Approach

This approach is intended for owner-led businesses that treat their website as part of their operational infrastructure, not as a marketing experiment or a disposable deliverable.

It assumes that the business already has a defined product or service, a clear purpose, and a reason why the website matters beyond appearance or short-term campaigns.

It is not designed for early experimentation, rapid iteration without structure, or projects where speed, visual novelty, or flexibility are prioritised over coherence and durability.

I do not build generic WordPress sites, template-based solutions, or systems intended to be continuously reshaped by non-technical users. I also do not take on projects where architectural decisions are postponed in favour of “launch now, fix later”.

If your priority is a website that can be assembled quickly, frequently reconfigured, or primarily managed through visual builders and plugin stacks, this approach will not be a good fit.

This work assumes intent, clarity, and commitment before the first line of code is written. If those elements are still being explored or negotiated, this approach is not designed to support that phase.

I do not treat websites as isolated projects with a fixed scope and a clear end date.

In this context, a website is a system.
It has structure, constraints, dependencies, and long-term consequences that extend well beyond the initial launch.

Most problems businesses experience do not come from missing features or outdated visuals. They come from early decisions that shape how the system behaves under real conditions: growth, content changes, integrations, operational pressure, and time.

When a website is treated as a short-term project, the result is often repeated rebuilds, increasing complexity, and accumulating technical debt that gradually limits future decisions.

This approach is intentionally different.
It prioritises internal coherence, predictability, and long-term maintainability over delivery speed or superficial flexibility.

The primary objective of this approach is stability.

Not stability in the sense that nothing changes, but stability that allows change without destabilising the system each time requirements evolve.

Short-term gains are often achieved by adding layers: more plugins, more abstractions, more tooling. While this can accelerate initial delivery, it almost always increases fragility and long-term cost.

This approach avoids optimising for immediate visual impact or rapid feature accumulation. Instead, it focuses on decisions that remain valid years later: clear architecture, controlled dependencies, and a structure that supports growth without constant rework.

If the main goal is to get something online as quickly as possible, this approach will feel slow. That slowness is a result of discipline, not inefficiency.
If the goal is to avoid rebuilding the same website every few years, it tends to feel practical and restrained.

Architecture comes first.

Before visual design, features, or integrations are discussed, the underlying structure of the system must be defined. This includes how content is organised, how data flows, how responsibilities are separated, and how future changes can be introduced without breaking the whole.

Visuals and features are not secondary concerns. They are outcomes of a sound structure, not starting points.

Websites become difficult to maintain when design and functionality are developed in isolation, without a clear architectural framework. The result often looks complete, but behaves unpredictably once real usage begins.

This approach deliberately slows down the early phase to reduce long-term friction. Structure here is not rigidity. It is a prerequisite for meaningful flexibility later.

Design in context

Visual design is not treated as a decorative layer added at the end of a project.

It is developed once structure, content, and constraints are clear. This produces design that is calm, deliberate, and appropriate to the role the website plays in the business, rather than driven by trends or novelty.

Complexity is rarely caused by a lack of tools.
It is usually caused by too many of them.

This approach favours restrained, deliberate use of technology. Every dependency must justify its long-term cost, not just its immediate convenience.

Heavy plugin stacks, page builders, and layered abstractions often promise speed and flexibility. In practice, they increase coupling, reduce predictability, and make future changes more expensive and risky.

A smaller, well-understood technical surface area results in systems that are easier to reason about, easier to extend, and less prone to failure.

If direct control through visual interfaces or frequent structural changes without technical oversight is a priority, this approach will feel limiting. That limitation is intentional.

This work assumes shared responsibility.

I take responsibility for architecture, technical decisions, and long-term system stability. I do not take responsibility for defining your business model, clarifying your offer, or making strategic decisions on your behalf.

For the collaboration to work, the client must actively participate in decisions that shape the system. This includes providing clear input, timely feedback, and understanding that technical decisions carry business consequences.

Projects tend to fail when responsibility is uneven, when one side is expected to compensate for a lack of clarity or commitment on the other.

If you are looking for a fully outsourced process where decisions are deferred or avoided, this approach will create friction. If you value clear ownership on both sides, it creates alignment.

This approach relies on a defined process.

Work is organised in clear phases, with specific decisions made at specific points. This is not bureaucracy. It is a way to prevent constant re-evaluation, shifting priorities, and incremental changes that undermine the system.

Ad-hoc requests and mid-stream pivots introduce inconsistency and technical debt. Over time, they erode the clarity that allows a system to remain predictable and stable.

A structured process creates boundaries that protect both sides. Decisions are intentional, changes are contextual, and progress is measurable.

If a project requires continuous improvisation without revisiting underlying structure, it is not compatible with this way of working.

I work with a limited number of projects at any given time.

This is a deliberate choice. Depth requires continuity, attention, and the ability to think several steps ahead without competing priorities.

Fewer projects allow deeper engagement, clearer technical ownership, and better long-term outcomes. Availability is therefore limited, and timing matters.

If you need immediate capacity or a vendor who can absorb work on demand, this approach will feel restrictive. If you value focus, consistency, and reliability, it usually feels appropriate.

Occasionally, I take on limited-scope work.

These engagements are tightly defined, self-contained, and constrained by a clear objective and context. They do not involve long-term platform building, ongoing optimisation, or iterative expansion.

They are exceptions, accepted selectively, when scope, expectations, and purpose are unambiguous from the outset. They are not a substitute for the primary way of working described above.

If a project requires exploration, scalability, or open-ended iteration, it does not fall into this category.

This approach is intentionally specific.

It is designed for businesses that value clarity over speed, structure over flexibility, and long-term stability over short-term convenience. It requires commitment, shared responsibility, and a willingness to make decisions early rather than defer them.

If this aligns with how you operate, the next step is not to request a proposal, but to confirm that the way of working itself makes sense for your situation.

This approach tends to generate fewer enquiries, but more relevant ones, grounded in clearer expectations before any conversation begins.

If it does not align, it is better to recognise that early. This approach is not meant to fit every project, and it is not intended to.

If the constraints described here match your situation, start with the qualification criteria.

→ Review qualification criteria