Have you ever opened SharePoint, searched for a document, and ended up finding five different versions of the same thing—none of which were current? You’re not alone. Most companies treat SharePoint like a dumping ground, and it becomes chaos fast. But here’s the thing: it doesn’t have to work like this. There are very specific reasons why SharePoint fails at knowledge management, and we can actually fix them. Stick around, because by understanding those reasons, you’ll see how to turn SharePoint into the single source of truth your team deserves.Why SharePoint Turns Into a Digital JunkyardPicture this—your intranet looks polished, even inviting. There’s a clean homepage, a few curated links, maybe even a dashboard with announcements. But the moment you try to find that crucial policy, the shine disappears. Instead of clarity, the search spits out near-identical documents, labeled “final,” “final v2,” “final_may2020,” and, confusingly, another uploaded just last week. The design suggests order, but the experience feels like digging through a cluttered attic where every box has the same label. Most employees stop trusting the system at that point, and they turn instead to chat threads or email attachments simply because it feels faster.So why does this happen in the first place when SharePoint is marketed as an enterprise-ready platform? It comes down to how organizations perceive it. Too often, SharePoint is introduced as a storage space—essentially a digital filing cabinet. And when you treat it like a cabinet, everyone throws things in without much thought for how anyone else will retrieve them later. The result isn’t collaboration; it’s digital hoarding. There’s no clear logic behind how content is created, organized, or retired. You end up with thousands of files that all technically live on SharePoint, but in practice, they live nowhere at all.Think about a simple, everyday use case—the HR team publishes an updated travel expense policy. They save it to their SharePoint site and notify staff through a link in the corporate newsletter. That works fine until someone drags the document into their department’s Teams channel to “make it easier to access.” Another person downloads it and drops it in a shared OneDrive folder, while someone else attaches it to an all-hands email. A few months later, you now have multiple versions floating around, each in circulation and each looking equally official. Which one do employees click? Which one do they trust? Without clear governance, you’re left with inconsistent versions in circulation, and every department thinks they have the right one.This sprawl isn’t just inconvenient—it eats into productivity. Studies consistently show that knowledge workers spend hours each week searching for internal information. That’s valuable time lost not because the data doesn’t exist, but because it’s scattered in too many places or buried under duplicates. When employees spend half their morning trying to track down the right slide deck, frustration builds, and frustration seeks a target. SharePoint takes the blame. You’ll often hear people in the hallway saying, “SharePoint doesn’t work” or “I can’t ever find anything in there,” when the underlying issue isn’t the technology at all. The culprit is the lack of structure and lifecycle discipline applied to the content inside it.What makes this worse is the mismatch between how SharePoint is set up at launch and how it actually evolves in daily use. The original intention might be solid—a central place for projects, policies, and collaboration. But without ongoing rules or ownership, things break down quickly. If no one actively reviews old content, it never leaves. If there’s no strategy for metadata or tagging, search results feel random. And if there’s no accountability for updating content, outdated files sit untouched for years, masquerading as current. SharePoint becomes a graveyard of outdated knowledge with a few fresh documents scattered on top.It’s easy to see how this cycle starts. When the platform is rolled out, users are told, “Save everything here.” They do exactly that, because the organization hasn’t explained why knowledge management matters. Without clarity on the purpose—beyond simply “storing files”—most employees never consider whether something should be revised, archived, or deleted. That missing “why” is the seed of chaos. Because knowledge isn’t static, yet the system is treated as if information doesn’t age, as if a policy uploaded in 2018 still holds the same relevance today. The absence of lifecycle thinking ensures the mess only gets bigger with time.At the heart of all this, SharePoint isn’t failing anyone. It’s the lack of intentional design that fails SharePoint. The platform offers powerful tools for content structure, governance, and lifecycle management, but if those aren’t used, you’ll never see the benefits. It’s like installing shelves but never organizing what goes on them. Without a system, the tool can’t save you from yourself. And once every folder fills with “final” files, employees abandon search altogether and build parallel knowledge hubs elsewhere. That’s when Teams chats, OneDrive folders, and inboxes become shadow repositories, making the entire framework even harder to control.So the real story here isn’t just duplication or outdated files—it’s the lack of thoughtful planning about how content should live, evolve, and eventually expire. Until those decisions are owned and executed, the system keeps collapsing under its own weight. Which raises the question: if the mess originates in how SharePoint is set up, what would a functional, intentional version of it look like?The Core Ingredients of a Functional Knowledge PlatformIf SharePoint feels less like a workspace and more like a labyrinth, the issue isn’t necessarily the corridors—it’s the missing map that should guide you through them. The tool has the building blocks to function as a reliable source of truth, but without a guiding structure, people wander aimlessly. What sets a functioning SharePoint apart from the digital junkyard version is not more tools, but the way those tools are arranged around clarity, consistency, and control. Think of it less as adding another wing to a house, and more about installing doors, signs, and pathways so you can actually move around inside. The first piece people usually underestimate is navigation. A homepage alone can’t carry the weight of guiding thousands of files, projects, and updates. Navigation has to be logical enough that someone without training immediately understands where to click. It should mirror how teams actually talk about work. Instead of deep folder hierarchies that bury information, a menu that highlights topics makes the system approachable. For a new employee, the experience of opening SharePoint should be closer to walking into a clear reception area than hunting through an unfinished basement. The entire point is to remove friction so users don’t just rely on links shared in chat messages. But even with clear navigation, a second principle matters just as much: content lifecycle. This is where many organizations stumble, because most treat files as static once uploaded. In reality, business content has stages—someone creates it, someone reviews it for accuracy, after a set time it gets archived, and eventually it should be deleted if it’s no longer relevant. Without rules around those steps, what accumulates is not knowledge but noise. You can imagine this like a library. If nobody maintains a catalog, the shelves fill with duplicated books, outdated editions, and sometimes items that don’t belong there at all. Readers then hesitate to borrow anything, unsure whether a better version is tucked away somewhere else. A catalog is not optional—it is what makes the library useful. Now, lifecycle rules might sound heavy, but SharePoint gives methods to make them practical. Documents can be tagged with expiration dates or flagged for review. Automated reminders prompt owners to verify whether content should remain active. Some organizations even connect workflows that automatically move files into archived folders after a certain time. This approach shifts responsibility from employees trying to remember manual cleanups, to a system that nudges them before chaos sets in. The third ingredient, often ignored, is metadata. Many users stick to folders because they’re familiar, but folders aren’t flexible. Metadata allows information to carry meaning beyond its storage path. Tag a document with details like department, topic, or approval status, and suddenly search works with precision. Think about a project charter—when it’s tagged with both project name and status, a search can display only the “approved” versions. Without metadata, search is almost blind. With it, SharePoint becomes closer to a real knowledge engine. This is also where features like hub sites or modern search come alive, because they draw on that metadata to organize and surface relevant material. All of these choices are not just technical housekeeping. They determine how well SharePoint supports future tools like AI copilots. If content lacks clear structure or metadata, AI systems can only return inconsistent results. They might surface outdated policies or irrelevant files, which undermines trust in the entire platform. On the other hand, with structured data and lifecycle discipline, queries to Copilot can pinpoint the approved document version in seconds. The preparation determines whether AI will amplify confusion or clarity. That business impact goes well beyond knowledge management—it affects compliance, productivity, and decision-making speed across the organization. If we simplify all of this down to its essentials, a functional SharePoint ecosystem rests on three anchors. First, navigation that makes sense to real people, not just to system admins. Second, lifecycle practices that ensure content stays
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/m365-show-podcast--6704921/support.