When content isn't the problem

One of the most common mistakes organisations make when trying to improve content is assuming that content itself is the thing that needs fixing.

Employees can't find information. The intranet feels cluttered. People keep asking questions that already have documented answers. Pages become outdated. Search doesn't work particularly well. Before long, a content project is commissioned to "clean everything up".

Sometimes that's exactly what's needed. More often, content has simply become the most visible symptom of a deeper issue.

Over the years I've found that some of the most valuable content design work has very little to do with writing, editing or publishing content. Instead, it involves understanding the systems that shape how content is created, maintained and consumed in the first place. Governance models, ownership structures, decision-making processes, capability, incentives and organisational behaviours all influence how effective content ultimately becomes.

The page is rarely operating in isolation.

Looking beyond the page

A few years ago, I worked on an initiative aimed at improving how employees accessed HR information. The presenting problem was straightforward enough: people couldn't find the information they needed and were regularly raising support tickets for questions that already had documented answers.

Like many organisations, the initial assumption was that the content itself needed improvement. Yet once I started conducting content audits, stakeholder interviews and user testing, it became clear that rewriting pages alone wouldn't solve the problem.

The content had become the place where several organisational issues were colliding.

Content ownership was unclear. Different teams had developed their own publishing habits. Information architecture had evolved organically over time rather than being intentionally designed. There was no governance model, no consistent review process and very little content design capability among the people responsible for maintaining employee-facing information.

Improving the content still mattered, but only as part of a broader solution.

Using the Content Design London framework, developed through years of improving NHS digital services, we restructured content around genuine user needs rather than organisational structures. At the same time, we established content governance, introduced lifecycle management processes, clarified ownership responsibilities and built capability across a network of HR publishers, many of whom were subject matter experts rather than trained content professionals.

What emerged was not simply a collection of better pages. It was a more sustainable content ecosystem supported by standards, governance and shared ways of working. The organisation continued investing in content design capability long after the initial work concluded because the value extended well beyond the content itself.

When the tool gets blamed

I encountered a similar pattern in a completely different environment while working for an independent television production company.

The team was using a spreadsheet to manage incoming book, film and television submissions, and frustration with the process was growing. Information was difficult to track, project history was inconsistent and decision-making lacked transparency. Understandably, people had reached the conclusion that the spreadsheet was the problem.

In reality, the spreadsheet was doing exactly what it had been designed to do. The issue was that the organisation had outgrown the process that sat around it.

There was no consistent approach to evaluating opportunities, capturing organisational knowledge or creating visibility of how decisions were made. Important context lived in conversations, inboxes and individual memories rather than within a shared system. Introducing a new tool without addressing those issues would have created a more sophisticated version of the same problem.

Before designing a solution, I spent time understanding how opportunities entered the organisation, how they moved through assessment and how decisions were actually being made. Only then did it make sense to redesign the workflow, introduce governance and develop a new tracking solution that supported the way people needed to work.

The resulting SharePoint system remains in place today, but what made it valuable wasn't the technology. Its value came from creating a clearer process, improving visibility and reducing reliance on individual knowledge. The system succeeded because the underlying process was redesigned alongside it.

Content reflects the system around it

These projects took place in very different environments, but they shared a common lesson. When content isn't working, it's often because something around the content isn't working.

Poor content may be a symptom of weak governance. Confusing content may reflect unclear ownership. Outdated content may indicate capability gaps or a lack of maintenance processes. Inconsistent content can reveal competing priorities, organisational silos or fragmented decision-making.

That's one of the reasons I find content design so interesting. Content sits at the intersection of people, process and technology. It exposes the hidden assumptions and organisational structures that shape people's experiences every day.

When we focus exclusively on the words on the page, we risk treating the symptom. When we take the time to understand the broader system, we create opportunities to improve not only the content, but the experience people have when interacting with it.

And in my experience, that's where the most meaningful and lasting improvements tend to come from.