Design Systems 101

“The biggest issue with Design Systems is with the uptake in them”

“Design systems solve an issue but are undermined by a lack of communication between the stakeholders”

“It’s ok, but we find there are still inconsistencies that slip through the gaps”

— Quotes from real world designers

History

Design systems as we know them in Tech Based product teams have been around since the early 2010’s with Google’s Material Design bringing the concepts of Atomic Design into the mainstream amongst product teams. But the need to have a strong brand and product identity that could be codified and used repeatedly is much older, NASA’s 1975 “Graphics Standard Manual” a highly illustrative example of this.

As software products moved from the desktop to the cloud, and the reach of these products became so much broader, it became clear that standardising the development of products to ensure a consistent, delightful, user experience was of paramount importance.

The Promise of Design Systems

Before we dive into the challenges, let’s take a moment to appreciate why design systems became so popular in the first place. Design systems promise:

1. Consistency across products and platforms

2. Improved collaboration between designers and developers

3. Scalability for growing products and teams

4. A shared language for product teams

These benefits are compelling, which is why so many organizations have invested in creating and maintaining design systems. However, as with any tool or process, the reality often falls short of the ideal.

3 Reasons They Aren’t Working:

1. Too much documentation

Documentation is one of the key benefits of utilising Design Systems in your product, but does having too much result in a negative experience? Our research illustrates that an average designer does not get a consistent experience with regards to documentation, either there is far too much or not enough (if at all) leading to confusion and removing a lot of the repeatable benefits of employing the design system. Duplicate sources of truth with different adherence between teams can lead to version control limbo.

How many times have you heard “We should document this”, “Where is the documentation for that”?

Who has the time to read documentation? Certainly not a developer or designer. We learn by best by doing and repeating habits. Too much documentation can lead to bloat, confusion and even duplication of information, often contradicting!

The challenge here is striking the right balance. Too little documentation, and team members are left guessing. Too much, and they’re drowning in information, unable to find what they need quickly. It’s not just about quantity, but also about organization and accessibility.

2. Who owns them?

On that point, who owns the Design System? Our research found that when a business hits a certain size, around 2000 headcount and above, there tends to be a prioritisation of the design consistency of the product and there will be a Design Systems team stood up. But what about smaller teams? Just because the org is 500 headcount doesn’t make the product necessarily less complex.

So in this case, do designers share the load? Does this happen equally? How do we make sure that what is currently in production matches what we are building in the design phase? It appears these experiences vary wildly depending on the team’s focus on design consistency and the businesses willingness to support these endeavours with the necessary investment.

This ownership question goes beyond just maintenance. It’s about championing the system, evolving it as the product grows, and ensuring it remains relevant and useful. Without clear ownership, design systems can quickly become outdated or ignored.

3. How do we cost effectively maintain them?

And that leads to the last point, design systems are notoriously hard to associate with an ROI. We all know what it feels like, the team is working better together, the sprints finish on time and feedback from customers is constantly improving. But how do we *measure* this? Is it time saved? Is it greater adoption from design to production? Is it customer conversion?

The challenge of quantifying the value of a design system often leads to underinvestment. Teams may struggle to justify the resources needed for proper maintenance and evolution of the system, leading to a vicious cycle where the system becomes less useful over time, further reducing its perceived value.

The Real-World Impact

These challenges don’t exist in a vacuum. They have real consequences for product teams and, ultimately, for users. Some of the effects we’ve observed include:

1. Inconsistent user experiences: When a design system is not maintained or prioritised, it collects dust, becomes redundant and a waste of time and effort. Read more about that here.

2. Slower development cycles: Ironically, a poorly maintained or overly complex design system can slow teams down rather than speed them up. Read more about that here.

3. Frustrated team members: Designers and developers can become disillusioned with a design system that’s more of a hindrance than a help. Read more about that here.

4. Wasted resources: The time and money invested in creating and attempting to maintain an ineffective design system represent a significant opportunity cost. Read more about that here.

Is There Another Way?

Given these challenges, it’s natural to ask if there’s a better approach. While design systems still offer significant benefits when implemented well, there are alternative strategies that teams can consider:

1. Modular design approaches: Instead of a monolithic design system, some teams are finding success with more flexible, modular approaches that allow for greater customization.

2. AI-assisted design tools: Emerging AI technologies are beginning to offer ways to maintain consistency without relying solely on static design systems.

3. Continuous integration for design: Applying CI/CD principles to design processes can help ensure that the design system stays in sync with the actual product.

Looking Forward

At Membrain, we’re tackling these challenges head-on. We believe that the future of design systems lies in:

1. Smart documentation: Using AI to create and maintain documentation that’s always up-to-date and easily searchable.

2. Automated consistency checks: Tools that can automatically detect and flag inconsistencies between the design system and the live product.

3. Quantifiable metrics: Developing clear, measurable KPIs for design system effectiveness that tie directly to business outcomes.

4. Adaptive systems: Design systems that can learn and evolve based on how they’re actually used in practice.

We’re excited about the potential of these approaches to address the current shortcomings of design systems and create more effective, efficient product development processes.

This is something we are looking into at Membrain and we think we have a few ideas. If you’d like to connect and discuss further, you can register your interest today. Look forward to hearing from you!