One semester and a lot of learnings
A self-interview to reflect on my first project work
In the Master’s programme Content Strategy at FH Joanneum Graz, each semester includes a project work, a longer piece of applied research done with or for a real client. You define the problem, choose the methods and produce something that’s actually useful to the company. It’s where theory meets practice.
For my first project work, I developed a LinkedIn launch strategy for a small, highly specialised technical consulting firm. The company operates in B2B, works with industrial clients and (when we started) had almost no digital presence at all. My work included a card sorting workshop to build a message architecture, a structured competitor analysis of LinkedIn posts and a set of practical recommendations including an editorial calendar.
Beyond the academic project, I’m continuing to work with the company. Supporting their communication, content production and design. You can find the project showcase here.
Why analog? And what did the card sorting workshop produce?
A message architecture defines and prioritises the key communication goals of a company, it clarifies how a brand wants to be perceived. Guided by questions like: who are we, who are we not, who would we like to be? The output is a prioritised list of communication attributes that acts as a shared reference for anyone creating or approving content. To build it, I ran a half-day card sorting workshop where participants sorted adjectives into four categories, grouped the results into themes and prioritised them to form the final architecture.
Running the workshop with physical cards on a whiteboard (rather than a digital tool) turned out to be a good decision. There’s something about moving things around by hand that keeps people present and makes choices feel real. People changed their minds, crossed things out and started over. It felt like an actual conversation about the company. The most useful moments came from the disagreements. When two participants understood the same word quite differently, those small tensions turned into the clearest insights, that’s where the brand character became something concrete.
One thing I’d do differently: I ran the workshop in English, because the company works internationally. But for this kind of exercise, German would have worked better. When you’re trying to describe something you feel about your own company, your mother tongue is simply more precise.
The competitor analysis didn’t go as planned, and that turned out to be useful
Three companies from the same industry were selected. Five LinkedIn posts per competitor were evaluated across six criteria: engaging, depth and breadth, audience, format, purpose and imagery.
I expected to find good examples to learn from. Instead, most companies in the space were communicating less strategically than expected (inconsistent posts, unclear purpose, missing calls to action).
That changed the focus of the analysis. Instead of a list of best practices, it became a map of gaps. And gaps are actually more useful: they show exactly where you can do better.
Where the scope grew, and what I’d do differently
The original scope covered a message architecture and a competitor analysis. During the project, content principles, content types and a full editorial calendar were added.
Each step felt like the logical next one (and it probably was). But the project grew more than planned, and I didn’t always manage that consciously. Next time, I want to name it clearly when something goes beyond the original deliverable and decide intentionally whether to include it. That’s something I’ll do differently in the second project.