SAI case study
Four content types and a publishing workflow the company runs on its own
Products, courses, events, and faculty, each with its own fields, and a review on the live page before publishing.
The starting point
Every change went through a developer.
SAI's information came from different teams, and every change to the website depended on a developer.
Engineering wrote the technical data sheet, the surgical technique was in a congress presentation, and clinical judgment came from Medical Affairs. Each piece had a different owner, and none was written to be published.
We gathered information with all the teams together and then with each one separately, to find out who had each piece of data and who had to approve it.
What we found
- Information spread across teams
- No validation workflow
- Changes that depended on a developer
The approach
A form for each content type.
We created custom forms for products, courses, events, and faculty members; a bilingual template that shows whether each data point is approved; and a draft review on the actual page before publishing.
Each content type has its own fields: 106 for a product page, 38 for a course, 9 for an event, and 4 for a faculty member.
Engineering fills in a bilingual template that shows which data points are approved and which aren't. Content is entered as a draft and reviewed in preview on the same page the public will see before it's published. Medical Affairs sets the terminology, and it's used the same way on the product page, in the video, and in the brochure.
What we did
- Product
- Course
- Event
- Faculty member
- Bilingual template
- Draft review
The work









What stayed in place
- 106fields per product
- 38per course
- 9per event
- 4per faculty member



