 Sites visuals and interfaces can be recreated by end users / editors after training or knowledge materials

Application-enabled files surfaced on the site might be complex to rebuild and require assistance of the COE (underlying Apps Script, Appsheet ...)

(Easy) 

 Rebuild by a team of skilled technical expers who master the M365 solutions

Simple Sites visuals and interfaces can be recreated by end users / editors after training or knowledge materials

(Complex)

Tooling only supports the automated migration of "Public" sites (shared to all Syensqo), "Restricted" sites still need to be recreated manually
Incremental execution is not possible, limited rollback possibilities
No remediation of underlying customization (application-enabled files ...)

(Medium)

Cloudiware supports the automated migration of "Public" AND Restricted sites

  Incremental execution possible

No remediation of underlying customization (application-enabled files ...)

(Medium)

Some involvement necessary from owners to give specifications and perform testing
Possible coexistence if a site is ready & used in the target environment before migration of users (case-by-case depending on Sites characteristics and owners' decision)

(High)
High rebuild workload for Site owners / editors and their users

Possible coexistence if a site is ready & used in the target environment before migration of users (case-by-case depending on Sites characteristics)

(Medium)

Possible coexistence if a site is ready & used in the target environment before migration of users (case-by-case depending on Sites characteristics)

(High)

Freeze period necessary to perform the platform switch

Links pointing to Google drive files remain unchanged in in the target Sharepoint sites

(Low)

No coexistence required as a synchronization is possible between Google Sites and target Sharepoint Sites

Low involvement necessary from owners

Links pointing to Google drive files are replaced

(Small)

Manual recreation has the best end result

Less questions to the support team, as rebuilt sites are tested and demoed to their owners

(High)

Users might reach out for the known support lines if they fail to recreate the sites 

(Small)

Balanced scenario with CoE-led precise recreation of complex sites, and minor support impact expected for the manual recreation of simple sites by the users (based on guidelines)

(High)

One-shot migration of all Google Sites leading to potential spike of tickets

High amount of non-remediated elements (wrong URLS, customized elements ...) will generate incidents & hypercare needs

(Small)

 Bulk migration with a good feature replication + implication of CoE to remediate customized elements in advance = Moderate impact on support

(High)

Sites must be assessed, rebuilt, tested and demoed

(High)

Risk of delay if some site owners do not rebuild their site on time, especially for sites with customized artifacts in their ecosystem.

(High)

Combination of option 1 & 2 with both watchpoints mitigated (less sites to remediate by CoE, and user-led rebuild is not on critical Sites so no risk of business disruption at migration if some sites are not yet rebuilt.

(High)

Procurement & SIP delay

Tooling setup and testing required

Non-remediated elements still require anticipated manual rebuild by CoE/users

(High)

Procurement & SIP delay

Tooling setup and testing required

Script-enabled files still require anticipated manual rebuild by CoE/users

Security & Compliance guidelines can be checked as part of the Sites rebuild (on functionalities and usage)

Soft reinforcement of security guidelines via awareness within the rebuilding guides

Security & Compliance guidelines can be checked as part of the Sites rebuild (on functionalities and usage) + integrated in the rebuilding guides

SIP required for 3rd party tool

Domain Wide Delegation necessary

Network/firewall exceptions necessary

SIP required for 3rd party tool

Domain Wide Delegation necessary

Network/firewall exceptions necessary

Assessment and rebuild will bring rationalization opportunities and standardization of some customized components.

Assessment and rebuild will bring rationalization opportunities and standardization of some customized components.

Moderate change management and awareness efforts to engage site owners in the rebuild of their sites

(High)

CoE resource costs (roughly 12 FTEs over 4 months)

(Low)

Small CoE resource costs for support & guidelines content creation

(Medium)

CoE resource cost (4 to 6 FTEs over 4 months)

(High)

Similar CoE workload as for scenario 3 (without light support efforts)

Tool setup & connection to GWS

Tooling costs (25k€ + additionnal support)

(Very High)

Similar CoE workload as for scenario 3 (without light support efforts)

Tool setup & connection to GWS

Tooling costs (200-300k€ + additionnal support)