Risks & Safeguards
Purpose
This section documents risks that could derail the website redesign project across its lifecycle: design, development, testing, launch, and ongoing management. Each risk includes mitigation safeguards to guide planning and decision-making.
These risks look forward, not backward. The research has already documented current platform dysfunctions. This section addresses: What could go wrong as we build and transition to the new platform?
Change Management Risks
Internal User Adoption
| Risk | Impact | Chance |
|---|---|---|
| Employee resistance to new workflows | Workarounds, errors, frustration | Medium/High |
| Sales teams bypass new tools for familiar methods | Underutilized features, fragmented processes | Medium/High |
| Regional teams feel excluded from design decisions | Poor adoption, complaints, resistance | Medium |
| Training is insufficient for the new system complexity | Support load, errors, slow ramp-up | Medium |
Context: The current platform has been in use for 12 years. Employees have developed muscle memory, workarounds, and mental models around its quirks. Even when new features are objectively better, change creates friction.
Safeguards:
- Involve frontline staff in design validation (not just leadership)
- Create role-specific training paths (sales, customer service, operations)
- Develop quick-reference guides for common workflows
- Establish internal leads in each region to support adoption
- Plan phased rollout with feedback loops before full deployment
- Document “old way vs. new way” guides for critical processes
- Consider parallel access during the transition period where feasible
Customer Transition
| Risk | Impact | Chance |
|---|---|---|
| Returning customers can’t find familiar products | Abandoned carts, support calls, lost orders | High |
| Bookmarked URLs break without redirects | Customer frustration, lost traffic | High |
| Account data migration issues | Login failures, lost order history | Medium |
| Changed checkout flow creates confusion | Cart abandonment, support load | Medium |
Context: 73% of customers surveyed support or are open to consolidation, but 27% qualified with “depends on organization.” Poor execution converts supporters into detractors.
Safeguards:
- Maintain old URLs with redirects for an extended period (12+ months)
- Test account migration thoroughly before launch
- Ensure customer service team can handle transition questions
- Monitor customer feedback channels intensively post-launch
Design Phase Risks
Scope and Alignment
| Risk | Impact | Chance |
|---|---|---|
| Scope extends as stakeholders add requirements | Timeline delays, budget overruns | High |
| Conflicting stakeholder priorities unresolved | Design paralysis, rework cycles | Medium |
| Design decisions made without research validation | Features that don’t solve real problems | Low |
| Brand architecture decisions delayed | Downstream design work blocked | High |
Context: This research identifies 84 features across MoSCoW tiers. Not all can be built in one phase. Scope discipline is critical.
Safeguards:
- Lock scope phases before design begins
- Establish change request process with impact assessment
- Require stakeholder sign-off at design milestones
- Reference research findings when evaluating new requests
- Schedule regular alignment meetings across regional teams
- Make brand architecture decision a prerequisite gate
Design System Consistency
| Risk | Impact | Chance |
|---|---|---|
| Design system incomplete before development | Inconsistent implementation | Medium |
| Components don’t accommodate product complexity | Custom one-offs proliferate | Medium |
| Regional variations fragment the system | Maintenance complexity multiplies | Medium |
Safeguards:
- Complete design system validation before development starts (Shane dependency)
- Test components against most complex products
- Define regional customization boundaries upfront
- Create component documentation with usage guidelines
- Establish design review process for new patterns
Development Phase Risks
Technical Integration
| Risk | Impact | Chance |
|---|---|---|
| ERP changes during development | Integration rework, timeline slip | Medium |
| Size chart logic migration incomplete | Broken configurations, customer errors | High |
| Middleware layer adds complexity without solving problems | Technical debt in new system | Medium |
| Search implementation underperforms | Core dysfunction persists | Medium |
Context: Current system has “house built without plans” characteristics. New system must avoid recreating technical debt.
Safeguards:
- Clarify ERP roadmap before development begins
- Document all size chart logic before attempting recreation
- Evaluate dedicated search platforms (Elasticsearch, Algolia) vs. native
- Establish integration testing environment early
Timeline and Estimation
| Risk | Impact | Chance |
|---|---|---|
| Complexity underestimated | Missed deadlines, rushed quality | High |
| Dependencies create cascading delays | Timeline slip, team frustration | Medium |
| ”Quick wins” take longer than expected | Phase 1 credibility damaged | Medium |
Safeguards:
- Build buffer into estimates
- Establish go/no-go gates at phase boundaries
- Break work into smaller deliverables for progress visibility
- Plan for scope adjustment if timeline pressure emerges
Testing Phase Risks
Coverage and Quality
| Risk | Impact | Chance |
|---|---|---|
| Edge cases in product configurations missed | Post-launch errors for specific SKUs | Medium |
| Regional variations inadequately tested | Market-specific failures | Medium |
| Performance testing insufficient | Slow pages under real load | Medium |
| Mobile testing on limited devices | Device-specific issues in production | Medium |
Context: With ~3,000 SKUs, 127 series, 11 regional markets, and multiple ERP integrations, comprehensive testing is essential but challenging.
Safeguards:
- Create test matrix covering product complexity tiers
- Load test with realistic traffic patterns and data volumes
- Test on actual devices across mobile/tablet/desktop
- Test with real product data, not samples
Ongoing Management Risks
Content Governance
| Risk | Impact | Chance |
|---|---|---|
| No clear ownership for content updates | Content becomes stale | Medium |
| Regional teams update inconsistently | Brand fragmentation | Medium |
| Product data updates still slow (ERP sync issues persist) | Same 2-3 month delays | Medium |
Safeguards:
- Define content ownership by section and region
- Create content update workflows and approval processes
- Establish content freshness standards and audit schedule
- Monitor ERP sync performance with alerts for delays
- Train regional teams on CMS and governance expectations
Analytics and Optimization
| Risk | Impact | Chance |
|---|---|---|
| Analytics implemented but not monitored | Insights lost, issues undetected | Medium |
| No process for acting on data | Analytics become decoration | Medium |
| A/B testing infrastructure unused | Optimization opportunities missed | Low |
Safeguards:
- Assign analytics ownership
- Establish regular reporting cadence
- Create dashboards for key metrics visible to stakeholders
- Define escalation thresholds for metrics (e.g., search failure rate)
- Schedule periodic optimization reviews
Feature Evolution
| Risk | Impact | Chance |
|---|---|---|
| Features never built | Stakeholder expectations not met | Medium |
| Technical debt accumulates again | System becomes rigid | Medium |
| No feedback loop from customers to product | Platform diverges from needs | Medium |
Safeguards:
- Maintain product roadmap visibility across organization
- Establish customer feedback collection mechanism
- Conduct regular technical debt assessments
- Plan capacity for maintenance alongside new features