The Challenges of Centralized Site Management in Higher Education

Centralized site management has become an increasingly attractive model for higher education institutions under pressure to improve efficiency, accessibility, brand consistency, and overall experience. While a centralized approach has many benefits, implementing it can come with challenges. 

Unlike a purely technical migration, centralization represents a cultural and organizational shift that touches governance, autonomy, stakeholder trust, and long-standing ways of working. For higher ed leaders, understanding these challenges upfront is important for institutional adoption, ROI, and long-term success. 

In this clip, current and former higher ed leaders candidly discuss common challenges with incorporating centralized site management and how to address them.  

One of the most common misconceptions about centralized site management is that it can be implemented quickly with a single decision. In reality, it requires thoughtful planning, investment, and sustained collaboration. 

Institutions cannot simply “snap their fingers” and arrive at a centralized model. Early phases often involve: 

• Platform design and development 
• Governance definition 
• Stakeholder education 
• Pilot programs and proof points 

While the initial effort can feel substantial, teams consistently note that once the foundation is in place, improvements compound over time, making the early investment worthwhile. 

Across institutions, the most persistent challenge is earning buy-in from distributed teams. 

Higher education has a long tradition of autonomy, consensus-building, and decentralized decision-making. Faculty, departments, and research centers are often accustomed to full control over their digital presence, and centralization can initially feel like a loss of freedom. 

Language plays a critical role here. Terms like “templates,” “governance,” or even “design systems” can immediately trigger resistance. Stakeholders may hear: 

• “You’re putting me in a box” 
• “This won’t meet my unique needs” 
• “This restricts creativity” 

One example from a leading university: their team intentionally moved away from the word template, rebranding their multisite platform as a site builder to emphasize flexibility, configurability, and ease of use. This subtle shift helped stakeholders understand that the platform enabled creativity rather than limiting it. 

Controlled flexibility is an important theme with centralization. Centralized platforms can be compared to a car built on a shared manufacturing line. While the underlying structure is consistent, individual configurations allow users to meet their specific needs. Shared components and patterns help create efficiency, and standardization removes repetitive, low-impact work. 

Governance sometimes carries negative connotations in higher education, but this can be reframed as guardrails built into the system, rather than heavy-handed oversight. 

At another leading university, governance was reinforced through platform rules rather than constant manual enforcement. Examples included: 

• Minimum image quality requirements to prevent blurry uploads 
• Character limits on text components to encourage scannable, user-friendly content 
• Pre-branded components and limited color palettes 

These guardrails reduced long-term risk and improved quality, while still allowing teams to mix, match, and configure components to meet their needs. 

Importantly, system-level governance also reduced the emotional labor of repeatedly correcting issues, freeing teams to focus on higher-value projects. 

While platforms, design systems, and multisite architectures are essential, people have the greatest impact on whether centralized site management succeeds or fails. To get the best results, it’s important to have a third party that offers guidance beyond strategy and technical solutions, with a focus on people and change management. 

Alignment across IT, marketing, communications, and academic leadership is essential. When multiple voices reinforce the same message, and when flexibility, transparency, and listening are prioritized, centralization becomes a shared institutional goal. 

Learn more about our work in higher ed here.