This year, we delve into design system priorities and challenges, including adoption, contribution, and debt. And we explore the evolution of design systems, including the experiences of organizations developing new (or additional) design systems.
Sparkbox, a web design and development studio, directed this survey. This year’s survey was shared for four weeks across social media platforms, in Slack channels, with visitors on The Foundry, and in emails to web professionals.
In-house and agency respondents were asked a different set of questions with overlapping topics. In-house respondents offered insight based on their direct perspectives with design systems at their organizations while agency respondents offered insight into their client’s experiences.
Responses
In-House Respondents with design systems at their organization
Agency Respondents who have worked on a design system within the last year
Development
Design
User Experience
Development
Design
User Experience
The remainder of the respondents were split between project/product management, management, and other.
| In-house | Agency | |
|---|---|---|
| Individual contributor (developer, designer, etc.) | 64% | 56% |
| Manager | 24% | 16% |
| Executive | 4% | 6% |
| Owner | 4% | 8% |
| Freelancer or independent consultant | 4% | 14% |
| In-house | Agency | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-50 Employees | 10% | 54% |
| 51-2,000 Employees | 43% | 33% |
| 2,001-10,000+ Employees | 47% | 13% |
In-house respondents represented a diverse array of industries such as finance/financial services, telecommunications/IT hardware & software, healthcare & pharmaceuticals, and many more.
The elements in your design system and the team creating them are foundational to building a quality product. Let’s learn more about the commonalities across our in-house respondents’ design systems.
“In your opinion, how successful is your organization’s design system?”
| Not successful | 4% |
|---|---|
| Slightly successful | 19% |
| Moderately successful | 38% |
| Successful | 31% |
| Very successful | 8% |
Most in-house respondents felt that their design system is either moderately successful (38%) or successful to very successful (39%).
It has not only outperformed in terms of KPIs, but it has also allowed us to scale more work with fewer people.
“Where did the idea for your current design system begin?”
| Individual contributor(s) suggested starting a design system | 57% |
|---|---|
| Leadership suggested starting a design system | 22% |
| A third party suggested starting a design system | 3% |
| A combination of one or more of the above | 2% |
| I am not sure/other | 16% |
"What does your design system contain?"
Navigation components
Usage guidelines
Spacing system
Design files
CSS code
Framework-specific components
Accessibility guidelines
Grid system
Layout system
HTML code
Brand guidelines
JavaScript code
Example page templates
Content blocks
Voice & tone guidelines
Animation system
Other
16 of the 19 elements were all contained in over 50% of the in-house respondents’ design systems.
Most in-house design system teams contain design, development, and UX expertise. Many teams reported needing more resources from product/project management, research, and strategy.
| “Which disciplines do you currently have on your design system team?” | “Which disciplines are you currently missing on your design system team that would be useful right now?” | |
|---|---|---|
| Design | 94% | 9% |
| Development | 87% | 23% |
| User Experience | 71% | 16% |
| Management | 41% | 26% |
| Project/Product Management | 30% | 47% |
| Research | 25% | 44% |
| Strategy | 19% | 37% |
| Marketing | 6% | 26% |
| Other | 10% | 15% |
“Which disciplines do you currently have on your design system team?” Responses: 135 | Respondents were asked to select all that apply.
“Which disciplines are you currently missing on your design system team that would be useful right now?” Responses: 115 | Respondents were asked to select all that apply.
“How is your design system team structured?”
of in-house respondents have a team dedicated to the design system, based outside of the product-and-features team structure.
of in-house respondents have one internal, pre-existing team that created a design system and owns it, though other teams also use the design system.
of in-house respondents have individuals from various teams inside the organization manage the design system, and each of these teams uses the design system.
As noted in the 2020 Design Systems Survey, “Due to the nature of a design system requiring buy-in and support from multiple disciplines, a design system project often helps break down organizational silos.” Design system teams focus on common areas — many of which highlight the importance of cross-team support.
| Adoption (developer, designer, etc.) | 42% |
|---|---|
| Contribution | 37% |
| Product road map | 36% |
| Overcoming technical/creative debt | 35% |
| Project management or process | 29% |
| Governance | 23% |
| Internal education | 21% |
| Proving Value | 21% |
| Staffing | 21% |
| Funding | 10% |
| Finding an executive champion | 7% |
| Subscriber engagement | 4% |
| Other | 6% |
| Overcoming technical/creative debt | 47% |
|---|---|
| Contribution | 45% |
| Adoption | 44% |
| Staffing | 39% |
| Internal education | 36% |
| Product Road Map | 35% |
| Governance | 34% |
| Project management or process | 32% |
| Providing value | 26% |
| Funding | 23% |
| Finding an executive champion | 16% |
| Subscriber engagement | 6% |
| Other | 7% |
Across both top priorities and challenges, three areas stood out, which we will explore more deeply in the next sections.
Encouraging Adoption
Engaging
Contributors
Overcoming Debt
42% of in-house respondents selected increasing adoption as a priority
44% of in-house respondents selected increasing adoption as a challenge
Adoption difficulties have been high on respondents’ lists of concerns since our 2018 Design Systems Survey and remain there in 2021.
When used well it has had a large uplift in sales and performance. However, teams still need to be pushed to use it properly.
Too few people (developers and designers) use it on a daily basis.
| Very Successful | 9% |
|---|---|
| Successful | 22% |
| Moderately Successful | 49% |
| Slightly Successful | 68% |
| Not Successful | 83% |
In-house respondents who perceived their design system as either “very successful” or “successful” were less likely to mention adoption as a challenge than those who reported moderate or little success. And, separately, 52% of agency respondents reported that lack of adoption is one of the most common reasons their clients’ design systems are unsuccessful.
"In your opinion, how successful is your organization’s design system?” based on “how much of your website(s) or application(s) is sourced from your design system?"
| Less than 25% is from the design system | 25% to 49% is from the design system | 50% to 75% is from the design system | More than 75% is from the design system | I am not sure | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not Successful | 33% | 33% | 17% | 0% | 17% |
| Slightly Successful | 58% | 32% | 10% | 0% | 0% |
| Moderately Successful | 17% | 30% | 22% | 20% | 12% |
| Successful | 10% | 24% | 36% | 28% | 2% |
| Very Successful | 8% | 8% | 25% | 50% | 8% |
The more a design system is used in digital products, the higher it’s perceived as successful by in-house respondents.
Has your design system met its adoption goals?
Answer a few questions to find out where you fall within the Design System Maturity Model and get insights and ideas about how you can take your system to the next level.
Take the Assessment37% of in-house respondents selected contribution as a priority
45% of in-house respondents selected contribution as a challenge
“[Our design system] is quite limited in scope currently, we are concentrating on populating it more than anything else.”
"In your opinion, how successful is your organization’s design system?” based on “how frequently do design system users contribute to the design system?"
| They don’t or rarely contribute to the design system (1-2) | They sometimes contribute to the design system (3) | They often or always contribute to the design system (4-5) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not Successful | 83% | 0% | 17% |
| Slightly Successful | 68% | 18% | 14% |
| Moderately Successful | 48% | 34% | 18% |
| Successful | 49% | 28% | 23% |
| Very Successful | 50% | 20% | 30% |
The more often users contribute to the design system, the more frequently in-house respondents perceive their design system as moderately successful or higher.
| They don’t or rarely contribute to the design system | 17% |
|---|---|
| They rarely contribute to the design system | 37% |
| They sometimes contribute to the design system | 26% |
| They often or always contribute to the design system | 12% |
| They always contribute to the design system | 8% |
54% of in-house respondents reported that their design system users rarely contribute to the system or don’t contribute at all.
"How defined is your process that enables design system users to contribute to the design system?” based on “how frequently do design system users contribute to the design system?"
| They don’t or rarely contribute to the design system (1-2) | They sometimes contribute to the design system (3) | They often or always contribute to the design system (4-5) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not Defined to somewhat defined (1-2) | 74% | 8% | 18% |
| Moderately Defined (3) | 40% | 43% | 17% |
| Well and very well defined (4-5) | 44% | 31% | 26% |
Having a more defined process for contributing to the design system increases the frequency that users contribute to the system.
"In your opinion, how successful is your organization’s design system?” based on “how defined is your process that enables design system users to contribute to the design system?"
| Not defined to somewhat defined (1–2) | Moderately defined (3) | Well and very well defined (4–5) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not Successful | 33% | 33% | 33% |
| Slightly Successful | 68% | 29% | 4% |
| Moderately Successful | 30% | 34% | 36% |
| Successful | 32% | 36% | 32% |
| Very Successful | 10% | 50% | 40% |
And having a more defined contribution model contributes to the design system’s overall perceived success by in-house respondents.
| Not define (1) | 17% |
|---|---|
| Somewhat defined (2) | 20% |
| Moderately defined (3) | 35% |
| Well defined (4) | 14% |
| Very well defined (5) | 15% |
Only 29% of respondents rated their contribution process as well defined or very well defined. And, separately, only 27% of agency respondents reported that they recommend a contribution model to their clients.
35% of in-house respondents selected overcoming debt as a priority
47% of in-house respondents selected overcoming debt as a challenge
“Nothing can account for the impact to various development stacks in the product. A design system will always produce some technical debt.”
“All system choices, especially first-iteration ones made because of resource limitations on the design system team's side impose limitations on products. This limits the evolution of products unless they break free of the system. Future iterations of the system need to support both a future vision as well as a current state, causing a constant deprecated vs not-built-yet state. This interaction can cause deadlock between the system, the platform, and the products.”
"Do you feel the way the design system was originally built did or did not create debt for the technical or design departments?"
| It created debt | 53% |
|---|---|
| It did not create debt | 32% |
| I dont know | 15% |
53% of in-house respondents reported that their design system creates debt. And, separately, agency respondents agreed, with 47% saying that they believe their clients’ design systems create debt.
When asked about the causes for technical and design debt in an open-ended question, in-house respondents’ top reasons include poor implementation (19 of 42 responses) and updating pre-existing products (11 of 42 responses).
The documentation was incomplete, and thus the proper technical implementation was partial guesswork (guidance not in place)
In an effort to move fast, many projects result in ‘we can incorporate this into the system later’ or ‘we can update this after we ship.’
... we created the design system based on an existing product, there has been debt because it wasn't built from components to start with. However, all features within the product that have been updated over the years are now debt-free (both design and tech). So it's a tricky one to answer. We have a web product which was built from scratch off DS components and that has no debt. I think debt is created/related to when the DS was implemented along the lifecycle of the product/s it's supporting.
"In your opinion, how successful is your organization's design system" based on "do you feel the way the design system was originally built did or did not create debt for the technical or design departments?"
| It created debt | It did not created debt | I don't know | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not Successful | 83% | 17% | 0% |
| Slightly Successful | 50% | 32% | 18% |
| Moderately Successful | 50% | 34% | 16% |
| Successful | 53% | 32% | 15% |
| Very Successful | 50% | 40% | 10% |
Though many respondents thought their design system(s) created debt, this did not correlate to the perception of a less successful design system.
One possible explanation could lie in some open-ended answers in which 9 of 42 in-house respondents mentioned that debt seemed unavoidable in an initiative of this size and scope.
Everything causes tech/design debt. It's unavoidable…Honestly, I feel this is just the curse of software development.
How would it not? Any legacy product would need a facelift. Any new product must adhere to guidelines. Yes, there are ways to streamline this, and in some cases the product development process speeds up... A design system will always produce some technical debt.
46% of in-house respondents have dedicated design system teams — but even non-dedicated teams have to get approval to spend time on the system. While the promise of a design system may be enough to gain support on day one, as systems get older, it’s natural that teams need to prove their value. Enter metrics.
"In your opinion, how successful is your organization's design system" based on "does your organization track metrics for your design system?"
| Yes, we track metrics | No, we do not track metrics | I am not sure | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not successful | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Slightly successful | 16% | 74% | 10% |
| Moderately successful | 23% | 67% | 10% |
| Successful | 48% | 42% | 10% |
| Very successful | 50% | 42% | 8% |
In-house teams who track design system metrics perceive their systems as more successful.
| Yes, we track metrics | 31% |
|---|---|
| No, we do not track metrics | 59% |
| I am not sure | 9% |
59% of in-house respondents don’t track design system metrics. And, separately, 45% of agency respondents reported that they don’t actively recommend that their clients track design system metrics.
“Which metrics are you tracking?”
Usage
Adoption
Accessibillity
Efficiency
Engagement
Usability
Consistency
Among in-house teams who are tracking metrics, the top areas tracked include usage, adoption, and accessibility.
| Regularly held or special meetings | 39% |
|---|---|
| Announcements in communication channels | 32% |
| Newsletters | 21% |
| We include metrics in the design system | 16% |
| We do not share our design system metrics | 29% |
| I am not sure | 11% |
| Other | 13% |
Since the 2020 Design Systems Survey, we’ve heard from peers and clients that many teams have started over with a new design system. As a result, this year we added questions to better understand how common this may be and to understand why teams are choosing to build additional or new design systems.
| No | 61% |
|---|---|
| Yes, we have considered creating a new design system | 9% |
| Yes, we have taken steps towards creating a new design system | 26% |
| I am not sure | 4% |
35% of in-house teams have thought about or taken steps to create a new design system. And, separately, 58% of agency respondents reported that they had witnessed a client consider or take steps toward a new design system.
Different areas in our org are going in their own directions and believe they need their own design systems. One area in particular is moving to a new backend and was given the mandate from business to create an entirely new visual language. They specifically do not wish to use the existing DS team or system to house and integrate their libraries into (politics, really).
Several [lines of business] have spun up new design systems.
Other common responses included overcoming technical debt or technical evolution (8 of 25), evolving designs or brands (4 of 25), and issues caused by changing contribution models or system inflexibility (4 of 25) as influencing factors.
To increase adoption as we move towards a common tech stack.
We've created a lot of technical debt on our way and learned from our mistakes. We're building a new and well documented design system from our existing components... and moving from a very restricted design system to a more flexible system.
| No, we only have one design system | 57% |
|---|---|
| Yes, we have more than one design system | 39% |
| I am not sure | 4% |
There are different divisions of the company that serve different customers and personas. These teams spun up their own design system.
Our company is large and has multiple group companies that operate almost like their own entities. It's typical for group companies to have one or more systems associated with notably different products.
Some brands started mini or micro DSs to bypass central DS police and also have more control over smaller changes or style changes.
What do you need to support your design system?
Take the Maturity Model Assessment to get feedback on where you are now, and suggestions that will help you move forward to benefit your whole organization.
Take the AssessmentToday’s design system teams are focused on encouraging adoption, engaging contributors, and overcoming debt. And the teams that focus on the majority of these items, along with metrics, are reaping the rewards of more successful systems. As we noted in the 2018 Design Systems Survey, “a design system is an investment in your future, and one that takes conversation, collaboration, and expectation-setting to succeed.” It’s clear that a design system alone does not ensure success.
If you're having trouble gaining cross-functional buy-in and support, your design system’s success might be in jeopardy.
We’ll be exploring this design system issue and more as we continue interviewing design system team members throughout the year and digging even deeper into this survey’s data.
Are you interested in the full data set of this survey? Download the file on Dropbox.
Sparkbox conducts this survey annually to give the design system community an opportunity to learn from one another.