When scaling a design system, choosing the right collaboration model is essential for managing growth and maintaining efficiency. The article outlines four main models, each suited to different team sizes, workflows, and organizational needs:

  • Centralized: A single team manages the system, ensuring consistency but risking bottlenecks as demand grows. Ideal for small teams or early-stage systems.
  • Federated: Responsibility is shared across teams, balancing oversight and flexibility. Best for larger organizations with multiple products.
  • Community-Driven: Open participation from all team members fosters engagement but requires strong governance to avoid inconsistencies. Works well for mature organizations with collaborative cultures.
  • Contribution: Teams actively develop components with structured processes, distributing workload and speeding up growth. Suitable for organizations with high request volumes.

Each model has unique trade-offs in collaboration, governance, scalability, and speed. Selecting the right approach depends on your organization’s size, maturity, and workload. Below is a quick comparison to help you decide.

Quick Comparison

Model Pros Cons Best For
Centralized Strong consistency, clear decision-making Bottlenecks, limited flexibility Small teams or early-stage systems
Federated Shared workload, promotes collaboration Risk of inconsistencies, requires coordination Larger teams managing multiple products
Community-Driven High engagement, diverse perspectives Slower decisions, needs strong governance Mature organizations with collaborative cultures
Contribution Speeds up growth, shared ownership Requires clear processes, structured oversight High-volume, fast-growing organizations

Your collaboration model should align with your team’s current needs while preparing for future growth.

In the file: Building a collaborative design system at scale

1. Centralized Model

The centralized model places full control in the hands of a single, dedicated design team. This team oversees the creation of components, establishes guidelines, maintains documentation, and approves updates, ensuring consistency across the entire organization.

Other teams - such as product, engineering, and design teams - primarily act as users rather than contributors. Any requests for new components or updates must go through this central team, making it the gatekeeper of the design system.

Collaboration Level

In this model, the core team drives all decisions, while other teams provide feedback or submit requests. This separation allows product teams to focus on their projects without worrying about maintaining design system standards. However, this structure can sometimes result in lower engagement from product teams, as they may feel disconnected from the system's development. The trade-off is clear: the organization gains consistency, but at the expense of diverse input. This dynamic is further reinforced by the governance structure's strict controls.

Governance Structure

Governance in the centralized model relies on a top-down approach. The core team establishes standards, reviews contributions, and has the final say on what gets added to the design system. While this hierarchy ensures clear roles and responsibilities, it can also create bottlenecks if the core team becomes overwhelmed or struggles to address organizational needs promptly.

Scalability Potential

This model is well-suited for small to medium-sized organizations where the core team can effectively manage the workload while maintaining quality and consistency. However, as the organization grows, the central team's capacity may become a limiting factor. When more product teams require components, updates, or support, the increased demand can lead to delays that stretch out for weeks. Recognizing these constraints often signals the need to transition to a more distributed approach.

Speed of Iteration

The speed of iteration in the centralized model depends on the efficiency of the core team. A small, focused team can make decisions quickly, but as demand increases, the workload may slow progress. This model prioritizes quality over speed, ensuring that every component meets established standards before deployment.

For highly specialized teams, such as Zee Palm, the centralized model enforces strict design standards across complex projects. However, as project volume and complexity grow, balancing centralized control with the flexibility needed for customization becomes increasingly challenging.

Ultimately, the centralized model excels at maintaining design consistency but may struggle to scale quickly as organizational demands increase.

2. Federated Model

The federated model shifts away from a centralized approach by distributing the responsibility for the design system across multiple teams. Instead of relying on a single dedicated group, this approach empowers individual teams to contribute components and updates, all while adhering to core guidelines established by a central oversight team.

In this setup, teams are seen as active collaborators. They focus on their specific projects while also playing a role in shaping and evolving the broader design system. This creates a shared sense of responsibility and collaboration across the organization. Let’s dive deeper into how this model fosters teamwork and maintains structure.

Collaboration Level

The federated model thrives on cross-functional collaboration. Teams from various parts of the organization actively contribute to the design system, promoting shared ownership and bringing in diverse perspectives. Regular coordination ensures that contributions align with the system's overall vision, allowing teams to make changes while staying within defined boundaries.

To prevent inconsistencies, clear guidelines are critical. These standards help maintain alignment across teams, even as each group addresses its unique needs. For organizations with multiple product lines, this model is particularly effective - solutions developed by one team can often be reused by others facing similar challenges, creating a ripple effect of shared knowledge and efficiency.

Governance Structure

Governance in the federated model strikes a balance between autonomy and oversight. A core team sets the overarching standards and guidelines, but individual teams retain the freedom to contribute within these parameters. This ensures consistency without stifling creativity or adaptability.

To maintain quality and coordination, organizations often rely on documented contribution processes, review boards, and regular audits. These tools help streamline efforts across teams and identify potential conflicts before they escalate. The governance structure needs to be robust enough to uphold standards while flexible enough to accommodate the varying needs of different teams. Clear documentation, well-defined review processes, and proper training are essential to ensure teams can contribute effectively.

Scalability Potential

One of the key strengths of the federated model is its ability to scale alongside organizational growth. By distributing the workload and tapping into the expertise of multiple teams, this approach allows the design system to adapt and evolve without overburdening a single group. As new teams join, the system can expand naturally, addressing diverse needs more effectively.

However, scalability relies heavily on strong governance and clear communication to prevent fragmentation. For organizations with fewer than 20 designers, this model is often manageable, but larger teams may struggle to maintain cohesion without more structured oversight. It’s also a practical choice for organizations testing the waters with design systems, as it requires minimal upfront investment and stakeholder buy-in.

Speed of Iteration

The federated model can significantly accelerate iteration by enabling multiple teams to work on different components simultaneously, bypassing the bottlenecks of centralized approval processes. This parallel approach allows the system to evolve faster than it would under a single-team model.

That said, the speed advantage depends on effective governance and communication. Without clear standards or proper coordination, teams risk delays or conflicting updates. Regular synchronization meetings are crucial to ensure everyone stays aligned and avoids duplicating efforts.

For example, teams like Zee Palm use the flexibility of the federated model to iterate quickly across various projects. By contributing directly to the design system while focusing on client deliverables, they can adapt to specific project needs without compromising overall consistency.

Success in this model hinges on establishing clear contribution guidelines from the start and ensuring all teams understand their roles within the larger system. When executed well, the federated model combines rapid iteration with consistent quality, even across multiple projects running in parallel.

3. Community-Driven Model

The community-driven model thrives on open participation, inviting contributions from anyone within the organization. Unlike centralized or federated models, which restrict input to a select group, this approach encourages designers, developers, product managers, and other stakeholders to suggest updates or introduce new components. By doing so, it transforms the design system into a dynamic, evolving platform shaped by continuous input - a bottom-up approach that fosters inclusivity and collaboration. This contrasts sharply with the controlled, hierarchical nature of centralized and federated systems.

Collaboration Level

Collaboration reaches its peak with the community-driven model. Everyone, regardless of their role, is encouraged to share ideas and insights, creating a rich mix of perspectives. This openness often leads to solutions and components that might not emerge from a smaller, more isolated team. A great example of this is GitLab's Pajamas design system. In 2023, GitLab allowed any team member to propose changes, a move that helped the system stay aligned with organizational needs. This open approach not only improved adoption but also enhanced satisfaction among product teams.

Governance Structure

While open participation is the cornerstone of this model, strong governance is crucial to ensure quality and consistency. Without clear oversight, the system could easily become fragmented. Typically, a group of maintainers or a dedicated committee reviews contributions to ensure they meet established standards. Proposals are discussed and refined collaboratively to maintain cohesion while encouraging innovation. For instance, in 2023, the Dutch Government adopted a "Relay Model" for their design system, enabling multiple teams to contribute through a structured review process. This ensured the system remained adaptable and effective for diverse needs. Transparent guidelines and clear review processes are vital for helping new contributors engage confidently while safeguarding the system's integrity.

Scalability Potential

The community-driven model's reliance on collective expertise makes it highly scalable. With more individuals and teams contributing, the system can quickly adapt to changing requirements without overloading a central team. However, this scalability depends on robust governance. Without proper oversight, there's a risk of inconsistency or fragmentation. To sustain growth, organizations must invest in thorough documentation, well-defined standards, and effective communication tools.

Speed of Iteration

This model's open nature accelerates idea generation but can slow down decision-making due to the need for consensus. While multiple contributors can quickly propose diverse solutions, reaching agreement often takes longer compared to models driven by a core team. For example, teams managing varied project types, like those at Zee Palm, benefit from the flexibility of this approach. It allows teams to address specific challenges while leveraging insights from across the organization. Striking the right balance between rapid innovation and rigorous review is key to maintaining both speed and quality. This trade-off is a defining feature of the community-driven model and highlights its unique dynamics compared to other collaboration methods.

4. Contribution Model

The contribution model takes collaboration to the next level by introducing structured ownership. This approach allows teams to actively shape and improve the design system, moving beyond just offering suggestions. Unlike the open-ended participation of a community-driven model, this method emphasizes structured participation, providing clear steps for implementation.

Collaboration Level

This model encourages teams to take an active role in building the system, not just brainstorming ideas. Teams are responsible for turning their concepts into reality, fostering a deeper sense of ownership and commitment to the system's success. Collaboration here goes beyond discussions - it involves hands-on development.

A great example is LaunchDarkly, which provides detailed documentation to guide contributors through the process. This support system ensures contributors have the confidence and resources to implement changes themselves, rather than merely submitting requests.

Governance Structure

To maintain quality and consistency, the contribution model relies on a well-defined governance system. Typically, a core team or committee oversees contributions, ensuring they align with the design system’s standards and principles. This balance is crucial as the system grows and serves diverse teams.

For instance, some organizations use structured review processes to ensure quality while fostering a collaborative culture. This approach not only keeps the system evolving efficiently but also promotes shared knowledge among contributors. Detailed guidelines and documentation are vital, enabling contributors to work independently while safeguarding the system’s integrity.

Scalability Potential

The contribution model shines when it comes to scaling. By distributing development work across teams, it ensures the design system can grow alongside the organization without overburdening a small core team. Unlike centralized models, this approach eliminates bottlenecks by tapping into the collective capacity of multiple teams.

That said, scalability depends on robust governance. Organizations need efficient review workflows, automated quality checks, and clear contribution paths to prevent fragmentation or inconsistency as the system expands.

Speed of Iteration

With contributions happening in parallel, this model speeds up the journey from concept to implementation. It’s especially effective for complex industries like AI, healthcare, and SaaS, where domain-specific needs must be addressed without compromising the system’s overall coherence. Teams can focus on contributions that directly impact their projects while benefiting the entire organization.

Clear and well-documented processes reduce friction, making it easier to integrate contributions quickly. When these systems function smoothly, teams can iterate faster while maintaining the quality and consistency that make design systems so valuable. This approach aligns with agile practices seen in federated models, ensuring efficient integration without sacrificing robustness.

Model Comparison: Advantages and Disadvantages

After breaking down the different models, let’s compare their strengths and weaknesses to help guide decisions on scaling your design system. Each model has its own trade-offs, making it suitable for different organizational needs.

Model Advantages Disadvantages Best For
Centralized Ensures strong consistency and quality control; Clear authority for decisions; Unified brand identity Can create bottlenecks; Limited flexibility; Struggles to scale with growth Small teams or early-stage design systems
Federated Reduces bottlenecks by distributing workload; Encourages innovation; Promotes collaboration through shared responsibility Risk of inconsistencies if guidelines aren’t strictly followed; Requires strong communication and coordination Larger teams managing multiple products
Community-Driven Boosts adoption and engagement; Brings in diverse perspectives; Encourages collective decision-making Hard to maintain consistency and quality; Slower decision-making; Needs robust governance Organizations with a mature, collaborative culture
Contribution Allows teams to contribute without overwhelming the core team; Speeds up system growth; Builds a culture of shared ownership Requires clear, documented review processes; Needs structured governance to ensure quality Organizations with high request volumes that exceed core team capacity

This table serves as a roadmap for aligning each model with your organization’s specific needs.

Collaboration and Governance

Collaboration levels vary widely across these models. The centralized approach offers low collaboration but excels in maintaining control and consistency. On the other end, community-driven models promote very high collaboration, though this often slows decision-making. Federated and contribution models strike a balance, offering high collaboration with a manageable level of governance overhead.

Governance structures also differ significantly. Centralized models rely on strict control by a single team, ensuring consistency but creating bottlenecks as organizations grow. In contrast, contribution-based governance allows broader participation while maintaining quality through structured processes.

Scalability and Speed

When it comes to scalability, centralized models tend to hit limits as demand increases. Federated and contribution models, however, excel at distributing workloads across multiple teams. Transparent contribution processes, like those seen in Nitro’s implementation, can balance growth and control by using simple tools like forms for token requests, fostering continuous improvements.

Speed of iteration isn't solely tied to the model but rather to process design. Centralized models can handle simple changes quickly but slow down with heavy request volumes. Clear documentation and streamlined review processes can help maintain speed even as demands grow.

Resource Considerations and Maturity

Resource needs depend heavily on team size and organizational maturity. Small teams can often succeed with minimal setups, while larger teams require dedicated resources, specialized tools, and formal governance structures. Startups typically benefit from centralized models early on, transitioning to federated or contribution models as their needs expand. A key sign that it’s time to shift is when the core team becomes overwhelmed with requests, signaling the need for a more scalable, collaborative approach.

Conclusion

When choosing a collaboration model for your design system, consider your team's size and needs. A centralized model works well for smaller teams, while a federated approach suits growing organizations. For more established teams with a mature culture, a community-driven model can thrive. If your team handles a high volume of work, a contribution-based model may be the best fit. The right model should align with your organization's scale and workflow, ensuring it supports your growth effectively.

Governance plays a critical role in maintaining order and efficiency within your design system. Clear guidelines, well-documented processes, and flexible governance structures can transform potential chaos into streamlined collaboration. Industry examples, like those shared by Zee Palm, highlight how structured yet adaptable governance can lead to success. With the right approach, design system collaboration can accelerate progress without sacrificing quality.

As your team evolves, so should your design system. Successful organizations often start with a simple model and adapt as their needs grow. For instance, when your team reaches around 20 designers, it's time to consider dedicating resources specifically to your design system. Planning for such transitions early on can help you avoid bottlenecks that could hinder your scaling efforts.

Ultimately, your collaboration model should serve both the designers contributing to the system and the end users engaging with its products. Achieving the right balance between control and creativity, consistency and speed, and structure and adaptability is essential for sustained success.

FAQs

How can I choose the right collaboration model for scaling my organization's design system?

Choosing the right collaboration model to scale your design system hinges on several factors, including your team's structure, project objectives, and available resources. Begin by assessing how complex your design system is and determining the extent of collaboration required across teams. For instance, centralized models are ideal for smaller teams aiming for uniformity, while federated or hybrid models are better suited for larger organizations with varying needs.

Engaging key stakeholders early in the process is crucial. Aligning on priorities ensures the collaboration model you select promotes both scalability and efficiency. And if you need expert help to implement solutions that scale effectively, our team of skilled developers can work with you to create systems tailored to your specific requirements.

What are the main governance challenges in a community-driven design system model, and how can they be addressed?

Community-driven design systems often hit roadblocks like inconsistent contributions, unclear accountability, and struggles to maintain a cohesive vision. These challenges tend to surface when multiple contributors work independently without clear direction or oversight.

To tackle these issues, start by creating clear contribution guidelines that outline expectations and processes. Forming a dedicated core team to review and approve changes ensures accountability and keeps the system on track. Regular communication - whether through team check-ins or shared updates - helps keep everyone aligned and focused. Tools like version control systems and thorough documentation can also play a big role in simplifying collaboration and preserving quality across the design system.

What are the steps for transitioning from a centralized design system model to a federated or contribution-based model as an organization grows?

Transitioning from a centralized design system to one that’s based on contributions or a federated model takes thoughtful planning and teamwork. The first step is to put clear governance structures in place. These structures help maintain consistency while giving teams the freedom to contribute meaningfully. Shared guidelines, thorough documentation, and reliable tools are key to keeping everyone aligned.

Fostering open communication is equally important. Set up regular check-ins, create feedback loops, and provide shared spaces where teams can collaborate and exchange ideas. As responsibilities are gradually handed over to individual teams, it’s essential to maintain some level of oversight to prevent the system from becoming disjointed. This balanced approach ensures the design system can grow and evolve without losing its core structure.

Related Blog Posts