Editorial workflows break down in different ways. For some newsrooms the problem is strategic wherein the editors lack the visibility to make good decisions about what to publish, when, and whether the overall content mix is working. For others it is operational where too much time spent on manual handoffs between systems that should be talking to each other automatically. And for others still it is structural, they have a stack of editorial tools accumulated over years that were never designed to work together.

These are different problems, but they share a common root. When the systems supporting editorial work are disconnected, the people doing that work carry the load of connecting them. That takes time and attention away from journalism, and it means decisions get made with an incomplete picture.

Three editorial teams went through the work of fixing that. Each started from a different breaking point, and what they built reflects how differently these problems can show up in practice.

Getting the Right Content to the Right Audience at the Right Time

At Heise Medien, the challenge wasn't primarily about systems. It was about editorial strategy. With multiple brands publishing under one shared digital product, heise+, each team planned independently. That independence meant no shared view of what was being published when, which topics were being over or under-served, and whether the overall content mix was landing with audiences.

As Jan Mahn, Deputy Editor at Heise, put it, "We have introduced Kordiam to plan our stories, and our goal is to have better control of when and what."

Having a shared plan was a strong first step. But knowing what to publish next requires more than visibility into the schedule. It requires knowing what is already working. Through a prototype built together with Upscore and Kordiam, article views and subscription conversions now appear as a dedicated column directly within the Kordiam planning view. Editors can see that data without leaving their planning environment, and can open Upscore for deeper analysis with a single click.

The shift this enables is strategic, not just operational. Editors can see whether their content mix is delivering, adjust upcoming plans based on what is resonating, and make decisions about timing and topic priorities with real evidence rather than instinct alone. 

Click here to read the case study.

Eliminating the Manual Work That Shouldn't Exist

At Madsack's Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland, the problem was more immediate. Editors were working across Kordiam, Arc XP, and EidosMedia with no connection between them. The same information had to be entered into all three platforms separately, which created a steady drain on editorial time and attention that had nothing to do with journalism.

Missed updates, inconsistent data, and unnecessary delays were a predictable result. Editorial teams were spending real time on manual handoffs that should never have been manual in the first place.

Jambit built middleware to connect all three systems, using Kordiam's message queue so no event gets lost. When a story is created or updated in Kordiam, the assigned author, deadline, and agreed text length are automatically pushed through to Arc XP. When a story is ready for print, editors trigger an export from Kordiam and receive direct feedback in the interface as it moves to EidosMedia. As Robert Müller from Jambit described it: "If there's some breaking news, you can just trigger a workflow in Arc, and we create a Kordiam element from this story."

Read the case study here.

Making a Complex Stack of Legacy and Modern Tools Actually Work Together

Der Standard is a digital-first media house with a strong print legacy, and by 2023 that history had left its mark on their infrastructure. The newsroom was running separate workflows for print and online, with isolated editorial planning tools and no integration between them. Duplication and delays were built into the system by design.

The challenge was that they had too many tools, accumulated over time, that couldn't communicate with each other. Building point-to-point integrations between each one would have been expensive, brittle, and hard to maintain as the stack evolved.

Instead, Der Standard's engineering team built a custom integration hub using Kordiam's message queue. The hub acts as a decision-making layer that listens to signals from Kordiam and their CMS, Livingdocs, and coordinates the right response across their DAM, print layout software, and proofreading systems. When something changes in one system, the hub determines what needs to happen elsewhere and pushes updates accordingly. No manual transfers, no duplicate entry, no chasing status across platforms.

The practical impact shows up in moments that used to require significant coordination. Once a story is marked as proofread, the hub triggers a chain of actions: updating the publication status, logging the responsible editor, capturing a snapshot for print, and notifying layout systems. What previously involved multiple manual steps across multiple tools now happens automatically.

As Mario Naito, Head of Systems Design Engineering at Der Standard, described it, Kordiam remains the central cockpit. Editors see all story statuses and system links in one place and don't have to jump between tools. Every department, from planning to layout, works from the same source of truth.

Critically, the hub also keeps legacy systems in the loop without requiring costly API development. Legacy tools receive updates through endpoints at the hub rather than direct integrations, which means the newsroom didn't have to replace systems that still worked, just connect them properly.

Read the case study here.

What These Three Cases Have in Common

Each of these projects started from a different editorial problem. Heise needed a better way to make strategic decisions about content timing and mix. Madsack needed to eliminate the manual overhead of managing three disconnected systems. Der Standard needed a way to make a complex, accumulated stack of legacy and modern editorial tools work together without rebuilding it from scratch.

What connects them is that the friction each team was experiencing was structural, built into the way their workflows were set up. And in each case, the fix was specific to where that friction was actually happening.

For newsrooms looking at their own setup, that's the right place to start by identifying where the work is actually breaking down, and working backwards from there.