The Promise and Peril of Design Systems
Design systems are everywhere. Every company with more than a handful of designers seems to be building one. LinkedIn posts about component libraries get thousands of likes. Conference talks about tokens and governance fill auditoriums.
But here's what those posts don't tell you: most design systems fail. Not catastrophically, but quietly. They become outdated. They grow inconsistent. They become more burden than benefit.
After building and maintaining design systems for products serving thousands of users, I've learned what separates successful systems from well-intentioned failures.
Build vs. Adopt: The First Decision
Before writing a single line of code or creating a single component, you need to answer a fundamental question: should you build your own design system, or adopt an existing one?
When to Build
Build your own when:
- Your product has unique requirements that existing systems can't accommodate
- You have the resources to maintain it long-term (and this is more than you think)
- Design is a competitive advantage for your business
- You need deep integration with your specific tech stack
When to Adopt
Adopt existing systems when:
- You're moving fast and can't afford the upfront investment
- Your needs are common and well-served by existing tools
- Your team is small and maintenance would be burdensome
- You want community support and regular updates
There's no shame in using Material Design, Chakra UI, or Ant Design. These are battle-tested systems maintained by large teams. Competing with them requires significant resources.
Component Philosophy: Atoms to Organisms
If you do build, you'll need a component philosophy. Most systems follow some variation of atomic design: atoms combine to form molecules, which combine to form organisms.
The Atomic Model
Atoms - Base elements like colors, typography, spacing, icons Molecules - Simple combinations like input fields, buttons with icons Organisms - Complex combinations like forms, cards, navigation
This model is popular because it's intuitive. But it has limitations.
Where Atomic Design Breaks Down
Real products don't neatly follow atomic hierarchies. A "card" organism in one context might be a "molecule" in another. Strict categorization creates confusion and unnecessary debates about classification.
A More Pragmatic Approach
I've found it more useful to organize by function rather than atomic level:
Primitives - The unchanging base: colors, spacing, typography scales Components - Reusable UI elements: buttons, inputs, dropdowns Patterns - Combinations that solve specific problems: forms, data tables, navigation Templates - Page-level layouts that combine patterns
This organization focuses on how things are used rather than how they're constructed.
Documentation That Gets Used
The best components in the world are useless if nobody knows how to use them. Documentation is where most design systems fall short.
What Good Documentation Includes
For each component:
- When to use it (and when not to)
- All available variants and when each applies
- Props/options and what they control
- Accessibility considerations
- Real usage examples from the product
For the system overall:
- Getting started guides for new team members
- Contribution guidelines for adding to the system
- Decision logs explaining why things are the way they are
Make It Searchable
Documentation nobody can find is documentation that doesn't exist. Invest in search. Make common terms discoverable. Add synonyms (button vs. CTA vs. action).
Keep It Next to the Code
Documentation that lives separately from components becomes outdated. The best systems generate documentation from the component code itself, ensuring they stay in sync.
Governance Without Bureaucracy
Here's where design systems often go wrong: they become bureaucracies. Every change requires committee approval. Innovation slows to a crawl. The system becomes a cage rather than a foundation.
The Governance Spectrum
Too Loose: Anyone can add or modify components. The system fragments into competing versions. Consistency evaporates.
Too Tight: Every change requires extensive approval. The system can't keep up with product needs. Teams build workarounds.
Finding the Balance
The best systems I've worked with use a tiered approach:
Core primitives (high governance): Colors, typography, spacing -these change rarely and affect everything. Changes require broad review.
Common components (medium governance): Buttons, inputs, cards -these are used widely. Changes require owner approval and migration plans.
Domain-specific patterns (lower governance): Components specific to one product area. Domain teams have more autonomy.
Clear Ownership
Every component should have an owner. Not a committee -a person. Someone responsible for its quality, documentation, and evolution. Ownership creates accountability.
Measuring Design System ROI
Leadership inevitably asks: "Is this design system worth the investment?" You need metrics.
Quantitative Metrics
Adoption rate: What percentage of the product uses system components vs. custom implementations? Consistency score: How many visual inconsistencies exist across the product? Development speed: How long does it take to build new features? Is it decreasing? Bug rate: Are component-related bugs decreasing over time?
Qualitative Metrics
Designer satisfaction: Do designers find the system helpful or restrictive? Developer satisfaction: Do developers prefer using system components? Onboarding speed: How quickly do new team members become productive?
The Honest Answer
Design systems are infrastructure investments. Like roads, their value is enabling other things rather than delivering direct outcomes. The ROI is real but indirect.
Don't oversell. "The design system saves us X hours per week" is usually an estimate, not a measurement. Better to focus on qualitative improvements and trust that infrastructure investment pays off over time.
The Evolution Challenge
Design systems are never done. Products evolve. Design trends change. Tech stacks shift. The system must evolve with them.
Versioning
Semantic versioning (major.minor.patch) works well for design systems:
- Patch: Bug fixes, small tweaks
- Minor: New components or variants, backward-compatible
- Major: Breaking changes that require migration
Clear versioning helps teams plan updates and understand impact.
Migration Paths
When components change significantly, provide migration paths. Don't just announce "Button v2 is out." Provide:
- What changed and why
- Migration guide from v1 to v2
- Deprecation timeline for v1
- Support during transition
Avoiding Breaking Changes
The best design systems rarely have breaking changes. They achieve this by:
- Designing components flexibly from the start
- Using composition over configuration
- Adding new options rather than changing existing ones
- Deprecating gradually rather than removing abruptly
Common Mistakes
Having made many mistakes myself, here are the most common:
Building Too Much Too Soon
Don't try to systematize everything immediately. Build components as you need them. Let patterns emerge naturally before codifying them.
Ignoring Contribution Friction
If it's hard to contribute to the system, people won't. They'll build custom implementations instead. Make contribution easy, documented, and rewarding.
Optimizing for Consistency Over Utility
Consistency matters, but not at the expense of utility. A perfectly consistent system that doesn't serve product needs is worthless.
Underestimating Maintenance
Building a design system is maybe 30% of the work. Maintaining it -fixing bugs, updating documentation, supporting users, evolving components -is the other 70%.
The Long Game
Design systems are marathons, not sprints. The ones that succeed are maintained consistently over years. They adapt to changing needs. They serve their users rather than constraining them.
If you're starting a design system, begin small. Solve real problems. Build trust gradually. Invest in documentation and governance from the start.
If you're maintaining one, protect your resources. Don't let scope creep consume your capacity. Focus on quality over quantity. Remember that your job is to enable others, not to build the perfect system.
Design systems are tools. The best tools feel invisible -they just work. That's the goal.
What's your experience with design systems? Have you built one, used one, or struggled with one? I'd love to hear your story.