Skip to content

How groups & teams work in Power Apps & Dataverse

There are several ways how the concept of a group is used in Power Platform services. Many users and admins may be familiar with some of them, but grasping all the variations that a collection of users can have in various parts of the platform is actually pretty challenging.

In this article I will demonstrate how different types of groups/teams can be used together with the some common security features of Power Apps and Dataverse. We’ll examine how groups/teams work on these three main levels of access management in Power Platform:

  • Environment level access
  • App level access
  • Data level access

Our demo users / groups / teams

The demo tenant we’ll be using contains the following user accounts with these roles:

  • Marco – Power Platform Service admin
  • Jukka – User
  • Timo – User
  • Antti – User

As for how these users come together, we’ve created the following constructs for grouping them:

  • Security Group A: created via Azure AD
    • Members: Marco and Jukka
  • Microsoft 365 Group B: also created via Azure AD
    • Members: Marco and Timo
  • Teams Team C: created through the Microsoft Teams app
    • Members: Marco and Antti

The above groups/teams reflect the main methods for how users might get grouped with one another in the Microsoft cloud. Whether you create these groups via the Azure Portal or Microsoft 365 Admin Portal shouldn’t matter technically. The Microsoft Teams client is of course one special way of enabling self-service creation of groups associated to Teams teams.

Environment security group

Our first access level exploration is on the environment level. In the world of Power Platform, environments are at the heart of most security settings (which is why environment governance is so critical). Associating a security group with any environments you create is definitely a recommended practice.

This is something you configure in Power Platform Admin Center (PPAC). It’s not required by the system, which means your existing environments may be missing a value here. When either creating or editing an environment, here’s the options we see in the “edit security group” dialog:

All our three groups are available here in the security group picker. You can therefore use anything from a security group to a Microsoft Teams team to control environment level access. Read the Docs page for more details on how to control user access to environments.

In our demo scenario we’ll choose Security Group A here, meaning Marco + Jukka. However, since Jukka doesn’t yet have anything else configured for his account, he can’t actually see or do anything with this environment. This is important to understand: the environment group is only a filter on top of everything else deeper down in the platform.

Sharing Power Apps access to a group

As a best practice, you should always lean towards sharing access to your Canvas apps and Model-driven apps via groups. This will make it much easier to manage app access in the long run, compared to directly sharing each individual app to every user account requiring access to it (or removal of access).

In our demo scenario, we are able to share our Canvas app (the Onboarding Tasks template app) to both the security group and the Microsoft 365 group without any issues. Our Microsoft Teams team doesn’t appear in this sharing dialog, though:

Are we not able to share apps to Microsoft Teams team members then? It is technically possible, but you’ll just need to perform one additional step to enable this. By default, Microsoft Teams doesn’t set the groups behind its teams as security enabled. To change this, an owner of the team needs to run PowerShell scripts to change the Azure AD group property “SecurityEnabled” to “true”. See instructions here. You can also leverage this Power Apps Canvas app from Théophile CHIN-NIN to do the settings update without PowerShell.

Note that there are differences between how you share a Canvas app vs. how you share a Model-driven app. We’ll stick to Canvas apps for now but revisit the topic at the end of the article.

Environment security group vs. app sharing

Here’s one fact that may surprise you: users don’t need to be members of the environment security group in order to use the Canvas apps that have been shared to them. They won’t have any access to the Power Apps Maker portal and without belonging to the group, yet app usage is an altogether separate thing technically.

In our environment, Security Group A was associated as the environment security group. Now as we added Security Group A and Microsoft 365 Group B as users for our demo app, both Jukka (from A) and Timo (from B) are able to open the app without any issues via a direct link. (Note: this app is using only Office connectors, not anything from Dataverse.)

Looking at Power Platform Admin Center, we see that Jukka appeared into the environment as a user record when he opened the Canvas app:

However, he will not have any direct access to the environment from the Power Apps Maker portal. After all, he is an app user, not yet an app maker. Remember: the environment security group is just a filter, it doesn’t grant members any actual rights within the environment.

Timo, on the other hand, is using the Canvas app we shared, yet he doesn’t appear as a user in the environment at all. Despite of this, he has been able to create new connections into the environment with his personal credentials. This happens automatically when launching the app and accepting the consent dialogs for the Office connectors, meaning the platform has stored the info on Timo’s behalf.

As for the environment’s list of teams, there is nothing but the default team for the root Business Unit of this environment. None of our demo groups have appeared here automatically.

Let’s recap: sharing the Canvas app works to all group types (Teams requires an additiona step), yet this doesn’t leave any visible traces into the environment’s database for users nor teams.

If this sounds a bit strange to you, then it’s time to talk about how the users and teams in Dataverse have come to be what they are today.

Teams and users inside Dataverse: the background story

If you are leveraging Model-driven apps in your solution architecture, or working with Dataverse as a source for your Canvas apps or Power Automate flows, you will need to have your groups and users represented within the app database physically. This is where the Dataverse tables for Users and Teams come into play.

The first thing you need to understand that the user and team data inside Dataverse is owned by Dataverse, not Azure AD. Yes, the user identities are linked to Active Directory users, but you can extend the systemuser table columns as well as build forms and views, just like with any other table (formerly entity). Here’s a quick example of a customized user form:

Teams as a Dataverse concept have been around since the beginning of “XRM time”, meaning long before Microsoft Teams was invented. For the first ~15 years these teams didn’t talk with AD at all, until in 2019 the ability to create Azure AD groups as teams in Dataverse (then Common Data Service / CDS) was introduced. Today they are a central part of the business application security management practices, but older implementations may not be leveraging them, due to this history.

While you can extend the User and Team tables in Dataverse, the data that will get synchronized between Active Directory and Dataverse is controlled by Microsoft. It is somewhat limited, meaning for a user you’ll get the basic fields like name, job title, email, phone(s), address – all the rest remains unsynced. Even though many organizations would like to get more details in there, MS has not yet offered an out-of-the-box solution for it.

Teams in Dataverse are quite powerful when it comes to fine grained security model configuration. Especially in Dynamics 365 Customer Engagement (CRM) scenarios these have been often used for things like creating non-hierarchical structures to complement the purely hierarchical Business Unit functionality. We won’t dive into that rabbit hole today. For our purposes, let’s think of the Dataverse teams just as a similar grouping of users as our examples A, B and C are.

Adding teams to Dataverse

You could create purely local team records inside Dataverse and manage them there if no suitable group exists within your AD. Since the point of our exercise today is in connecting the groups from Microsoft 365 / Azure admin portal side into Power Platform features, we’ll use the values “AAD Security Group” and “AAD Office Group” in the team type dropdown presented as part of the new team creation process from PPAC:

Team name and description are pure Dataverse properties, but when browsing the values available in the group name field we get to see data from the Azure AD side. Here we are now outsourcing the group member management into AD and will be getting all the user addition and removal information from that service.

We can’t create an AAD linked team without granting a security role, so let’s choose Basic User for demonstration purposes. This won’t give the group members (meaning Jukka and Timo) access to any real apps or data, but it’s still more rights than what they had merely via app sharing or environment security group membership.

Initially when looking at the team members from Dataverse side, the list will be quite short. Why aren’t the users coming through? Is the synchronization not working?

Once our Security Group A member Jukka tries to access the environment via it’s direct URL, the system now retrieves his access rights by using this team. This also triggers the team member to be added as a visible member in Dataverse, even if no actual apps are accessible there yet. So, this is an on-demand process, rather than a bulk synchronization of team members that would happen at the time of linking the AAD group with a Dataverse team.

For Timo, who is not a member of the environment security group, the door is kept shut at an earlier stage already. The filter works just as intended – although the legacy error page for “notMemberOfOrg” from the Dynamics CRM 2011 era might make you wonder about it… While Timo can use Canvas apps in the environment, being added as a user in the Dataverse table is where the line is drawn.

In conclusion, while our groups from Azure AD can be added into the environment as teams in Dataverse, this does not guarantee that the group members would exist in the users table. Even if they would be members of the environment security group, you might have to run the “Force sync users” action via a Power Automate cloud flow to get the user table populated with the missing rows.

Granting groups access to data

Once the user row physically exists in the Dataverse table, it can be used by an application to evaluate what rows from other tables within that environment should be accessible to them. This is what security roles allow you to configure.

While they are quite a powerful feature, the user experience for managing Dataverse security roles hasn’t been updated for close to two decades now. As a result, it looks scary and confusing:

In the earlier example we granted the Basic User security role to all the members of the teams we added to Dataverse. In real life we wouldn’t be leveraging these default security roles but rather creating custom ones for our apps. In the above screenshot, we have a role called “Asset Manager” that has green dots lined up, meaning they have the following organization level privileges to the Asset table: create, read, write, delete, append, append to, assign, share. In short: full rights to every row in that one table – and nothing else, unless they inherit more privileges via other security roles assigned to them.

Time to validate how the data level access control works via groups and these security roles. In our demo environment, let’s open the floodgates by removing the environment security group entirely. We’ll also include Teams Team C into our Dataverse team, meaning all three demo users can now technically be users of our environment. Jukka was already there, Timo can now get through the front door and Antti is also eagerly waiting for some real app to be shared to him.

Let’s share another Canvas app with our 3 demo groups that’s leveraging the above mentioned asset table in Dataverse for its business data storage. Now when we are sharing the app, we need to also specify the data permissions. This means selecting an existing security role that grants sufficient access rights to the underlying tables. We’ll select “Asset Manager” for our example app:

After sharing the app & the security role to our Security group A, Microsoft 365 group B and Teams team C, all three users are able to not just open the Canvas app but also read and edit the asset data via the app. Again, they will not appear in the users table before actually opening an app from within the environment for the first time. After that’s completed, all is good.

We can use this same pattern for also sharing a Model-driven app with our groups. The sharing dialog looks a bit different now. While we can add all 3 group types here, the important thing to note that we’re actually specifying which security roles have visibility to this specific app module. So, as long as this list includes the above shared Asset Manager role, our users will be able to open the Model-driven app, too.


We’ve seen the various different layers of security management available for Power Platform environments, Power Apps applications and the underlying data. There certainly are many settings to consider, which can make things confusing at first. Also, the conceptual differences on how the Microsoft 365 / Azure AD users and groups map to the Dataverse users and teams isn’t by any means obvious.

The good news is that using all the three different group types in our demo scenarios worked consistently, once we went through the necessary steps. Harmonizing and streamlining environment, app and data level access via smart use of Microsoft 365 / Azure AD groups is therefore a goal worth pursuing.

UPDATE 2022-11-07: Starting October 2022, Microsoft has changed the requirements for users to access canvas apps in an environment. If there is an environment security group set, these users will now see the error message: “You can’t open apps in this environment. You are not a member of the environment’s security group.” See this forum thread for more details.

administrationAzure ADDataversegovernancegroupsidentityMicrosoft 365Microsoft TeamsPower Appssecurity

11 responses to "How groups & teams work in Power Apps & Dataverse"

  1. Very detailed! Thanks for the article.

    When it comes to canvas app sharing, did you check if the sharing works with nested AAD groups?
    Say, Security Group A contains a child security group “Child security group A” as its member. By sharing the canvas app with Security Group A, will “Child security group A” members also get access?!

    Thanks in advance!

    1. Sharing a Canvas app to a nested security group seems to work. There’s a few considerations listed on this Docs page when it comes to environment security groups.

  2. nice articlae, thanks a lot.
    I actually verified that I could see in my environment’s list of teams also a Teams Group not specified in the Environment Security Groups to which I just shared an App.

  3. I like the contents quite much and please keep the good work up.

    However from illustation & undestandablity point of view, in my opinion: it would make more sense use different names than the real ones for eg:
    Office AD team A: has two members AB1 and A1
    CRM Team B has two members: AB1 and B1

    This makes it easier for other users to follow the story easily and conceptually..without moving too much back and forth.

    1. Thanks for the comments, Andy!

      Want to guess why I ended up using real people in my demo tenant instead of letter/number codes? Because it would have been too confusing for myself to juggle the 5 different users I had in different browser profiles without having something “real” to associate the user identities with.?

      I was also not sure what exact outcome to expect from the experiments that I started building in the demo tenant. The end result was actually quite positive in this sense: it doesn’t matter from which group construct you start from, all of them can be applied the same way when it comes to managing access to Power Platform (once you SecurityEnable the Teams team).

  4. Thanks for the detailed article.
    I found this when searching for info on howto add a user group (team) to the run only users of a flow inside a solution.
    During my search I also ran into a forum were someone said the following:

    To set up the business unit team go to the Powerapps admin center > Environments > Settings for your environment > Users + permissions > Business units > Your business unit (you might have to create one?) > Teams > New Team button

    In the new team window, give it a name, select the correct business unit and an Administrator. You then need to change the Team Type to: AAD Security Group and set the Azure AD Object Id for a group to your groups Object Id. The membership type should be Members and guests. Save and close the team, then it should be available when you go to set a run only user. For some reason the teams take a long time to populate, so if you have a lot of users it could take a while.

    This is also what I read in your blog, however now that the team is created I am still unable to add it to the run only users since it simply does not find the team.
    Would you be able to explain why this is not working?
    Any help is appreciated.

    1. Jack, I tested the scenario you described and team did show up almost immediately as available in the “invite system users or teams” field. I don’t think that UI actually filters the data from the Dataverse teams at all, since it shows all groups available in the tenant. Are you seeing any teams at all as the target for run only user invitation?

  5. Thank you for this post!
    I’m a little bit confused.
    Does it make sense to have the following approach?

    Let’s say I have 4 AAD Security Groups –

    1) SG “A-Env”,
    2) SG “A-Nested-Admins”.
    3) SG “A-Nested-Makers”
    4) SG “A-Nested-Users”

    The only members of SG “A-Env” are actually SGs – “A-Nested-Admins”, “A-Nested-Makers” and “A-Nested-Users”.

    Meanwhile SGs “A-Nested-Admins/Makers/Users” possess all respective users.

    So I assigned SG “A-Env” to the environment itself.
    Meanwhile, I want to create a “Team” within that environment with SG “A-Nested-Admins” and assign role – “System Administrator”.
    Additionally, I want to create two more “Teams” for makers and users assigning appropriate roles – “Environment Maker” and “Basic User” accordingly.

    Does it make sense from governance point of view?

    Summary –
    with this approach as a rule of thumb – I need to have 4 Security Groups for each environment.
    So in case if I have 3 environments – Dev, Test and Prod – I need 12 Security Groups in total?

    1. Denis, I think that sounds quite sensible. Since we can only have one security group attached to an environment, using a top level group that inherits its members from the individual user groups recuces the need to manage several groups memberships for each new/removed user.

      This will of course mean that the number of groups grows by 4 as new environments are added. The upside is the flexibility you have in granting access to specific environments on a specific level.

      In theory you could use more restricted environment security groups for dev and test and re-use the admin/maker/users groups there. The environment level security group would then act as a filter that doesn’t allow any members from the admin/maker/user groups to be active in the environment. So, instead of nested groups you’d have normal groups for non-production environments.

      Is it going to make everyday management easier by trying to reduce the number of groups, though? I think the chances for confusion are higher in the latter option. Personally, I’d opt for having more groups and just be consistent in how they are named and used in environments. Meaning the model that you suggested.

  6. Hello @Jukka Niiranen,

    Thank you for this article.

    Based on the architecture by @Denis, the Security Groups (“A-Env”) are essentially composed of nested Security Groups: “A-Nested-Admins,” “A-Nested-Makers,” and “A-Nested-Users.”

    If I create a team in the DEV environment solely for the nested security groups “A-Nested-Admins” and “A-Nested-Makers,” and in the TEST environment, I create a team only for the nested security group “A-Nested-Admins,” the following outcomes are accurate:

    – A-Nested-Users will not have access to the DEV environment and won’t be able to use apps in the development environment.
    – A-Nested-Makers will not have access to the test environment and won’t be able to use apps in the test environment.

    This information is based on the understanding that members of a nested security group in an environment security group are not pre-provisioned or automatically added to the environment. However, they can be added to the environment when you create a Dataverse group team for the nested security group, as mentioned in this source: “Members of a nested security group in an environment security group are not pre-provisioned or automatically added to the environment. However, they can be added into the environment when you create a Dataverse group team for the nested security group.” (Source:

    thank you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *