The Fallacy of Federated Design Systems | by Nathan Curtis | Sep, 2024 | Medium

Six months back, the design system team disbanded. In its place, a “federated model” of design and engineering staff (none relieved of other responsibilities) was designated to drive design system progress. Yet, the system stalled. Assets are aging. Trust is shaken. Heads are scratched as everyone wonders what to do. Putting a prospective project at risk, I bluntly responded “Well, you deallocated people responsible for doing the work. What did you expect?” In 2015, I established three models of forming teams for scaling design systems: solitary, central, and federated. The article progressed through each, scoffing at solitary, considering central, and favoring federated based on the section’s positioning and proportional length. Since then, design system practitioners throughout our community (see articles as examples below) have leveraged and extended the models to frame thinking, promote opportunities, and sell stakeholders on how and why to pursue systems in a federated way. Favori

Six months back, the design system team disbanded. In its place, a “federated model” of design and engineering staff (none relieved of other responsibilities) was designated to drive design system progress. Yet, the system stalled. Assets are aging. Trust is shaken. Heads are scratched as everyone wonders what to do. Putting a prospective project at risk, I bluntly responded “Well, you deallocated people responsible for doing the work. What did you expect?” In 2015, I established three models of forming teams for scaling design systems: solitary, central, and federated. The article progressed