Choosing Between Reuse And Rebuild For Tight DXP Delivery Timelines

Introduction

You're weeks away from launch. The platform isn't ready. And every event stakeholder wants their brand experience to feel completely unique.

Do you start from scratch and build a pristine platform in theory, risking delays, instability, and scope creep? Or do you double down on what already works, reusing proven components with smart modifications to meet the moment?

This is the pressure cooker where real digital delivery happens, and where architecture stops being a blueprint and starts being a business advantage.

At Axelerant, we recently faced exactly this challenge: multiple branded event sites to launch, a tight timeline, and zero room for technical missteps. The easy thing would’ve been to start over. But the right thing was to reuse with intent and deliver on time without compromise.

Here’s how our team navigated this critical decision point, and why that choice became a launch strategy, an architecture playbook, and a future-proofing framework all in one.

The Use Case: One Platform, Many Brands, No Time To Lose

The platform we were building had a singular goal: support multiple high-profile event websites, each with its own unique identity. These weren’t simple color swaps; each microsite required distinct:

• Themes
• Logos
• Global navigation structures
• Content experiences
  

And while every site had to feel unique, they also needed to:

• Operate under a unified platform umbrella
• Share backend logic and content structures
• Empower non-technical editors to launch, manage, and evolve event pages independently

There was no appetite for “technical debt by default” or compromises in user experience. Yet, timelines dictated that traditional rebuild approaches wouldn't cut it.

What we needed was a way to deliver brand differentiation at scale, without bloating the platform or compromising governance.

Two Competing Paths: Clean Slate Or Controlled Reuse?

We evaluated two technically valid options and stress-tested them across dimensions like effort, risk, governance, and maintainability.

Method A: Clone + Clean + Re-theme

Instead of rebuilding, this option cloned an existing, successful Drupal platform:

• Duplicate the full codebase and database
• Strip out irrelevant content and functionality
• Retain useful Site Studio configurations, paragraphs, content types, and backend logic
• Re-theme the frontend to support new brand requirements
• Extend with custom logic to support race-specific branding
  
  

Benefits:

• Quicker setup using a known-good system
• Minimized integration risk, as proven logic and editorial interfaces were preserved
• Faster development of customizations on top of stable structures
  
  

Risks:

• Requires effort to clean up unnecessary modules, fields, and content
• Inherited some technical debt, which needed refactoring
• Branding logic had to be modularized for flexibility without interfering with core content types

Method B: Fresh Build + Config Import

This approach meant starting from scratch:

• Launching a fresh Drupal installation
• Manually importing selected Site Studio configurations
• Rebuilding the necessary content types, fields, and layout templates
• Designing new themes for the event sites from the ground up
  
  

Benefits:

• Clean base with no legacy code or modules
• More control over what gets included in the system
  
  

Risks:

• Config import in Drupal is often brittle, dependencies can break, tokens might be missing, and Site Studio configurations rarely travel cleanly
• Rebuilding tested components like layout templates, fields, and reusable UI elements would take significant time
• Potential for regression in key editorial workflows
  
  

This route gave the illusion of clarity, but came with the hidden cost of rebuilding what already worked, with no time buffer for refinement.

Ultimately, we chose Method A, not because it was easier, but because it was strategically smarter.

Our Architectural Solution: A Platform That Feels Like 10 Sites, But Isn’t

The core requirement, event-specific branding, was deceptively complex.

Each event needed its own distinct look and feel, but still operate as part of a shared DXP. This meant:

• Changing themes and logos per event
• Dynamic navigation per microsite
• Subpages inheriting navigation and brand elements from their parent event
  
  

To solve this, we introduced an architectural pattern that respected both editorial simplicity and backend robustness.

How We Engineered It

1. Node-Level Metadata For Branding Control: We stored brand-specific data (theme, logo, navigation config) at the event node level. This gave editors a single point of control without needing to touch theme settings or templates.
2. Custom Module For Branding Logic Inheritance: A custom-built Drupal module read the metadata from the parent event node and applied branding logic dynamically to every subpage. This handled:

• Theme overrides
• Logo switching
• Navigation rewrites

This logic extended the platform without altering core components, ensuring maintainability and upgrade resilience.

3. Site Studio for Layout Governance: Site Studio was leveraged to build modular, drag-and-drop layouts that respected brand contexts. Editors could use shared components with race-specific styling automatically applied, no reconfiguration needed per event.

The result? A platform that looked like 10 different branded experiences, but was actually a tightly governed, scalable Drupal system under the hood.

The Outcome: On-Time Launch. Zero Brand Compromise.

Despite the aggressive deadline, the platform was launched:

• On time, with all key features fully functional
• With event-level branding precision, including dynamic navigation and themes
• On a unified architecture, simplifying deployment, QA, and governance
• With a future-ready framework, enabling new events to be added with minimal effort

The team not only met delivery goals, they established a pattern that the client could reuse across future initiatives.

Lessons for Digital Leaders

Here’s what this project reinforced, lessons applicable across any high-pressure DXP build.

1. Reuse Isn’t A Shortcut, It’s A Strategy.

Thoughtful reuse of existing architecture gave us a foundation we could trust. It eliminated risks common in fresh builds, unproven workflows, immature components, and undefined editorial boundaries. By reusing selectively and surgically, we accelerated delivery without sacrificing long-term platform health.

2. Drupal + Site Studio Unlock Scalable Governance.

This pairing empowered developers to build once, and editors to use often. Instead of duplicating effort across microsites, we created a centralized governance model where layouts and components adjusted dynamically based on context, an ideal blend of control and flexibility.

3. Predictability Trumps Theoretical Efficiency.

The perceived cleanliness of a fresh build was outweighed by the predictable effort path of a clone-and-clean approach. We knew what to expect from the legacy platform, and we built a plan around that familiarity. In pressure scenarios, what’s predictable is often what’s best.

4. Branding Flexibility Doesn’t Require Platform Sprawl.

Instead of spinning up a new Drupal instance per event, we used contextual logic to serve distinct branding experiences from a single platform. This kept deployment simple, testing manageable, and long-term maintenance sane.

5. Small, Sharp Custom Modules Unlock Big Impact.

It took less than 500 lines of code to transform how branding logic was inherited. Sometimes, the right custom module is the difference between manual overhead and seamless experience scaling.

6. Build For Today, But Architect For Tomorrow.

We weren’t just building a website; we were building a pattern. One that could handle dozens of events in the future. The architectural decisions made here will enable faster launches, reduced QA cycles, and stronger governance for years to come.

From Fast Launches To Future-Proof Platforms: Why Strategic Reuse Wins

Every DXP build under pressure will come to a crossroads: reuse or rebuild? What this story shows is that reuse, when architected with intent, doesn’t mean compromise; it means faster time-to-value, lower risk, and higher platform maturity.

If you’re launching multisite digital experiences and want branding agility without platform chaos, start by looking at what you already have. Then, ask the right architectural questions.

Because when timelines shrink and expectations rise, your architecture is your advantage. Contact the Axelerant team to learn more about how you can best utilize your existing architecture.