Menu

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 20244 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 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 journeys. From the inside, it makes perfect sense. From the outside, it rarely does.

Reorganisations make it worse over time. Each one leaves a trace in the structure, because the sections created under the old shape are rarely revisited when the shape changes. What users navigate ends up being a record of how the organisation used to be arranged, not even how it is arranged now.

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

How this shows up 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 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. They weren't moving with . They were orienting themselves over and over again, working out how does this bit work before they could even focus on what they came to do. That's the cost of business-led structure.

The cost is easy to underestimate because it is distributed. No single moment of reorientation is expensive. Repeated across every section, every visit, and every user, it becomes the largest single tax the levies, and it never appears as a line item anywhere.

Key takeaway

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

What rebuilding around users actually means

One of the biggest shifts on that work wasn't visual. It was structural. 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. 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.

The vocabulary work is often the most immediately valuable part. Internal terms are precise, agreed, and frequently not what anyone outside the organisation would ever type or say. Adopting the words users already use costs nothing and removes a translation step from every .

earns its place because the disagreements are the finding. Where participants group things the same way, the structure is settled. Where they split, you have located a genuine ambiguity, and knowing about it in advance is what lets you design around it rather than being surprised by it later.

What good information architecture really does

Good isn't about finding a single correct structure. It's about creating something that feels predictable. On the NHS , that meant introducing that hadn't existed before: shared patterns, shared structures, shared ways of organising information so that once a user understood one part of the system, that understanding carried across everything else. 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 on how the system worked.

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.

Holding the line afterwards is its own piece of work. Structures drift back towards the org chart because each individual to add a section is reasonable and comes from someone with a legitimate interest. Without a named owner and an agreed principle to point at, the translation quietly reverses over a couple of years.

Written by Andy Scott

Strategic design, UX and digital transformation thinking from real projects.

LET'S WORK TOGETHER

Ready to improve your product?

UX, research and product leadership for teams tackling complex digital services.

Previous feedback

I had a fantastic experience working with Andy. One of his most impressive achievements during our time at NHS HEE was masterminding a deeply complex information architecture for a new platform that brought together a large number of legacy websites.

Will Parkhouse

Senior Content Designer