Project Title

RHS CMS Replatforming RFP – 2024–2025

Introduction

In mid-2024, I led a strategic initiative to replace RHS’s legacy CMS with a modern, scalable platform that could support our growing digital ecosystem. This case study outlines how we navigated a complex RFP process, engaged cross-functional teams, and shortlisted vendors to align with our long-term digital ambitions.

The Challenge

Our existing CMS, [Redacted – Legacy CMS], had reached end-of-life, no longer supported, increasingly vulnerable, and incompatible with modern development practices. With RHS.org.uk serving over 26 million users annually, and our digital presence expanding across mobile apps and third-party platforms, we needed a future-ready CMS or DXP that could unify content, improve performance, and empower editors.

My Role

As the digital lead, I orchestrated the RFP process from discovery to vendor selection. I facilitated workshops, gathered stakeholder input, defined success metrics, and led the evaluation of over 15 CMS/DXP vendors. I also coordinated technical proof-of-concept (POC) exercises and ensured alignment between editorial, development, and commercial teams.

Tools & Setup

• Figma: Used for UI/UX planning and visualising editorial workflows
• Miro: Facilitated collaborative workshops and stakeholder mapping
• Custom Scorecard (Excel): Standardised vendor evaluation across 15+ criteria
• Azure DevOps: Managed sprint planning, CI/CD pipelines, and deployment readiness
• Optimizely, Contentsquare, Google 360, Yext: Existing tools considered for integration with the new CMS

What We Tested

We explored three CMS architectures:

• Traditional CMS: All-in-one, but inflexible
• Headless CMS: Highly scalable, but dev-heavy
• Hybrid CMS: Balanced flexibility and usability

Vendors were assessed across 15+ criteria including:

• Reusable components
• Workflow and collaboration
• AI capabilities
• DAM and SEO tools
• Multi-platform support
• API integrations
• Cost and support

What I Found

• Insight 1: Editors prioritised intuitive workflows and visual builders; developers valued API flexibility and structured content.
• Insight 2: AI and automation were key differentiators, vendors with built-in AI for tagging, SEO, and content suggestions scored higher.
• Insight 3: Several vendors impressed us during demos and POCs – [Redacted – two Headless CMS highly rated in Gartner Magic Quadrant] stood out for their usability, scalability, and support.

What I Learned

What worked well:

• Early alignment workshops helped surface pain points and define success across teams.
• Keeping the leadership team regularly updated and involved in key decisions ensured buy-in and accelerated approvals.
• A structured scorecard and clear evaluation criteria made vendor comparisons objective and transparent.

What we decided:

• We shortlisted [Redacted – two Headless CMS highly rated in Gartner Magic Quadrant] for final POCs, with [Redacted – Vendor A] slightly ahead due to editorial usability and AI features.

What I’d do differently:

• Start vendor engagement earlier to allow more time for hands-on testing.
• Consider more structured feedback loops during POCs to capture nuanced team insights.

Surprises:

• Some vendors with strong reputations underperformed in demos, while others exceeded expectations with their support and flexibility.

📸 Visuals

Vendor Evaluation Criteria: Aligning Business Needs with Platform Capabilities

This visual summarises the structured approach I used to evaluate CMS vendors. It organizes key criteria into three focus areas (User Experience, Scalability & Security, and Configurability) mapped to broader business goals like Audience Growth and Operational Efficiency. The word cloud reflects recurring pain points raised by stakeholders, helping to anchor the evaluation in real-world challenges.

---

Success Metrics Framework: Mapping Focus Areas to Measurable Outcomes

This chart defines the success metrics used to evaluate CMS platform performance across two strategic focus areas: Audience Growth and Efficiency. Each area is broken down into actionable categories, such as Content Editing, Reusable Components, Performance & SEO, Scalability, and Deployment, with clearly defined KPIs like Time to Publish, SEO Score, and Patch Deployment Time. This framework helped align cross-functional teams around measurable outcomes and informed both vendor selection and implementation priorities.

---

Vendor Evaluation and Shortlisting Strategy

This slide summarises the CMS vendor shortlisting process, which included initial research, direct vendor meetings, and a formal RFP invitation phase. Vendors were categorised into Preferred, Reserve, and Excluded groups based on factors like tech stack compatibility, user-friendliness, team experience, and existing relationships. This structured approach helped prioritise platforms that aligned best with both business and technical needs, while keeping strong alternatives in reserve.

(Note: All visuals have been redacted to remove vendor names and logos.)

Feedback

The contract was signed, and work on the new platform officially began in February 2025. We’re now in the early stages of implementation, with cross-functional squads focused on migration planning, component design, and editorial onboarding.

Did you do it differently?

We’d love to hear how your organisation approached CMS replatforming. What worked for you? What would you do differently next time?

Note: All information presented here reflects my personal contributions and perspectives during the CMS RFP process. No confidential or proprietary data is included.