The research carried out had the objective to find additional means of income for the Hague Justice Portal (HJP), a website owned by the Hague Academic Coalition (HAC) which is composed of eight different members. The increasing dissatisfaction felt at the HAC (members) and the municipality of The Hague regarding the HJP’s failure to find other means of income, besides the funding from its members and the municipality, was the stimulus for this research. Several issues surround this objective with the main factors being the following; the HAC members have the feeling that the HJP adds little value to their organization, thus they provide little support. This leads to a level of inactivity resulting in the HJP having a static business model, resulting in no success of finding additional means of income. Furthermore the current subsidy to the HAC stops by the end of 2011 and how or if it is continued remains unknown. The HAC members are not the only stakeholders for finding additional means of income, the total network of content suppliers, funding agencies, visitors, technology providers and advertisers need to be considered to achieve this objective. For this reason the following research question has been raised and answered: How can a business model for the Hague Justice Portal be designed which fits and meets the constraints and objectives, and is feasible? After carrying out the stakeholders-, external business- and visitor analysis it followed that advertisers are most eligible to meet the goal of finding additional income. Visitors are unlikely to be a source of income since the majority are either still studying, doing an internship or just started a job and thus have little budget to spend. More so since the most popular services for this user group are the vacancies and event calendar, which can also be found elsewhere for free, although some aggregating needs to be done. Visitors have shown to be interested in certain parts of the HJP, and not use the HJP as a total product which greatly reduces chances of making them pay. Public organizations need to lower their expenditure, thus also for subsidizing organizations, and rather focus on cooperation. By understanding the limitations surrounding HJP, it became possible to develop design options with the intention to find income but also to enhance the HJP, acting as a catalyst for the income generating design options. A clear distinction could be seen between the design options requiring or benefiting from a new Content Management System (CMS) and those who didn’t. For many of the HJP improvement design options, not only the HAC (members) would benefit, on the contrary, those benefiting the most are the other stakeholders. This on itself is no problem once accepted that the HJP is there for the visitors who may also be the HAC (members) itself. Instead of pushing the HJP onto the market the demand from the various (paying) stakeholders should be central. The distinction between the design options led to the development of three scenarios; 1) keep the current CMS and do little with advertisements, 2) keep the current CMS and maximize advertisement income and 3) get a new CMS and realign the business and IT in order to achieve the objective of generating additional income. Scenario 1 will result in support dropping of visitor numbers within 1 to 2 years and possibly lead to the closure of the HJP. Scenario 2 (estimated yearly costs 108.750,-) tries to maximize advertisement income (estimated 15.000,-) by catering to advertiser demands but also by doing so for the visitors, the HAC (members) and the HJP. Although income generation will be likely, this will be depended on the amount of action undertaken by the HJP and HAC (members). Scenario 3 (estimated yearly and investments costs 100.150,- and 33.000,-) is the most desirable state since for the HJP when decided upon can last for several years and tackle many of the issues found and should lead to additional income (estimated 27.500,-) and added value for the HAC (members). Discontinuing the HJP will result in a tremendous drop in expenditure for the HAC, several pleased HAC members as they will no longer be required to fund the HJP and support for the HAC from the municipality of The Hague will go down. If the HJP wants to generate more income, the HJP, its editors, the HAC and its members will need, to adjust the mainly academic focus and also include a more commercial one. It is unlikely that HAC (members) would like to commit themselves of taking the step towards scenario 3 at once, considering the uncertainty of income being generated, them receiving added value, the commencement of the new Institute of Global Justice and the continuation of the subsidy from the municipality of The Hague. Instead a process is recommend by implementing the recommendations of scenario 2, and together with more clarity of the uncertainties and risks, use the outcome of this process as input for a ‘go / no go’ decision moment. Knowledge gathered prior to this moment could be used as input for a new HJP once a decision has been made. Other options besides continuing with scenario 3 are to continue in a ‘lighter’ version requiring less budget, cooperate with the IGJ or to stop.