# CDP Holdout Group Governance: How to Measure Journey Impact Without Corrupting Activation Logic

Apr 23, 2024

By Oleksiy Kalinichenko

CDP programs often lose measurement credibility when holdout groups, suppression rules, and audience eligibility are managed separately across experimentation, activation, and reporting tools.

This article treats holdout design as a data contract and operating-model problem rather than a campaign setting. It explains how enterprises can govern control groups, exclusions, re-entry windows, and downstream reporting so orchestration experiments remain explainable, reusable, and operationally sound.

Need help applying this?

Talk through the article with an expert and turn the guidance into a practical next step.

Talk to an expert

Summarize this page with AI

[](https://chat.openai.com/?q=Summarize%20this%20page%20for%20me%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pathtoproject.com%2Fblog%2F20240423-cdp-holdout-group-governance-for-journey-orchestration-and-measurement "Summarize this page with ChatGPT")[](https://claude.ai/new?q=Summarize%20this%20page%20for%20me%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pathtoproject.com%2Fblog%2F20240423-cdp-holdout-group-governance-for-journey-orchestration-and-measurement "Summarize this page with Claude")[](https://www.google.com/search?udm=50&q=Summarize%20this%20page%20for%20me%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pathtoproject.com%2Fblog%2F20240423-cdp-holdout-group-governance-for-journey-orchestration-and-measurement "Summarize this page with Gemini")[](https://x.com/i/grok?text=Summarize%20this%20page%20for%20me%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pathtoproject.com%2Fblog%2F20240423-cdp-holdout-group-governance-for-journey-orchestration-and-measurement "Summarize this page with Grok")[](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/new?q=Summarize%20this%20page%20for%20me%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pathtoproject.com%2Fblog%2F20240423-cdp-holdout-group-governance-for-journey-orchestration-and-measurement "Summarize this page with Perplexity")

![Blog: CDP Holdout Group Governance: How to Measure Journey Impact Without Corrupting Activation Logic](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/w_764,f_avif,q_auto:good/v1/blog-20240423-cdp-holdout-group-governance-for-journey-orchestration-and-measurement--cover)

Enterprise CDP teams rarely struggle because they do not understand the concept of a control group. They struggle because holdouts are implemented in one place, exclusions are managed somewhere else, orchestration logic changes over time, and reporting teams reconstruct the experiment after activation has already started.

That separation creates a predictable problem: the business believes it is measuring journey impact, but the underlying audience logic is unstable. A customer may be excluded in one channel, eligible in another, re-enter a journey unexpectedly, or appear differently across the CDP, CRM, ad platforms, and analytics environment. When that happens, measurement becomes difficult to explain and harder to trust.

A better approach is to treat **CDP holdout group governance** as a cross-functional design problem. Holdouts should be defined as durable audience rules with clear ownership, identity assumptions, timing rules, and reporting conventions. They are not just campaign settings. They are part of the operating model for experimentation and activation.

That distinction matters because no holdout design can guarantee causal certainty in a complex customer ecosystem. But disciplined governance can make results more interpretable, reduce contamination, and help teams compare outcomes with much greater confidence.

## Why holdouts fail when activation and measurement are separated

In many organizations, activation teams focus on journey launch, analytics teams focus on outcome reporting, and experimentation teams define success criteria. Each group makes reasonable local decisions, but the total design becomes fragmented.

A common pattern looks like this:

*   The CDP assigns a holdout at audience build time.
*   A CRM team applies additional channel suppression before send.
*   An ad platform receives a separate suppression file on a different schedule.
*   Web personalization logic uses session-level eligibility that does not reference the original control assignment.
*   The analytics team reports performance using a downstream customer table with different identity stitching rules.

Every one of those steps can be individually defensible. Together, they can break the experiment.

When activation and measurement are separated, teams often lose clarity on basic questions:

*   Was the person ever truly in the test universe?
*   Was the holdout assigned before or after eligibility filtering?
*   Did the customer remain in the same treatment state across channels?
*   Were outcomes measured at person level, household level, account level, or device level?
*   Did downstream reporting exclude customers who later became ineligible?

If those questions cannot be answered consistently, the experiment may still produce directional insight, but it will not be operationally reusable. The next team will rebuild the same logic differently, and the organization will repeat the same governance mistakes.

## Common failure modes: overlapping suppressions, unstable membership, channel leakage

The most common holdout problems are not statistical. They are operational.

### Overlapping suppressions

A holdout group is not the same thing as a suppression list.

*   A **holdout group** is created for measurement. Its purpose is to preserve a comparable population that does not receive a defined treatment.
*   A **suppression list** is usually operational. Its purpose is to prevent contact for legal, commercial, customer experience, or channel-specific reasons.
*   An **exclusion** removes a record from eligibility altogether because it does not belong in the experiment universe.

Those distinctions need to stay explicit. If a campaign team uses a suppression list as a proxy for a control group, reporting logic becomes ambiguous. The organization can no longer tell whether non-exposure was intentional for measurement or incidental due to channel policy.

For example, if a customer is suppressed from email because of frequency caps but still exposed to onsite personalization and paid media, they were not meaningfully held out from the broader journey. Calling them control would overstate confidence in any observed difference.

### Unstable membership

Another failure mode is audience drift after assignment.

A customer may qualify for a journey on Monday, enter the holdout, and then fail an eligibility rule on Wednesday because profile attributes changed. Another customer may qualify late and enter the treatment cohort after the campaign has already started. Without clear persistence rules, the experiment population becomes a moving target.

This is especially common in CDP environments where audiences refresh continuously based on:

*   purchase behavior
*   consent updates
*   identity graph changes
*   lifecycle stage transitions
*   product ownership or account status

Dynamic eligibility is valuable for activation, but it can damage explainability if the holdout population is not anchored to a clear evaluation frame.

### Channel leakage

Even a well-defined holdout can be contaminated if exposure occurs elsewhere.

Suppose the enterprise intends to measure a coordinated retention journey involving email, ads, and onsite messaging. The email holdout may be clean, but if ad suppression is incomplete or onsite personalization ignores the holdout flag, the control group is no longer a true non-treatment population. It has leaked.

Leakage is not always avoidable. In large organizations, channels can be owned by different teams with different tooling and data latency. The governance goal is not perfect purity. It is explicit design: define where leakage is possible, quantify it when feasible, and describe the experiment as measuring a realistic treatment bundle rather than a single isolated message.

## Identity and audience boundaries for reliable control groups

Reliable holdouts begin with a clear answer to a simple question: **what entity is being assigned?**

In enterprise environments, that answer is often less obvious than expected. A person may exist as multiple device IDs, email addresses, CRM contacts, loyalty accounts, or household members. If the assigned unit is not explicit, both activation and reporting can diverge.

Typical assignment units include:

*   individual customer or profile
*   household n- account or contract
*   business location or store
*   anonymous browser or device cluster

The right choice depends on the journey and the outcome being measured. If a customer can receive treatment through multiple linked identities, person-level assignment may not be sufficient unless [identity resolution](/services/identity-resolution-strategy) is stable enough to propagate the treatment flag everywhere it matters.

A few governance principles help here.

### Define the experiment universe before assigning holdout status

The eligible population should be described as a governed audience definition, not an informal segment name. Teams should be able to point to a versioned rule set that explains who is in scope and why.

That definition often includes:

*   eligibility criteria
*   exclusion criteria
*   jurisdiction or consent limits
*   business rule overrides
*   the identity namespace used for assignment

Once the universe is defined, holdout assignment should happen against that universe in a controlled and repeatable way.

### Keep assignment keys durable

The assignment key should remain stable across activation and reporting systems. If the CDP assigns by profile ID but the CRM activates by contact ID and analytics reports by customer master ID, translation rules need to be documented and validated. Otherwise, the apparent size and composition of the holdout can shift downstream.

### Bound the audience at the right level

If treatment can spill across linked records, assign at a higher level where appropriate. For example:

*   If multiple contacts map to one account and sales outreach affects the account relationship, account-level holdouts may be more defensible.
*   If household purchasing is shared and one member's exposure influences another's behavior, household-level assignment may reduce contamination.
*   If anonymous browsing is central to the experience and identity only resolves later, session or device treatment should be described carefully because post hoc stitching can distort measurement.

The goal is not to find a universally correct level. It is to choose one intentionally and document the tradeoff.

## Time windows, requalification, and persistence rules

Many journey experiments fail because teams only define the audience and the treatment, but not the time logic.

Time rules determine whether the holdout remains interpretable as profiles move through the system.

### Define the assignment window

Start by documenting when holdout status is assigned:

*   one-time at journey entry
*   periodically during a campaign window
*   continuously for every newly eligible record

Each model supports different use cases. A one-time assignment can be easier to explain. Continuous assignment may better reflect always-on orchestration, but it requires much stronger reporting discipline.

### Specify persistence

Persistence answers whether a customer keeps the same treatment state after assignment.

Common options include:

*   fixed persistence for the full experiment period
*   persistence until conversion, churn, or another terminal event
*   persistence for a rolling number of days
*   re-evaluation at predefined checkpoints

Without explicit persistence rules, operations teams may inadvertently reassign people between treatment and control. That breaks comparability and complicates interpretation.

### Clarify re-entry and requalification

In always-on journeys, customers can exit and later requalify. That raises an important governance question: should they retain their prior assignment or be randomized again?

There is no single answer. But the rule must be consistent with the measurement objective.

*   If the business wants to measure a persistent policy effect, retaining the original assignment can make more sense.
*   If the business wants to evaluate repeated episodic interventions, controlled re-randomization may be acceptable.
*   If customer states change materially over time, teams may need separate experiment epochs rather than continuous reuse of an old assignment.

Whatever the approach, reporting logic should use the same temporal rules as activation logic. If requalification is governed one way in the CDP and interpreted another way in analytics, the reported treatment effect can drift from what operations actually executed.

### Align outcome windows

Measurement windows should also be defined upfront. Are teams evaluating outcomes within 7 days, 30 days, or an entire lifecycle period after assignment? Are downstream conversions attributed to first exposure, any exposure, or simply to cohort membership?

Those choices affect interpretation. They should be documented as part of the holdout design rather than retrofitted after results arrive.

## Reporting alignment across CDP, CRM, and analytics tools

The reporting layer is where holdout governance is tested. If activation logic cannot be reconstructed consistently across systems, the experiment may not survive stakeholder scrutiny.

At minimum, enterprises should align on four reporting artifacts.

### 1\. Cohort definition table

This should represent the authoritative assignment record, including:

*   experiment or journey identifier
*   entity ID and namespace
*   treatment or holdout status
*   assignment timestamp
*   eligibility version or audience rule version
*   persistence and re-entry rule references

This table becomes the backbone for downstream analysis. It should not be re-created ad hoc by each reporting team.

### 2\. Exposure interpretation rules

Not every treatment assignment equals a successful exposure. For some channels, delivery and viewability can vary. For others, such as onsite personalization, exposure may depend on session behavior. Teams should agree on whether the analysis is based on:

*   assignment only
*   assignment plus attempted activation
*   assignment plus confirmed exposure where measurable

Different choices are valid for different questions, but mixing them within one program creates confusion.

### 3\. Outcome metric definitions

Metric consistency is essential. Revenue, conversion, churn, engagement, and retention metrics should use governed definitions that match the entity and time grain of the holdout design.

If the control is assigned at account level but outcomes are reported at contact level, apparent effects can be inflated or diluted. If the CDP uses event-time conversions but CRM reporting uses opportunity-close dates, comparisons can become misleading even when the treatment logic is correct.

### 4\. Reconciliation process

There should be a repeatable process to reconcile audience counts across the CDP, CRM execution systems, channel endpoints, and analytics warehouse.

Typical checkpoints include:

*   eligible audience count
*   assigned treatment and holdout counts
*   channel-specific activation counts
*   confirmed exclusions and suppressions
*   matched outcome population size

A count mismatch does not always mean the experiment failed. It often reveals expected differences such as identity loss, delivery failure, or consent filtering. The important thing is that those differences are understood and documented before results are socialized.

## Governance model: ownership, approvals, and auditability

Strong holdout design depends on governance, not just logic.

In mature organizations, holdout management usually sits between multiple functions:

*   CDP or audience architecture teams
*   marketing operations or campaign operations
*   analytics or experimentation teams
*   CRM platform owners
*   privacy, risk, or compliance stakeholders

Without explicit ownership, key decisions fall through the cracks.

### Assign decision rights

At a minimum, someone should own each of the following:

*   experiment universe definition
*   assignment methodology
*   channel suppression policy alignment
*   identity resolution assumptions
*   outcome metric definitions
*   reporting sign-off

This does not mean one team controls everything. It means decisions have named owners and approval paths.

### Version audience and holdout logic

Holdout rules should be versioned like other production data logic. If eligibility criteria, suppression policy, or assignment ratios change midstream, the change should be recorded. Otherwise, later reporting may treat multiple operating states as one experiment.

Versioning can be lightweight, but it should support basic auditability:

*   what changed
*   when it changed
*   who approved it
*   which journeys or reports are affected

### Separate measurement controls from customer protections

Customer protection rules such as consent, legal suppression, or fatigue controls should be governed independently from experimental controls. They can interact, but they should not be conflated.

This separation helps prevent two common mistakes:

*   inflating the holdout with operationally suppressed records that were never truly comparable
*   removing customer safety controls in pursuit of cleaner measurement

A credible operating model protects both measurement integrity and customer experience.

### Document acceptable contamination

Not every enterprise can enforce channel-perfect holdouts. Teams should therefore define what level of contamination or leakage is tolerable for a given use case and how it will be disclosed in reporting.

That creates more realistic stakeholder expectations. It also allows teams to classify experiments appropriately, for example as:

*   tightly controlled within a bounded channel set
*   directionally useful across partially coordinated channels
*   observational support for policy decisions rather than strict incrementality measurement

This framing is often more valuable than overstating precision.

## Practical checklist for launch readiness

Before launching a journey with a holdout, teams should be able to answer the following questions clearly.

*   What is the governed definition of the eligible audience?
*   What entity is assigned: profile, person, account, household, or another unit?
*   How is holdout assignment generated and persisted?
*   How do holdouts differ from suppressions and exclusions in this program?
*   Which channels honor the holdout flag, and where can leakage occur?
*   What identity translation is required across CDP, CRM, ad, web, and analytics systems?
*   What are the re-entry and requalification rules?
*   What time window defines exposure and what time window defines outcomes?
*   Which table or dataset is the authoritative cohort record?
*   How will audience and activation counts be reconciled before reporting?
*   Who approves logic changes after launch?
*   How will reporting limitations be disclosed to stakeholders?

If these questions do not have agreed answers, the experiment may still be runnable, but it is not yet well governed.

## Conclusion

Holdout groups in CDP programs are easy to describe and hard to operationalize well. The challenge is rarely randomization alone. It is the interaction between identity, audience eligibility, suppressions, orchestration logic, and downstream measurement.

That is why **CDP holdout group governance** should be treated as a data contract and operating-model discipline. When control groups are defined with clear audience boundaries, stable assignment rules, explicit timing logic, and aligned reporting artifacts, journey measurement becomes more explainable and more reusable across teams.

No enterprise setup can eliminate every source of contamination or uncertainty. But disciplined governance can prevent the most damaging failures: mislabeled controls, unstable membership, inconsistent metrics, and post hoc reporting logic. In practice, that is what makes experimentation credible enough to guide real activation decisions, especially in [customer journey orchestration](/services/customer-journey-orchestration) programs supported by governed [experimentation data architecture](/services/experimentation-data-architecture).

Tags: CDP, CDP holdout group governance, Journey orchestration, Experimentation, Audience design, Analytics governance

## Explore CDP Activation Governance

These articles extend the same CDP operating-model problem from different angles: identity, suppression, audience windows, and measurement consistency. Together they show how activation logic stays trustworthy when rules are governed as durable contracts across tools and teams.

[

![CDP Suppression Logic Governance: The Hidden Rules That Prevent Audience Activation Mistakes](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/c_fill,w_1440,h_1080,g_auto/f_auto/q_auto/v1/blog-20251106-cdp-suppression-logic-governance-for-audience-activation--cover?_a=BAVMn6DY0)

### CDP Suppression Logic Governance: The Hidden Rules That Prevent Audience Activation Mistakes

Nov 6, 2025

](/blog/20251106-cdp-suppression-logic-governance-for-audience-activation)

[

![CDP Audience Entry and Exit Window Governance: Why Time-Based Activation Rules Drift Across CRM, CDP, and Marketing Automation](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/c_fill,w_1440,h_1080,g_auto/f_auto/q_auto/v1/blog-20241119-cdp-audience-entry-and-exit-window-governance--cover?_a=BAVMn6DY0)

### CDP Audience Entry and Exit Window Governance: Why Time-Based Activation Rules Drift Across CRM, CDP, and Marketing Automation

Nov 19, 2024

](/blog/20241119-cdp-audience-entry-and-exit-window-governance)

[

![CDP Metric Definition Drift Between Product Analytics and Activation: Why the Same Customer Journey Produces Different Numbers in Every System](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/c_fill,w_1440,h_1080,g_auto/f_auto/q_auto/v1/blog-20250218-cdp-metric-definition-drift-between-product-analytics-and-activation--cover?_a=BAVMn6DY0)

### CDP Metric Definition Drift Between Product Analytics and Activation: Why the Same Customer Journey Produces Different Numbers in Every System

Feb 18, 2025

](/blog/20250218-cdp-metric-definition-drift-between-product-analytics-and-activation)

[

![CDP Event Schema Versioning: How to Evolve Tracking Without Breaking Activation](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/c_fill,w_1440,h_1080,g_auto/f_auto/q_auto/v1/blog-20260413-cdp-event-schema-versioning-without-breaking-activation--cover?_a=BAVMn6DY0)

### CDP Event Schema Versioning: How to Evolve Tracking Without Breaking Activation

Apr 13, 2026

](/blog/20260413-cdp-event-schema-versioning-without-breaking-activation)

[

![CDP Identity Confidence Scoring: When a Unified Profile Is Safe Enough for Activation](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/c_fill,w_1440,h_1080,g_auto/f_auto/q_auto/v1/blog-20250821-cdp-identity-confidence-scoring-for-activation-governance--cover?_a=BAVMn6DY0)

### CDP Identity Confidence Scoring: When a Unified Profile Is Safe Enough for Activation

Aug 21, 2025

](/blog/20250821-cdp-identity-confidence-scoring-for-activation-governance)

## Explore CDP Activation and Governance Services

This article is about making holdout groups, suppression rules, and eligibility logic reliable across activation and measurement. The most relevant next step is support for designing the CDP, journey, and activation layers so those rules are governed as durable contracts instead of scattered campaign settings. These services help teams align orchestration, audience sync, and downstream reporting so experiments stay explainable and operationally sound.

[

### Customer Journey Orchestration

Event-driven journeys across channels and products

Learn More

](/services/customer-journey-orchestration)[

### Data Activation Architecture

CDP audience activation with governed delivery to channels

Learn More

](/services/data-activation-architecture)[

### Customer Data Governance

Stewardship, standards, and CDP data policy and controls

Learn More

](/services/customer-data-governance)[

### Customer Segmentation Architecture

Scalable enterprise audience segmentation models and cohort definition frameworks

Learn More

](/services/customer-segmentation-architecture)[

### CDP Platform Architecture

CDP event pipeline architecture and identity foundations

Learn More

](/services/cdp-platform-architecture)[

### Customer Identity Graph Architecture

CDP identity resolution design for unified customer profiles

Learn More

](/services/customer-identity-graph-architecture)

## Explore Governance and Measurement Case Studies

These case studies show how governance, identity, and reporting decisions shape trustworthy digital measurement in complex environments. They extend the article’s theme by demonstrating how structured content operations, controlled rollouts, and analytics instrumentation support clearer outcomes across channels and platforms.

\[01\]

### [JYSKGlobal Retail DXP & CDP Transformation](/projects/jysk-global-retail-dxp-cdp-transformation "JYSK")

[![Project: JYSK](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/w_644,f_avif,q_auto:good/v1/project-jysk--challenge--01)](/projects/jysk-global-retail-dxp-cdp-transformation "JYSK")

[Learn More](/projects/jysk-global-retail-dxp-cdp-transformation "Learn More: JYSK")

Industry: Retail / E-Commerce

Business Need:

JYSK required a robust retail Digital Experience Platform (DXP) integrated with a Customer Data Platform (CDP) to enable data-driven design decisions, enhance user engagement, and streamline content updates across more than 25 local markets.

Challenges & Solution:

*   Streamlined workflows for faster creative updates. - CDP integration for a retail platform to enable deeper customer insights. - Data-driven design optimizations to boost engagement and conversions. - Consistent UI across Drupal and React micro apps to support fast delivery at scale.

Outcome:

The modernized platform empowered JYSK’s marketing and content teams with real-time insights and modern workflows, leading to stronger engagement, higher conversions, and a scalable global platform.

“Oleksiy (PathToProject) worked with me on a specific project over a period of three months. He took full ownership of the project and successfully led it to completion with minimal initial information. His technical skills are unquestionably top-tier, and working with him was a pleasure. I would gladly collaborate with Oleksiy again at any opportunity. ”

Nikolaj Stockholm NielsenStrategic Hands-On CTO | E-Commerce Growth

\[02\]

### [OrganogenesisScalable Multi-Brand Next.js Monorepo Platform](/projects/organogenesis-biotechnology-healthcare "Organogenesis")

[![Project: Organogenesis](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/w_644,f_avif,q_auto:good/v1/project-organogenesis--challenge--01)](/projects/organogenesis-biotechnology-healthcare "Organogenesis")

[Learn More](/projects/organogenesis-biotechnology-healthcare "Learn More: Organogenesis")

Industry: Biotechnology / Healthcare

Business Need:

Organogenesis faced operational challenges managing multiple brand websites on outdated platforms, resulting in fragmented workflows, high maintenance costs, and limited scalability across a multi-brand digital presence.

Challenges & Solution:

*   Migrated legacy static brand sites to a modern AWS-compatible marketing platform. - Consolidated multiple sites into a single NX monorepo to reduce delivery time and maintenance overhead. - Introduced modern Next.js delivery with Tailwind + shadcn/ui design system. - Built a CDP layer using GA4 + GTM + Looker Studio with advanced tracking enhancements.

Outcome:

The transformation reduced time-to-deliver marketing updates by 20–25%, improved Lighthouse scores to ~90+, and delivered a scalable multi-brand foundation for long-term growth.

\[03\]

### [VeoliaEnterprise Drupal Multisite Modernization (Acquia Site Factory, 200+ Sites)](/projects/veolia-environmental-services-sustainability "Veolia")

[![Project: Veolia](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/w_644,f_avif,q_auto:good/v1/project-veolia--challenge--01)](/projects/veolia-environmental-services-sustainability "Veolia")

[Learn More](/projects/veolia-environmental-services-sustainability "Learn More: Veolia")

Industry: Environmental Services / Sustainability

Business Need:

With Drupal 7 reaching end-of-life, Veolia needed a Drupal 7 to Drupal 10 enterprise migration for its Acquia Site Factory multisite platform—preserving region-specific content and multilingual capabilities across more than 200 sites.

Challenges & Solution:

*   Supported Acquia Site Factory multisite architecture at enterprise scale (200+ sites). - Ported the installation profile from Drupal 7 to Drupal 10 while ensuring platform stability. - Delivered advanced configuration management strategy for safe incremental rollout across released sites. - Improved page loading speed by refactoring data fetching and caching strategies.

Outcome:

The platform was modernized into a stable, scalable multisite foundation with improved performance, maintainability, and long-term upgrade readiness.

“As Dev Team Lead on my project for 10 months, Oleksiy (PathToProject) demonstrated excellent technical skills and the ability to handle complex Drupal projects. His full-stack expertise is highly valuable. ”

Laurent PoinsignonDomain Delivery Manager Web at TotalEnergies

\[04\]

### [United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)United Nations website migration to a unified Drupal DXP](/projects/unccd-united-nations-convention-to-combat-desertification "United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)")

[![Project: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/w_644,f_avif,q_auto:good/v1/project-unccd--challenge--01)](/projects/unccd-united-nations-convention-to-combat-desertification "United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)")

[Learn More](/projects/unccd-united-nations-convention-to-combat-desertification "Learn More: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)")

Industry: International Organization / Environmental Policy

Business Need:

UNCCD operated four separate websites (two WordPress, two Drupal), leading to inconsistencies in design, content management, and user experience. A unified, scalable solution was needed to support a large-scale CMS migration project and improve efficiency and usability.

Challenges & Solution:

*   Migrating all sites into a single, structured Drupal-based platform (government website Drupal DXP approach). - Implementing Storybook for a design system and consistency, reducing content development costs by 30–40%. - Managing input from 27 stakeholders while maintaining backend stability. - Integrating behavioral tracking, A/B testing, and optimizing performance for strong Google Lighthouse scores. - Converting Adobe InDesign assets into a fully functional web experience.

Outcome:

The modernization effort resulted in a cohesive, user-friendly, and scalable website, improving content management efficiency and long-term digital sustainability.

“It was my pleasure working with Oleksiy (PathToProject) on a new Drupal website. He is a true full-stack developer—the ideal mix of DevOps expertise, deep front-end knowledge, and the structured thinking of a senior back-end developer. He is well-organized and never lets anything slip. Oleksiy understands what needs to be done before being asked and can manage a project independently with minimal involvement from clients, product managers, or business analysts. One of the best consultants I’ve worked with so far. ”

Andrei MelisTechnical Lead at Eau de Web

\[05\]

### [Copernicus Marine ServiceCopernicus Marine Service Drupal DXP case study — Marine data portal modernization](/projects/copernicus-marine-service-environmental-science-marine-data "Copernicus Marine Service")

[![Project: Copernicus Marine Service](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/w_644,f_avif,q_auto:good/v1/project-copernicus--challenge--01)](/projects/copernicus-marine-service-environmental-science-marine-data "Copernicus Marine Service")

[Learn More](/projects/copernicus-marine-service-environmental-science-marine-data "Learn More: Copernicus Marine Service")

Industry: Environmental Science / Marine Data

Business Need:

The existing marine data portal relied on three unaligned WordPress installations and embedded PHP code, creating inefficiencies and risks in content management and usability.

Challenges & Solution:

*   Migrated three legacy WordPress sites and a Drupal 7 site to a unified Drupal-based platform. - Replaced risky PHP fragments with configurable Drupal components. - Improved information architecture and user experience for data exploration. - Implemented integrations: Solr search, SSO (SAML), and enhanced analytics tracking.

Outcome:

The new Drupal DXP streamlined content operations and improved accessibility, offering scientists and businesses a more efficient gateway to marine data services.

“Oleksiy (PathToProject) is demanding and responsive. Comfortable with an Agile approach and strong technical skills, I appreciate the way he challenges stories and features to clarify specifications before and during sprints. ”

Olivier RitlewskiIngénieur Logiciel chez EPAM Systems

\[06\]

### [Bayer Radiología LATAMSecure Healthcare Drupal Collaboration Platform](/projects/bayer-radiologia-latam "Bayer Radiología LATAM")

[![Project: Bayer Radiología LATAM](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/w_644,f_avif,q_auto:good/v1/project-bayer--challenge--01)](/projects/bayer-radiologia-latam "Bayer Radiología LATAM")

[Learn More](/projects/bayer-radiologia-latam "Learn More: Bayer Radiología LATAM")

Industry: Healthcare / Medical Imaging

Business Need:

An advanced healthcare digital platform for LATAM was required to facilitate collaboration among radiology HCPs, distribute company knowledge, refine treatment methods, and streamline workflows. The solution needed secure medical website role-based access restrictions based on user role (HCP / non-HCP) and geographic region.

Challenges & Solution:

*   Multi-level filtering for precise content discovery. - Role-based access control to support different professional needs. - Personalized HCP offices for tailored user experiences. - A structured approach to managing diverse stakeholder expectations.

Outcome:

The platform enhanced collaboration, streamlined workflows, and empowered radiology professionals with advanced tools to gain insights and optimize patient care.

“Oleksiy (PathToProject) and I worked together on a Digital Transformation project for Bayer LATAM Radiología. Oly was the Drupal developer, and I was the business lead. His professionalism, technical expertise, and ability to deliver functional improvements were some of the key attributes he brought to the project. I also want to highlight his collaboration and flexibility—throughout the entire journey, Oleksiy exceeded my expectations. It’s great when you can partner with vendors you trust, and who go the extra mile. ”

Axel Gleizerman CopelloBuilding in the MedTech Space | Antler

“Oleksiy (PathToProject) is a great professional with solid experience in Drupal. He is reliable, hard-working, and responsive. He dealt with high organizational complexity seamlessly. He was also very positive and made teamwork easy. It was a pleasure working with him. ”

Oriol BesAI & Innovation (Discovery, Strategy, Deployment, Scouting) for Business Leaders

![Oleksiy (Oly) Kalinichenko](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/c_fill,w_200,h_200,g_center,f_avif,q_auto:good/v1/contant--oly)

### Oleksiy (Oly) Kalinichenko

#### CTO at PathToProject

[](https://www.linkedin.com/in/oleksiy-kalinichenko/ "LinkedIn: Oleksiy (Oly) Kalinichenko")

### Do you want to start a project?

Send