The Crux of Design Systems
Balancing structure and flexibility in any company
Design systems are often heralded as the glue that holds a company’s design efforts together, providing consistency and scalability across products. But in large-scale companies, the very thing that is meant to streamline can, at times, become a crux—a framework so rigid it begins to stifle creativity, slow progress, or even mask deeper, more fundamental problems within the organization. Yet, this isn’t to say design systems are inherently flawed. On the contrary, they are a necessary tool, especially in environments where designers and developers work across complex, multifaceted products. The issue arises when the design system becomes the focus rather than the enabler, shifting attention from improving the user experience to maintaining rigid adherence to the system.
In large companies, design systems promise the allure of efficiency. They create a shared language between designers and developers, smoothing out collaboration and ensuring consistency. However, this promise can falter when design system teams are not fully in sync with product teams. It’s not uncommon to see friction arise because the design system evolves at a slower pace than the speed of product or business development. Product managers, in their pursuit of “quick wins” and “rapid tests,” can sometimes resist using the design system, arguing that it slows them down or complicates fast experiments. And when these quick experiments fail, the blame often circles back to the design system being non-compliant or too rigid, leading teams to roll back changes that don’t align with the system’s guidelines.
The speed at which business moves can feel like a sprint compared to the slower, deliberate evolution of a design system. While the design system team may be focused on ensuring every new component or rule is polished and thought through, product teams might be scrambling to meet deadlines or capitalize on a market opportunity. This difference in pace creates tension. Product teams may feel constrained by the system, and instead of the design system being a helpful tool, it can feel like an added layer of effort they must work around. This isn’t about neglecting the importance of consistency; it’s about recognizing that flexibility is equally vital in a fast-paced environment.
What complicates the matter further is the way design systems are often placed on a pedestal—viewed as an untouchable entity, something so precious that deviating from it becomes an organizational taboo. Teams can find themselves in an awkward situation, balancing the need for rapid product iterations with the expectation to adhere to the system. When the design system becomes too revered, it can paralyze decision-making, where every deviation is scrutinized, and every experiment must first pass through the lens of compliance. This approach, though well-intentioned, can slow down progress and, at its worst, turn the design system into a bottleneck rather than a facilitator of innovation.
The reality is that in large organizations, a design system cannot anticipate every possible use case or future need. There will be times when product teams need to break away from the system to experiment and adapt quickly. But this doesn’t mean that the system itself is failing. It simply means that the system must evolve, growing alongside the products and users it aims to serve. If teams are rolling back changes because they’re not “DS-compliant,” it may indicate that the system has reached a point where it is too rigid to accommodate the speed of business.
None of this is to say that design systems are not valuable. They remain critical for ensuring a cohesive user experience and reducing redundancy across teams. But when a system is put too high on a pedestal, it risks becoming disconnected from the realities of product development. A good design system should enable teams, not control them. It should offer guidelines but leave room for flexibility, for experimentation, and for those moments when the system needs to be questioned or adapted.
In the end, the role of a design system in a large-scale company is to support innovation while maintaining a sense of cohesion. It should be the tool that empowers product teams to move quickly without sacrificing quality, but it should also be flexible enough to evolve with the changing needs of the business. It’s about balance—creating a system that holds everything together without becoming a burden, a system that is both respected and adaptable. When this balance is struck, a design system can truly fulfill its potential, serving as the foundation for growth, not the crux that slows it down.