NIH Web Consolidation - what a joke!
For an initiative led by communications professionals, this process has been anything but a model of stakeholder communication.
NIH peers, Institute, Center, and Office (ICO) leadership, and dedicated staff were not meaningfully engaged in decisions about information architecture, navigation, content organization, page layouts, or the overall user experience. Instead, ICOs were directed to complete data calls and populate spreadsheets. That is not collaboration—it is information collection.
The numerous office hours offered by OCPL were largely focused on explaining how to complete the required data submissions. They were not forums for discussing the proposed consolidation, validating assumptions, providing meaningful feedback on the site's structure, or influencing key decisions. Presenting information after decisions have effectively been made is not the same as engaging stakeholders throughout the process.
Given NIH's recent workforce reductions and the resulting impact on employee morale, this project represented an opportunity to rebuild trust through transparency, collaboration, and genuine partnership. Instead, it reinforced the perception that decisions were made in a silo and communicated only after the fact.
Equally concerning is the proposed information architecture. The new content buckets, or "hubs," outlined on the intranet appear to reflect an internal organizational model rather than how members of the public actually seek information. It is unclear whether formal user research or usability testing was conducted to validate these design decisions. If it was, those findings should be shared. If it was not, NIH is taking a significant risk by implementing a major public-facing redesign without evidence that it improves the user experience.
The intranet FAQ states: "The web modernization effort would not have been possible without the participation of NIH's ICOs. Since early 2026, the Office of Communications and Public Liaison (OCPL) conducted more than 50 meetings and presentations and provided more than 200 hours of office hours. ICOs also reviewed content inventories, identified mission-critical information, validated priorities, and provided ongoing feedback throughout development."
That characterization does not reflect my experience. Completing inventories, responding to data calls, and validating content lists are administrative activities—not evidence of meaningful participation in strategy, governance, information architecture, or design. Attendance at presentations and office hours does not equate to stakeholder engagement when there is little opportunity to influence outcomes.
Successful communications projects depend on collaboration, transparency, iterative feedback, and shared ownership. This effort fell well short of those standards.
Do better NIH OCPL, and perhaps, when this fails, will you be the next group RIF'd?