Is the Traditional Active Directory OU Structure Still Relevant?

It’s true that many people find the old OU structures hard to manage, especially with mergers and acquisitions complicating things. A flatter structure based on roles or locations makes more sense today. Plus, GPOs can be simplified greatly if you align your OU structure with actual organizational needs instead of trying to fit it to an existing hierarchy.

It really varies based on the company size and structure! For small businesses, two OUs—one for active users and another for disabled accounts—might be enough. But as things get more complex, like needing specific policies for different groups, it’s worth adding more OUs. Just remember, OUs should reflect real management needs to avoid chaos!

The classic OU approach is still legit if you’re delegating user and computer management to departmental staff. But if a central helpdesk manages everything, it might be better to keep things in one central spot. You can use security groups to designate locations without the need for multiple OUs. Groups let you assign the same user to different departments too, which can simplify policy application. The old ‘OUs as folders’ mindset is kinda outdated now, but if it works for you, then keep at it!

I agree with the point about modern practices. OUs should primarily be there for administrative ease. Most of our GPOs are applied with filters rather than being dictated by OU structure. They're handy for organization, but they’re not as crucial since a lot of management today can and should be handled via automation.

With the new hybrid Entra ID setups, the need for deep OU structures has diminished. We keep it simple: one OU for User Accounts synced to Entra ID, a ServiceGroups OU for managed memberships, and a minimal Servers OU. I recommend only creating sub-OUs when absolutely necessary to keep things clean and less complicated.