How I turned a document-control problem into a business-wide governance model
Updated: Sep 24
A Compliance requirement exposed a wider organisational problem: the business did not simply need somewhere better to store documents. It needed a governed system for deciding what was approved, who owned it, where it appeared and how people knew they were using the right version.
I led the strategic shift from scattered documents and unclear ownership to a governed operating model spanning multiple businesses, shared functions and client-facing workflows.
At a glance:
Timeframe: May 2025 onwards
Working model: ~2 weeks
Scale: 114 indexed files across 5 business areas
Ownership: 21 named owners
Compliance: 20 policies
Client agreement variants: 9
Client impact example: ~3,000 Client Agreement distributions in May 2026
The problem was not where documents lived
In May 2025, important business materials were spread across folders, resource hubs, inboxes, local copies and other locations. Ownership was inconsistent, review dates could be missed and superseded versions could remain in circulation. In some cases, colleagues could not confidently establish whether a document was current, approved or appropriate to use.
Compliance had identified the control requirement around storage, ownership, reviews, approvals, versioning and archiving. I was not given a specification for the solution.
That distinction mattered. A better folder structure would have improved retrieval without fixing the underlying problem: the organisation lacked a consistent model for governing information once it existed.
I reframed the brief around a different question. How could we create one controlled origin for important material, while allowing colleagues and clients to continue encountering it through the systems they already used?
My remit was to turn an ambiguous requirement into an operating model
I identified that the necessary technology already existed within Microsoft 365 and built the first working model in roughly two weeks.
The principle was deliberately simple:
one controlled origin → governed metadata → persistent distribution → audience-specific consumption
Rather than asking the organisation to adopt another destination, Central Storage would operate as the controlled backend. Documents could still appear through the Adviser Resource Hub, Vox, CRM, the client/adviser application and specialist resources, but their provenance would become clearer.
“Jacob took that initial requirement and proactively transformed it into a well-designed, business-wide solution.” - Jo Swain, Chief Risk Officer – Project Name: Central Storage, Project Date: May 2025.
Control once, distribute intelligently
I established a common architecture:
create → approve → control → distribute from one source
Each approved document could have a controlled origin supported by metadata for ownership, approval status, review dates, version and audience. Owners could be reminded automatically 14 days before a review date. New versions could replace controlled originals while retaining the governance surrounding them and the route through which people accessed them.
That last decision was important. Governance only works if it survives everyday behaviour.
The current index contains at least 17 explicitly recorded downstream audience destinations, nine into the Adviser Resource Hub and eight into Vox. Seven of the nine client agreements are explicitly connected to the Adviser Resource Hub. These are lower-bound figures because destination metadata is not recorded consistently across every part of the index.
The aim was never to put everything in SharePoint. It was to control information once, then distribute it intelligently.
The Client Agreement proved the model in a live customer journey
The business’s Client Agreement became the clearest demonstration of the architecture.
In March 2026, I redesigned the agreement, incorporated links to relevant policies and took the revised document through business and Compliance approval before replacing the controlled original.
The design also required judgement beyond presentation. When aspects of the layout were challenged, I worked through readability, printing, environmental considerations and accessibility for clients with vulnerability characteristics.
Once approved, the controlled SharePoint document became the upstream source for distribution through CRM and into the client/adviser mobile application.
In May 2026 alone, approximately 3,000 copies of the updated Client Agreement were distributed.
The governance model was therefore operating inside a real client journey:
controlled source → CRM → adviser/client application → ~3,000 distributions in one month
Advisers and paraplanners could use controlled material through systems already embedded in their working day. They did not need to understand the infrastructure behind it.
That was the point. Stronger governance should not create a heavier user experience.
I designed ownership out of my own role
A central test of the model was whether it could operate without becoming dependent on me.
Across records containing explicit Owner metadata, 76 files have populated ownership data across 21 distinct named people. Of those 76 records, 75, or 98.7%, are owned by someone other than me. That transfer was intentional.
I had done substantial work establishing the system. The Compliance index alone records me as “Modified By” on 31 of its 36 files. But retaining personal control would have undermined the model I was trying to create.
Document owners became responsible for accuracy and reviews. Compliance could approve and oversee. Teams could manage their own material within a common architecture. I supported adoption with FAQs, visual guidance and a detailed tutorial covering access, ownership, reviews, audiences, versions, approvals and document replacement.
The more useful evidence came from behaviour. Colleagues began asking whether something was “on Central Storage” as shorthand for whether it was controlled. Compliance repeatedly submitted policies through the model. Training adopted the structure. By June 2026, Compliance was submitting documents through the expected sequence of ownership, sign-off and controlled storage.
“Jacob's professionalism, determination and collaborative approach were instrumental in driving adoption and embedding the solution.” - Jo Swain, Chief Risk Officer – Project Name: Central Storage, Project Date: May 2025.
The system made weak governance visible
Central Storage did more than organise approved content. It exposed the state of material that previously might simply have existed somewhere.
Where Status metadata exists, 77 of 78 files have a populated status: 40 are Approved / Approved for use, 26 Awaiting approval, 6 Needs review, 3 In progress and 2 Needs editing.
The same principle extended into other parts of the organisation. The business now has 22 indexed files, including ten menus of charges, with six named owners. Training contains 40 file items, including 38 videos and 14 named Training owners. All 11 Training items currently marked “Approved for use” have a recorded version, last review date and next review date.
By August 2026, I was applying the same governance principles across video, articles, graphics and social content.
The model scaled because it was not built around a department. It was built around a repeatable set of decisions: Who owns this? Is it approved? Is it current? Who is it for? Where should it appear? Where is the controlled source?
What changed
Central Storage now indexes 114 file items across five business areas, including 20 named Compliance policies, nine client agreements, ten menus of charges and 38 Training videos, and growing as the system is adopted across the business.
Across records with explicit ownership metadata, there are 21 distinct named owners, with 75 of 76 owned records, 98.7%, accountable to colleagues other than me. 77 of 78 status-enabled records carry an explicit workflow status, while 64 of 78 applicable records, 82%, carry explicit version metadata.
The most important change, though, is structural.
A requirement that began with document storage became a governance model sitting upstream of adviser workflows, client communications and thousands of document distributions. Responsibility became clearer, exceptions became easier to challenge and different teams could operate within a common logic without depending on the person who created it.
The significant decision was not how Central Storage looked. It was recognising that a messy document problem was really an ownership, governance and distribution problem, then establishing a system the organisation could continue using without me at its centre.