Refresh
Best for
- Solid IA and CMS with dated visuals or conversion friction
- Limited budget and clear quick wins
Avoid if
- CMS is unmaintainable or IA is fundamentally broken
A refresh improves what works. A redesign replaces foundations. Mixing them up is how budgets explode and rankings fall.

| Criterion | Refresh | Redesign / rebuild |
|---|---|---|
| Cost considerations | Lower; scoped improvements. | Higher; includes migration and QA. |
| Staff capacity | Less change management. | Training and content labor required. |
| Customization | Iterate on existing patterns. | New design system possible. |
| Accessibility | Fix critical barriers surgically. | Bake WCAG-oriented work into templates. |
| Maintenance | Continue current care plan. | Reset hosting/maintenance assumptions. |
| Integrations | Keep what works. | Re-wire carefully. |
| Scalability | Limited by current foundation. | Chance to fix foundations. |
| Ease of use | Familiar CMS. | New CMS or IA learning curve. |
| Security | Patch and harden in place. | New stack security model. |
| SEO | Lower URL risk. | Redirect discipline mandatory. |
| Migration complexity | Minimal. | Central risk of the project. |
Best for
Avoid if
Best for
Avoid if
Run an audit or Institutional Website Risk Review first.
List URLs that must not 404.
Score CMS publishing reality with staff — not leadership optimism.
Choose refresh unless foundations fail the score.