# CDP Unmerge Workflows: How to Reverse Bad Identity Links Without Breaking Activation

Jun 18, 2026

By Oleksiy Kalinichenko

False merges are only half the identity problem. Enterprise CDP teams also need a governed way to separate profiles safely when matching rules get it wrong.

This article examines **CDP unmerge workflows** as an operational capability rather than a rare exception. It shows how teams can investigate bad merges, reverse identity links, repair downstream audiences, and preserve auditability without corrupting profile history.

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%2F20260618-cdp-unmerge-workflows-for-identity-resolution-recovery "Summarize this page with ChatGPT")[](https://claude.ai/new?q=Summarize%20this%20page%20for%20me%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pathtoproject.com%2Fblog%2F20260618-cdp-unmerge-workflows-for-identity-resolution-recovery "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%2F20260618-cdp-unmerge-workflows-for-identity-resolution-recovery "Summarize this page with Gemini")[](https://x.com/i/grok?text=Summarize%20this%20page%20for%20me%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pathtoproject.com%2Fblog%2F20260618-cdp-unmerge-workflows-for-identity-resolution-recovery "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%2F20260618-cdp-unmerge-workflows-for-identity-resolution-recovery "Summarize this page with Perplexity")

![Blog: CDP Unmerge Workflows: How to Reverse Bad Identity Links Without Breaking Activation](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/w_764,f_avif,q_auto:good/v1/blog-20260618-cdp-unmerge-workflows-for-identity-resolution-recovery--cover)

Identity resolution programs usually spend most of their design energy on matching: linking identifiers, combining events, and producing a usable customer profile for analytics and activation. That focus makes sense. But it leaves an operational blind spot.

When matching rules create a false merge, the problem is not only that two people were linked incorrectly. The harder problem is that the bad link can propagate into audiences, CRM updates, personalization decisions, suppression logic, and consent enforcement. By the time someone notices, the issue is no longer just in the identity graph. It is distributed across the operating model.

That is why **CDP unmerge workflows** matter. They are not a niche administrative feature. They are part of identity resilience. Mature programs need a governed way to investigate suspicious links, separate profiles safely, restore downstream state where possible, and document exactly what happened.

A good unmerge process does not pretend history never happened. It preserves lineage, protects compliance controls, and makes remediation explicit. In practice, that means treating unmerge as a controlled recovery workflow rather than a simple delete or reset action.

## Why bad merges require a recovery model

A false merge can happen for ordinary reasons:

*   a shared device creates ambiguous behavioral signals
*   a reused email address gets imported from an old system
*   household members are mistaken for one person
*   CRM data arrives with weak keys or duplicated records
*   legacy survivorship rules over-trust one source over another

In each case, the issue is not just incorrect linkage. The merged profile may already have:

*   inherited attributes from both people
*   combined consent states that should remain separate
*   entered audiences based on mixed behaviors
*   triggered personalization or messaging on the wrong assumptions
*   updated downstream systems with incorrect profile identifiers

That is why recovery must be designed as a workflow. Teams need to answer several questions in sequence:

1.  Is the merge actually wrong?
2.  Which identifiers and records should be separated?
3.  What historical evidence should remain attached to lineage?
4.  Which downstream systems must be repaired?
5.  Who approves the change, and how is it audited?

Without a recovery model, teams often improvise. One group manually edits a record in the CDP, another removes a person from an audience, and a third updates CRM independently. The result is partial remediation, inconsistent history, and recurring confusion.

## Common causes of false merges that surface late

Some identity issues show up quickly. Others remain hidden until activation outcomes make the problem visible.

A few common patterns surface late in enterprise environments.

**Shared device or browser behavior** can create linking signals that look persuasive in the short term. If a family tablet, retail kiosk, call center device, or shared workplace terminal is involved, anonymous events may attach to the wrong known person after login.

**Reused or recycled contact points** are another source. A secondary email address, temporary phone number, or dormant account can be reassigned or reintroduced through batch imports. If matching logic overweights that field, separate individuals may collapse into one profile.

**Household confusion** often appears when multiple people share an address, payment method, or subscription context. The graph may blur household-level signals with person-level identity.

**CRM imports and legacy migrations** can introduce duplicate customer records with inconsistent identifiers. Once loaded into the CDP, survivorship rules may choose the wrong dominant value or pull too many records under a single profile.

**Overly aggressive stitching thresholds** are also common. When programs push for broader match rates, they sometimes accept weak combinations of signals that are not stable enough for person-level identity.

These issues surface late because business users usually discover them indirectly:

*   audience membership looks wrong
*   consent handling seems inconsistent
*   one customer receives messaging intended for another
*   analytics show impossible journeys or blended lifecycle states
*   service teams notice conflicting account details in downstream tools

By that stage, the organization does not need better theory about matching alone. It needs a repeatable path for false merge remediation.

## What an unmerge workflow must preserve: lineage, consent, activation state

The central design principle is simple: **separate profiles without rewriting operational truth**.

A robust unmerge workflow should preserve at least three things.

**1\. Lineage**

Teams need to know:

*   which identifiers were linked
*   when the merge occurred
*   which rule or process caused it
*   what evidence supported the original link
*   when and why the split was executed

This lineage matters for debugging, governance, and future rule tuning. If teams only restore the current profile state but lose the causal trail, they make the same mistakes again.

**2\. Consent and policy state**

Consent is especially sensitive during unmerge. If one merged profile had email permission and the other did not, the combined state may have already influenced activation. Unmerge should not simply recalculate consent from scratch without a documented basis. Teams need to reattach policy-relevant facts to the right subject, source, and timestamp wherever possible.

That often means preserving:

*   original consent events and their source systems
*   jurisdiction or policy context
*   channel-level preferences
*   effective dates and updates
*   uncertainty flags where attribution cannot be fully reconstructed

**3\. Activation state**

Downstream systems may have consumed the merged profile as if it were valid. Unmerge must account for that by identifying which audience memberships, suppressions, traits, or personalization decisions need review or rollback.

Not every downstream action can be perfectly reversed. Some communications will already have been sent. Some model features may already have been scored. Some exports may have been consumed externally. The goal is not to erase the past. The goal is to restore forward-looking correctness and document residual impact.

## Investigation steps: evidence, confidence signals, and impact radius

Before splitting anything, teams should run an investigation process that distinguishes suspicion from confirmed error.

A practical workflow typically includes the following steps.

**Step 1: Open a case with a clear trigger**

Triggers may come from service teams, marketing operations, governance reviews, analytics anomalies, or automated exception monitoring. The case should capture the reason for review, the affected profile ID, and the systems likely involved.

**Step 2: Review the identity evidence**

Investigators should inspect the linking basis used to connect the records. Important signals include:

*   shared identifiers
*   event chronology
*   device usage patterns
*   source-system reliability
*   whether the link came from deterministic or probabilistic logic
*   survivorship outcomes after the merge

The purpose is not just to ask whether two records are different. It is to understand why the system believed they were the same.

**Step 3: Score confidence in the false merge finding**

Not every ambiguous profile should be split immediately. Teams need decision thresholds. For example, a review may require contradictory legal names across trusted systems, mutually exclusive account ownership, or evidence that a shared device drove the link.

This is where governance matters. The organization should define what constitutes enough evidence to unmerge, especially when downstream impact is high.

**Step 4: Assess impact radius**

Once the false merge is considered likely, the team should map impact across:

*   source records and identifiers
*   consent and preference state
*   audience memberships
*   CRM synchronization
*   analytics reporting
*   personalization and recommendation inputs
*   service workflows and support tools

The impact radius determines urgency and the order of remediation.

**Step 5: Decide remediation path**

Some cases require a straightforward split of two distinct individuals. Others reveal broader data quality problems that need upstream fixes first. If the same weak identifier will just cause a re-merge tomorrow, the team should pause and address the root cause before executing the split.

## Designing profile split rules without rewriting history

The technical challenge in unmerge design is that a merged profile usually contains mixed assets:

*   identifiers
*   traits and golden record fields
*   event history
*   consent facts
*   audience states
*   derived scores or classifications

A naive split can create as many problems as it solves.

The better approach is to define **profile split rules** that separate what can be reassigned confidently from what should remain historically attributed with lineage.

A few principles help.

**Separate identifiers from historical events**

Identifiers such as email addresses, account IDs, CRM IDs, device IDs, and login IDs should be reassigned based on evidence and source authority. Historical events may require more care. Some events can be clearly reattached to one person; others may need to remain linked to an audit trail if attribution is uncertain.

**Use effective-dated state where possible**

If the platform and operating model support temporal lineage, keep track of when identity associations were considered valid. This allows teams to represent that a profile was merged at one point, then split later, without pretending the system always knew the right answer.

**Preserve source truth rather than overwriting it**

If CRM and commerce systems provide conflicting attributes, the split process should not invent a new truth manually unless governance explicitly allows it. Prefer restoring fields based on authoritative source records and survivorship policies.

**Flag unresolved ambiguity**

In some cases, not every event or trait can be confidently assigned after a false merge. Rather than forcing certainty, mature teams create review flags, quarantine specific attributes, or limit activation eligibility until confidence is restored.

**Prevent immediate re-merge**

An unmerge action is incomplete if the same matching logic can recombine the profiles in the next processing cycle. The workflow should include temporary exclusion logic, rule overrides, identifier suppression, or upstream corrections so the recovery holds.

This is why identity resolution recovery is not just an operations task. It feeds directly back into graph design, matching thresholds, and data governance policy.

## Downstream repair across CRM, audiences, analytics, and personalization

Splitting the profile in the CDP is only the midpoint. The rest of the work is downstream repair.

**CRM and service systems**

If the merged profile pushed updates into CRM or support tooling, teams may need to:

*   restore correct account ownership or contact mapping
*   reassign activities or notes where possible
*   correct segmentation or lifecycle fields
*   notify service teams of residual ambiguity

The exact mechanics vary, but the principle is consistent: do not assume the CDP is the only system that needs correction.

**Audiences and campaign eligibility**

Audience repair is often the most urgent marketing concern. After unmerge, teams should reevaluate:

*   current audience inclusion and exclusion
*   suppression lists
*   journey entry criteria
*   frequency caps and contact policies
*   lookalike or seed audiences if affected

Some programs benefit from a temporary hold state so that recently unmerged profiles do not activate until recalculation finishes.

**Analytics and reporting**

Analytics remediation depends on purpose. Operational dashboards may need refreshed profile counts or audience numbers. Long-term historical reporting may require annotation instead of restatement, especially if downstream reports have already been distributed.

The key is to define which metrics are recomputed and which are preserved with an explanation. Otherwise, teams can create confusion by silently changing numbers after the fact.

**Personalization and decisioning**

Personalization systems may have cached traits, affinities, or recommendations derived from the merged profile. These should be refreshed or invalidated if they are likely to continue driving incorrect experiences.

In high-risk contexts, teams may choose a conservative fallback experience until enough clean signals accumulate for each separated profile.

This downstream work is where [data activation architecture](/services/data-activation-architecture) becomes a real operating concern. It is rarely a single click. It is usually a coordinated repair process across systems with different refresh cycles, APIs, and ownership models.

## Operational ownership, approvals, and audit logs

Because profile splitting affects customer data governance, unmerge should not be an unrestricted admin action.

A sustainable model usually assigns clear roles:

*   **operations or platform teams** manage execution mechanics
*   **data governance teams** define evidence standards and approval paths
*   **marketing operations or CRM owners** assess campaign impact
*   **privacy, risk, or compliance stakeholders** advise on sensitive cases where consent or regulated data is involved

Approval depth should match impact. A low-risk split of duplicate internal test data does not need the same scrutiny as a production profile with broad omnichannel activation.

Audit logs should capture:

*   initiating user or team
*   timestamp of review and execution
*   reason code for unmerge
*   evidence summary
*   affected identifiers and records
*   systems notified or repaired
*   temporary rule suppressions or overrides applied
*   follow-up actions and closure status

This record creates accountability, but it also improves the identity program over time. Patterns in unmerge cases can reveal weak match rules, poor source quality, or insufficient policy controls.

## Metrics and runbooks for identity recovery readiness

Many teams only discover they lack an unmerge capability when a high-visibility incident occurs. A better approach is to measure readiness before that happens.

Useful operational metrics can include:

*   number of suspected false merges opened for review
*   percentage confirmed after investigation
*   average time to triage and time to remediate
*   downstream systems affected per incident
*   repeat incidents caused by the same upstream source or rule
*   percentage of cases requiring manual exception handling
*   rate of re-merge after corrective action

These metrics should not be used to chase zero incidents unrealistically. Identity systems operate under ambiguity. The goal is to reduce avoidable errors, improve detection, and make recovery safer.

Runbooks are equally important. A strong runbook should define:

*   triggers for investigation
*   minimum evidence required
*   escalation thresholds
*   execution sequence across systems
*   rollback or hold controls for activation
*   post-incident review steps
*   rule tuning and governance feedback loops

Teams that document these steps are usually better positioned to handle growth in channels, identifiers, and activation complexity.

## Building unmerge into CDP architecture from the start

The most common mistake is to treat unmerge as an afterthought. In reality, it should influence architecture decisions early.

When evaluating identity models and operating processes, teams should ask:

*   Can we trace why two profiles were linked?
*   Can we separate identifiers without destroying lineage?
*   Can we quarantine uncertain state?
*   Can we prevent immediate re-merge?
*   Can we identify every downstream dependency that consumed the merged profile?
*   Can we prove what was changed, by whom, and why?

If the answer to those questions is unclear, the identity graph may be optimized for matching speed but not for operational trust.

For organizations investing in customer data platforms, that distinction matters. A customer identity graph is not only a unification engine. It is also part of the governance layer that supports consent, activation reliability, and business accountability.

Path to Project often works with teams on exactly this boundary: aligning [CDP platform architecture](/services/cdp-platform-architecture), [customer identity graph architecture](/services/customer-identity-graph-architecture), and [customer data governance](/services/customer-data-governance) so that operational edge cases are handled deliberately rather than informally. False merge remediation is one of the clearest tests of whether that operating model is mature.

## Conclusion

Bad identity links are inevitable in real-world customer data ecosystems. Shared devices, reused identifiers, household ambiguity, and source-system inconsistencies can all create false merges, even when matching logic is well designed.

What separates mature programs from fragile ones is not whether errors ever occur. It is whether the organization can investigate them, split profiles safely, repair downstream impact, and preserve an auditable record of what changed.

That is the real value of **CDP unmerge workflows**. They turn identity resolution recovery into a governed capability instead of a manual scramble. And as activation grows more personalized, regulated, and cross-channel, that capability becomes essential to trust in the platform itself.

Tags: CDP, CDP unmerge workflows, identity resolution recovery, false merge remediation, customer identity graph, customer data governance

## Explore CDP Identity Recovery and Activation Governance

These articles extend the same identity and activation risk surface covered in the current post. They add context on false merges, confidence thresholds, survivorship, and consent-aware downstream controls so readers can see how recovery fits into a broader CDP operating model.

[

![Identity Resolution Pitfalls: How False Merges Damage CDP Trust](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/c_fill,w_1440,h_1080,g_auto/f_auto/q_auto/v1/blog-20201112-identity-resolution-false-merges-in-cdp-programs--cover?_a=BAVMn6B00)

### Identity Resolution Pitfalls: How False Merges Damage CDP Trust

Nov 12, 2020

](/blog/20201112-identity-resolution-false-merges-in-cdp-programs)

[

![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=BAVMn6B00)

### 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)

[

![CDP Survivorship Rules: How to Reconcile CRM, Product, and Support Data Without Polluting the Customer Profile](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/c_fill,w_1440,h_1080,g_auto/f_auto/q_auto/v1/blog-20260519-cdp-survivorship-rules-between-crm-and-product-data--cover?_a=BAVMn6B00)

### CDP Survivorship Rules: How to Reconcile CRM, Product, and Support Data Without Polluting the Customer Profile

May 19, 2026

](/blog/20260519-cdp-survivorship-rules-between-crm-and-product-data)

[

![Consent Drift in CDP Event Pipelines: Why Privacy Rules Break Between Collection and Activation](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/c_fill,w_1440,h_1080,g_auto/f_auto/q_auto/v1/blog-20241008-consent-drift-in-cdp-event-pipelines--cover?_a=BAVMn6B00)

### Consent Drift in CDP Event Pipelines: Why Privacy Rules Break Between Collection and Activation

Oct 8, 2024

](/blog/20241008-consent-drift-in-cdp-event-pipelines)

[

![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=BAVMn6B00)

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

Nov 6, 2025

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

## Explore Identity and Activation Services

These services extend the article’s unmerge and recovery workflow into the surrounding CDP architecture that makes remediation possible. They cover identity strategy, profile and data model design, governed activation, and the integrations needed to repair downstream systems after a bad merge. Together, they help teams build a safer operating model for identity resolution, consent handling, and audience synchronization.

[

### Identity Resolution Strategy

Cross-channel identity stitching with governed matching rules

Learn More

](/services/identity-resolution-strategy)[

### Customer Identity Graph Architecture

CDP identity resolution design for unified customer profiles

Learn More

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

### CDP Platform Architecture

CDP event pipeline architecture and identity foundations

Learn More

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

### Customer Data Governance

Stewardship, standards, and CDP data policy and controls

Learn More

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

### Data Activation Architecture

CDP audience activation with governed delivery to channels

Learn More

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

### CRM Data Integration

Enterprise CRM data synchronization and identity mapping

Learn More

](/services/crm-data-integration)

## Explore Identity Governance in Practice

These case studies show how governed data models, workflow controls, and audit-ready operations support complex platform recovery and change. They are especially relevant for readers thinking about how to contain bad state, protect downstream systems, and keep delivery reliable when core records need correction.

\[01\]

### [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

\[02\]

### [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

\[03\]

### [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

\[04\]

### [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.

\[05\]

### [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

\[06\]

### [London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)Higher Education Drupal Research Data Platform](/projects/lshtm-london-school-of-hygiene-tropical-medicine "London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)")

[![Project: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)](https://res.cloudinary.com/dywr7uhyq/image/upload/w_644,f_avif,q_auto:good/v1/project-lshtm--challenge--01)](/projects/lshtm-london-school-of-hygiene-tropical-medicine "London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)")

[Learn More](/projects/lshtm-london-school-of-hygiene-tropical-medicine "Learn More: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)")

Industry: Healthcare & Research

Business Need:

LSHTM required improvements to its existing higher education Drupal platform to better manage and distribute complex research data, including support for third-party integrations, Drupal performance optimization, and more reliable synchronization.

Challenges & Solution:

*   Implemented CSV-based data import and export functionality. - Enabled dataset downloads for external consumers. - Improved performance of data-heavy pages and research content delivery. - Stabilized integrations and sync flows across multiple data sources.

Outcome:

The solution improved data accessibility, streamlined research workflows, and enhanced system performance, enabling LSHTM to manage complex datasets more efficiently.

“Oleksiy (PathToProject) has been a valuable developer resource over the past six months for us at LSHTM. This included coming on board to revive and complete a stalled Drupal upgrade project, as well as carrying out work to improve our site accessibility and functionality. I have found Oleksiy to be very knowledgeable and skilful and would happily work with him again in the future. ”

Ali KazemiWeb & Digital Manager at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

![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