IA

Why most information architecture is built around the business, not the user

Most structures make perfect sense internally. That does not mean they make sense to users.

Why information architecture often mirrors the business instead of user thinking, and why that creates friction even when the interface looks good.

09 November 20246 min read

In short

Why information architecture often mirrors the business instead of user thinking, and why that creates friction even when the interface looks good.

Why structure often reflects the organisation

It becomes pretty obvious, pretty quickly, whether it’s been shaped around how users think or how the business is set up internally.

More often than not, it’s the latter.

It rarely happens deliberately.

No one sets out to design something that’s confusing or hard to navigate. It tends to happen gradually, almost by default. Different teams own different areas, content gets created in silos, evolve independently, and over time, the structure starts to mirror the organisation itself.

Departments turn into sections.

Internal language turns into .

turn into .

From the inside, it makes perfect sense.

From the outside, it rarely does.

Good information architecture rarely mirrors the business. It translates it.

How this shows up at scale

I’ve seen this play out at scale working across the NHS.

There wasn’t a single, unified structure. There were hundreds of sites, multiple departments, regional variations, all operating slightly differently. Each one had its own way of organising content, its own terminology, its own idea of what made sense.

Individually, none of it felt completely wrong.

But collectively, it created a where users were constantly having to relearn how things worked depending on where they landed.

You could see it in how people navigated.

They weren’t moving with , they were orienting themselves over and over again. Trying to work out, how does this bit work before they could even focus on what they came there to do.

And that’s the cost of business-led structure.

Key takeaway

When structure mirrors internal ownership instead of user intent, users end up doing the work of translating the system for themselves.

Why users feel it immediately

Users don’t think in departments.

They don’t understand internal ownership, organisational boundaries, or how responsibilities are split behind the scenes. They arrive with a goal, something they need to do, find, or understand, and they expect the structure to support that.

When it doesn’t, they feel it immediately.

One of the biggest shifts on that work wasn’t visual.

It was structural.

What rebuilding around users actually means

We stopped trying to organise things based on how the organisation worked and started rebuilding the from the ground up, based on how users approached problems.

That meant going back to basics.

Understanding what people were actually trying to do.

How they described it in their own words.

Where they expected to find things.

Not once, but repeatedly, across different user groups, different scenarios, different .

Card sorting became a useful tool here, not because it gives you a perfect answer, but because it exposes how varied people’s can be. What feels obvious to one person can feel completely unintuitive to another.

That’s where the work really starts.

What good information architecture really does

Because good isn’t about finding a single correct structure.

It’s about creating something that feels predictable.

On the NHS , that meant introducing at a level that hadn’t existed before. Shared , shared structures, shared ways of organising information so that once a user understood one part of the system, that understanding carried across everything else.

That’s when things started to shift.

Users didn’t have to stop and think as much.

They didn’t have to reorient themselves every time they moved between sections. They could focus on what they came to do, rather than how the worked.

And that’s usually the signal that the structure is doing its job.

Why this is hard for organisations

The challenge is that getting there often requires pushing against how organisations naturally want to operate.

Different teams want ownership. Different departments want visibility. There’s always a pull back towards reflecting the internal structure, because that’s what feels logical from the inside.

But good rarely mirrors the business.

It translates it.

It takes something complex, fragmented, and internally driven, and reshapes it into something that feels simple and coherent from the outside.

What happens when that translation never happens

When that translation doesn’t happen, the burden shifts to the user.

They have to piece things together.

They have to interpret language.

They have to navigate a structure that was never designed for them in the first place.

And that’s where even well-designed start to break down.

Because no amount of polish can fix a structure that doesn’t make sense.

In my experience, the difference between something that feels easy and something that feels frustrating almost always comes back to this.

Not how it looks.

But how it’s organised.

And whether that organisation was built for the business or for the people actually trying to use it.

LET'S WORK TOGETHER

Ready to improve your product?

UX, research and product leadership for teams tackling complex digital services. The work usually starts where things have become harder than they need to be: unclear journeys, inconsistent products, competing priorities, or teams trying to move forward without a clear direction. I help simplify the problem, shape the right next step, and turn complexity into something people can actually use.

Previous feedback

Will Parkhouse

Senior Content Designer

01/20