2016–2017: The Digital Workplace Takes Shape
By the time some companies reached 2016, much of the heavy lifting involved in moving to the Cloud was already underway. Email systems were being transitioned, file storage was no longer tied to local infrastructure, and the urgency that had driven earlier migration programmes had begun to settle into something more measured.
What changed next was not where systems were hosted, but how they were used.
Why the move to Office 365 stopped replicating on-premises systems
In the years leading up to this point, migration had focused on relocating existing structures. Email moved to Exchange Online. Files moved into SharePoint or OneDrive. The underlying assumption was that the Cloud would replicate what had come before, just in a more scalable and accessible form.
That assumption didn’t hold for long. As companies became more familiar with Cloud platforms, they began to use them differently. Office 365, which had initially been positioned as a hosted alternative to on-premises systems, started to take on a broader role. SharePoint evolved beyond document storage into a more flexible content platform. OneDrive became part of everyday workflows rather than a simple repository, and in 2017 Microsoft Teams introduced a new model for communication that began to reshape how work was organised.
Email stayed central, but Teams and shared channels changed where work happened
The shift was gradual, but noticeable. Email remained central, but it was no longer the default place for every interaction. Conversations moved into shared channels where they could be followed by entire teams rather than individual recipients. Documents were created and edited in shared spaces, reducing the need to send multiple versions back and forth. Meetings, files, and discussions started to sit alongside each other, connected rather than separate.
For some users, this felt like a natural progression. For others, witchcraft, as their document changed before their eyes with edits from another user. Many of these behaviours had already been established outside the workplace. Messaging platforms had shown that communication could be continuous rather than episodic. File-sharing services had made it easy to access information from multiple locations without thinking about where it was stored. The workplace began to reflect those expectations more closely.
Why distributed data made ownership harder to define
For companies, the implications were more complex. Data was no longer concentrated in a single system. It existed across multiple services, each designed for a specific purpose but interconnected in practice. Email, documents, chat messages, meeting records, and collaborative content all formed part of the same operational picture, but they were stored and managed differently.
This introduced a new set of questions. Understanding where data was held had been a challenge in earlier years, particularly when dealing with PST files and legacy archives. That challenge had not disappeared, it had simply changed form. Instead of dealing with hidden or unmanaged data, companies were now working with distributed data that was highly visible but spread across multiple platforms.
Ownership became less straightforward. A document stored in SharePoint might be accessed by multiple teams. A conversation in Teams could relate to a project that spanned departments. Information was shared more freely, but that freedom required a clearer understanding of responsibility.
Users began to expect consistent access across devices and locations
At the same time, expectations around access continued to increase. Users expected to move between devices and locations without interruption. Work carried on across office networks, home connections, and mobile devices. The idea of a fixed working environment became less relevant, replaced by a model in which access was consistent regardless of location.
Supporting that model required systems to be reliable and predictable. Data needed to be available when required, and it needed to behave in a consistent way across different platforms. Any inconsistency became more visible in an environment where users were constantly interacting with multiple services.
How Transvault preserved data context, not just content, during cloud migration
Transvault’s role during this period reflected these changes. Migration was no longer limited to moving legacy email archives into a single destination. It became part of a broader effort to ensure that historical data could be integrated into evolving environments without losing its meaning. Information that had been created in earlier systems needed to remain usable within newer platforms, even as those platforms changed how users interacted with it.
This required a focus on context as well as content. Emails, documents, and records carried relationships that extended beyond their immediate format. Preserving those relationships was essential if the data was to retain its value. A message moved into a new environment still needed to sit within the correct conversation history. A document still needed to reflect its version history and ownership.
As collaboration tools became more central to daily work, these considerations became more important. Data was no longer something that sat in the background. It was actively used, shared, and updated as part of ongoing activity.
By the end of 2017, the digital workplace had become a working reality
By the end of 2017, the idea of the digital workplace had moved from concept to reality. Work was no longer defined by location or by a single system. It existed across a set of interconnected platforms that supported communication, collaboration, and content management in different ways. Users moved between these platforms without needing to think about the underlying structure, focusing instead on the tasks they needed to complete.
This brought clear advantages. Information could be shared more easily. Teams could collaborate more effectively. Work could continue regardless of physical location.
At the same time, it introduced a greater need for coordination and control. As data became more distributed and more closely tied to day-to-day activity, companies needed to maintain a clear understanding of how it was being used and managed. The systems that supported flexibility also required governance to ensure that flexibility did not lead to fragmentation or risk.
That balance would become increasingly important in the next phase.
Because as data became more accessible and more integrated into how work was carried out, the question was no longer simply how to manage it.
It was how to manage it responsibly.
Find out more about our journey
