Blog

Getting a budget approved and getting genuine buy-in are two different things, and the gap between them is where a lot of intranet projects quietly struggle after what looked like a successful pitch. A leadership team can sign off on the spend and still treat the project as background IT work rather than something they actively champion, and that difference shows up immediate...

Every intranet vendor's sales demo is built to answer the same set of questions well: is it easy to use, does it look modern, can it hold company content. Those are the easy questions, and most platforms clear that bar without much trouble. The questions that actually predict whether an implementation succeeds or quietly fails a year later rarely come up unless the buyer asks...

Ask most companies six months after an intranet launch whether it's working, and the answer tends to be a shrug dressed up as confidence. "People seem to be using it." "We haven't heard complaints." Neither of those is actually a measurement. They're impressions, formed from whatever happened to be visible, and they tend to miss exactly the kind of slow decay that sinks most ...

Most failed intranets weren't failed by the platform. They were failed by the implementation, usually in ways that were entirely avoidable and, in hindsight, obvious. A company picks a genuinely capable tool, rushes through the setup, skips a few steps that felt optional at the time, and ends up with the exact scattered, untrustworthy mess the intranet was supposed to fix in ...

Every internal comms or HR lead who's tried to get an intranet approved has hit some version of the same wall. The pitch goes well right up until someone in the room asks what it actually returns, and the honest answer, "it'll make information easier to find," doesn't survive contact with a budget conversation. Leadership isn't being unreasonable. They're comparing the intran...