Connecting people, programmes and content.

The challenge

Connected work. Disconnected records.

Operational records, content and participant learning were spread across spreadsheets, email marketing tools, content platforms and an existing app. Each held part of the picture, but the relationships between them needed to be made consistent.

The difficult questions sat beneath the screens. Which system should own each fact? How could records be reconciled without merging the wrong people? What should happen to someone’s earlier progress when they joined a programme again?

Content brought another distinction: being able to inspect a story or piece of feedback does not mean having permission to publish it. The foundation needed to preserve that context as information moved between tools.

The key decisions

Start with the relationships the work depends on.

We defined and implemented a shared model for people, organisations, programmes, individual programme runs and participation. Stable identities and references to source records allowed information to be connected without relying on a person’s current name or email address.

Registration, attendance and learning completion remained separate facts. Marketing subscription status was kept distinct from participation and login access. Repeat participation retained its own progress and history.

Source evidence and correction history stayed attached to the records. Staff could review corrections and merges, with permissions and audit history supporting sensitive changes. These decisions made the shared foundation useful without flattening the differences that mattered.

Connected workflows

Give staff and participants tools for their own tasks.

We built a staff application for finding and managing records, reviewing registrations and applications, and understanding how people and programmes were connected. Reporting brought current activity and historical records into a consistent view.

A multilingual content library brought content, translations and source relationships together. Staff could search, preview, edit and review material while keeping consent to reuse, anonymisation, editorial approval and translation approval as separate decisions.

We developed and integrated the participant application with the same programme and content foundation. Membership-scoped learning material, media, progress and access entitlements supported individual journeys and repeat participation. Private reflections remained separate from ordinary staff reporting, and anonymous survey feedback remained separate from contact identities.

Responsible content reuse

From approved source material to reviewed marketing.

The connected foundation also supported a practical use of AI: generating draft social content from eligible, approved and anonymised source material, using the organisation’s writing guidance.

The workflow supported drafting in more than one language, editing captions and preparing visual assets, with a named person responsible for review. Each draft retained its relationship to its source, so the team could review the material in context.

Permission and approval were checked again at export. If permission was withdrawn after a draft had been opened, that change could prevent its reuse. Staff retained the editorial decision and published externally; the application did not automatically post to social networks.

What the work created

One foundation. Several useful ways to work.

The engagement delivered a connected operational and content foundation with working staff, participant and marketing workflows. Strategy and data architecture became software the team could use to manage records, maintain content and prepare reviewed marketing assets.

The reusable capability is the connection between those workflows: shared identities, traceable content and explicit review decisions. That gives future work a consistent starting point, with privacy and editorial responsibility built into how information is used.

These are delivered capabilities. Time savings, business growth and participant outcomes have not been measured for this case study.

• Shared people, organisation, programme and participation records
• Staff tools for operational management, review and reporting
• A multilingual content library with separate permission and approval decisions
• Participant application development and integration with the shared foundation
• An AI-assisted workflow for reviewed captions and quote cards