Design system governance models help organizations manage and maintain design systems across teams and products. There are three popular models — Solitary, Centralized, and Federated — each offer different approaches to how design systems are governed within an organization.

This article provides an overview of all three models and offers practical tips on how to make the most of them.

Solitary model (Standalone)

In the solitary model, each team, project, or department creates and maintains its own design system independently.

Benefits

• Autonomy: Teams can move quickly and design for their unique needs without waiting for approvals or alignment.
• High level of customization: Each team can create a design system tailored to the specific needs of their product or service.
• Quick iteration: Changes can be implemented without the need to coordinate with other teams.

Downsides

• Inconsistency: The lack of a unified system can lead to inconsistent user experiences across products and brands.
• Duplication of effort: Teams may end up solving the same problems in different ways, wasting resources.
• Lack of scalability: As the organization grows, maintaining multiple systems becomes inefficient and difficult to manage.
• Limited collaboration: Teams may not benefit from the innovations or lessons learned by other teams within the organization.

When to use and when to avoid solitary model

Solitary models work well for smaller organizations or teams with a limited scope. If each product or team has distinct design needs, a solitary approach can provide the flexibility to adapt quickly. For startups or teams just starting to develop their design systems, this model allows them to iterate quickly without needing formalized, cross-team processes.

However, when teams grow, maintaining separate design systems can become inefficient, so this model can lead to inconsistencies across products or departments. If the organization offers multiple products under the same brand, the solitary model may result in a fragmented user experience, where different products feel disconnected from one another.

How to make the most of solitary model

• Establish clear foundational standards: While each team has independence, establish baseline design principles and standards that every team should follow to ensure some level of cohesion across products.
• Document key design decisions: Each team should document their design system clearly and make it accessible to others. This ensures future alignment and reduces the risk of inconsistency.
• Encourage knowledge sharing: Host regular cross-team syncs or design reviews where teams can present their design choices and discuss shared challenges.

Centralized model

In the centralized model, a single team (often a DesignOps) is responsible for creating, managing, and governing the design system. All teams within the organization must use this system.

Benefits

• Consistency: The centralized model ensures a uniform design language and experience across all products and platforms.
• Scalability: As the organization grows, the centralized team can maintain and evolve the design system to meet broader needs.
• Quality control: A central team ensures adherence to standards, best practices, and quality benchmarks.

Downsides:

• Bottlenecks: The centralized team can become a bottleneck for requests, slowing down individual teams that need changes or new components.
• Limited customization: Teams with unique needs may find the centralized system too rigid or slow to adapt to their specific requirements.
• Resource intensive: Managing a centralized system requires dedicated resources, and the centralized team must balance the needs of the entire organization.

When to use and when to avoid centralized model

If brand consistency and uniformity in the user experience across multiple products or platforms are top priorities, a centralized model ensures adherence to a common design language. Centralized model will also help reuse design components and code, which is particularly useful for organizations looking to optimize resource allocation and avoid redundant work.

Despite all the advantages this model has, it’s not a one-fits-all solution. If teams require significant autonomy to innovate or customize design solutions for their unique products, a centralized system may be too rigid and slow to adapt to specific needs. You cannot expect a quick reaction to rapid changes in the industry when using this model. In fast-moving organizations where agility is essential, the centralized model can become a bottleneck, especially if teams must wait for changes or new components from a central team.

How to make the most of centralized model

• Implement feedback loops: Create channels (e.g., Slack, design forums) for teams to provide feedback to the centralized team on what is working and what needs improvement. Run regular surveys and polls to collect feedback from design system users.

• Training and onboarding: Provide regular training and onboarding for new team members to ensure they understand the design system and its usage.

Federated Model

In the federated model, multiple teams contribute to and maintain the design system.

Benefits

• Balanced flexibility and consistency: Teams can customize components to fit their needs while still adhering to a common design language and guidelines.
• Shared ownership: Teams feel more invested in the design system, increasing adoption and engagement across the organization.

Downsides

• Complex governance: Managing contributions from multiple teams can be challenging, especially in ensuring that changes align with the overall system’s vision and standards.
• Coordination overhead: Teams must coordinate their efforts to avoid duplication, miscommunication, or conflicting updates.

When to use and when to avoid federated model

Federated model is great for organizations with multiple teams working on related products. Teams can contribute to the system while still maintaining some autonomy. If your company culture emphasizes collaboration and shared ownership across teams, the federated model empowers teams to contribute to the design system while ensuring alignment through governance.

At the same time, federated model is not recommended for small teams or early-stage startups. For small teams or organizations with limited resources, maintaining a federated model might add unnecessary complexity. It requires strong governance, processes, and alignment that may not be feasible for smaller teams.

How to make the most of federated model

• Define clear contribution guidelines: Define clear contribution process and guidelines to ensure that teams know how to propose changes, develop new components, or request updates to the design system.

• Appoint design system ambassadors: Identify representatives or ambassadors from each contributing team to act as liaisons with the central design system team, ensuring alignment and coordination.
• Promote reusability across teams: Encourage a culture of reusing components across teams to avoid duplication. Highlight successful implementations across different teams as examples.

Want to master your Product design skills?

Whether you’ve been working as a designer for years or are completely new to design, Designlab has programs and courses to help you take the next step in your design career. Check Advanced Figma courses to master your UI design skills.

Online UI and UX Design Courses and Bootcamps | Designlab

This post contains affiliate link(s)

Design System Governance Models was originally published in UX Planet on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.