Project 03 / 08 · Digital Governance
Digital Platform Review
Client
North East Lincolnshire Council
Role
Lead Service Designer
Sector
Public Sector Digital Platform
Year
Nov 2025 – Present
Role
Lead service designer, and a contributor across nine workstreams.
Team
A core group of nine, working with IT, Web, Comms, Research and Transformation, and four service leads who had to sign off.
Timeframe
November 2025 to present. The full Hub build starts in November 2026.
Methods
Prioritisation matrix, effort model, dependency mapping, workshops, URL audit, proof-of-concept proposal, governance design.
Outcome
A stalled platform programme was re-sequenced, then replaced with one approved platform. The landing page is live and the full build starts in November.
The problem
The council ran a statutory site and 12 microsites. They published independently, and nothing told one what the others were doing.
There was no cross-tracking, no shared SEO signal, no shared front door and no update rhythm. We were competing against ourselves for the same keywords and search phrases. 6,000+ pieces of content were duplicated, and nothing stopped a service area from posting, changing or buying a domain on its own.
A platform programme had run for two years after a technical failure produced 140+ complaints in 24 hours. Delivery had stalled.
2M
Views a year · main statutory site
263k
Views a year · 12 microsites, combined
My role
I was brought in to get the programme moving. I designed the 3x3 impact matrix and the prioritisation criteria, built the effort model, mapped dependencies and ran workshops across IT, Web, Comms, Research and Transformation.
When the roadmap alone wouldn't fix the fragmentation, I wrote the Hub proposal myself, using data from digital marketing and customer analytics. I took it to the team first. They agreed, and I then presented it to the four service leads.
The fragmented estate
Thirteen sites, no shared signal. One platform proposed to replace them.
Recreated and simplified for confidentiality.
Key decisions
I mapped dependencies before sequencing.
Workstreams existed but weren't ordered. I mapped what depended on what and ranked them by impact and effort, so the working group could start.
I replaced individual gatekeeping with a form.
Content requests go through a Salesforce form with strict criteria and route automatically by functional versus promotional need. That took pressure off individuals and made decisions structured.
I proposed one platform instead of fixing each site.
The options were to keep the estate as it was, or to revamp each site and retire the rest. Keeping it meant 13 sites fighting each other. Southampton had run a similar project with strong outcomes, which I used as evidence.
I made a smaller ask when the first pitch failed.
Four service leads each ran their own platform and each protected it. The pushback was about proof: what would one platform give them that separate improvements wouldn't? I came back with a proof of concept instead of a full commitment. That got the room to yes.
I set a procedure, not just a platform.
Service areas now bring any new site, domain or purchase to the core group and explain what, why, purpose, budget and whether it can be built in house. Content follows the same rules and guidelines, and the readability tool is built into the process.
Prioritisation · Phase One
The original six workstreams, plotted by resident impact against delivery effort. This is what first got the working group moving again.
Recreated and simplified for confidentiality.
The New Architecture
Two core sites: the statutory site on its own, and one resident-facing platform (the Hub) for everything else.
A full URL audit ran across every legacy platform first, so consolidation doesn't mean erasure: each site keeps its own identity and content ownership, now sitting inside a shared, future-proofed structure instead of an orphaned domain. Inside the Hub, everything is organised around five clear pathways:
Visit
Everything for people exploring, visiting or spending time in the area.
Work & Invest
Business, employment and investment routes, brought together instead of split across separate microsites.
Create
Culture, arts and the creative economy, its own pathway rather than a buried subsection.
Live
Resident services and community life, the day-to-day reasons most people are actually here.
Get Online
The digital inclusion and skills connector, the direct link back into the Digital Inclusion Programme.
Phasing · Three Quarters, Flexible Throughout
A pilot migration, then measurement, then full transition, adjusted along the way rather than fixed in advance.
Recreated and simplified for confidentiality.
Pilot · a first cohort of sites migrates into the Hub
Measure · pilot results reviewed against baseline
Full transition · remaining sites migrate under the five pathways
Flexible cadence · targets revisited at each phase boundary
Outcome
What I made
- ·The 3x3 impact matrix, effort model and dependency map
- ·A content submission form with routing rules
- ·The Hub proposal and a proof of concept
- ·The governance procedure for new sites, domains and content
What changed
- ·The proposal was approved. The landing page is live, and three microsite front ends have already moved across.
- ·The aim is to pull traffic from all 12 microsites into one place and make navigation easier for residents and visitors. The full build starts in November 2026, once the legacy sites are decommissioned.
- ·Service areas can no longer create or buy a site without making a case to the core group.
- ·A cross-service working group means each service area owns and writes its own Hub content.
- ·Full resident journey tracking is now technically possible for the first time.
Baselines for later: 2M and 263k annual views. Targets are set at pilot launch, reviewed at the end of Phase 1 and adjusted before Phase 2.
Reflection
Service areas each want different things at different times, and once they are set on an idea they act on it. When they doubt we can deliver, some buy their own, which is the fight this programme exists to end. The fix is a shared view of the full cost before any conversation starts. Tools now change in weeks, and a locked-in contract can't change with them, so the cost repeats across systems.