The most general misconception I often see at scale is that, once a design system is established, every product must then use it. “100% adoption” is the goal, meaning design system work isn’t done until every product at the organization has been migrated to use the design system.

This is nonsense.

A design system prioritization matrix

Reading time: around 3 minutes

Design systems have massive impact at scale, especially with organizations that manage dozens, hundreds, or thousands of digital products. But that scale brings its own set of problems.

The most general misconception I often see at scale is that, once a design system is established, every product must then use it. “100% adoption” is the goal, meaning design system work isn’t done until every product at the organization has been migrated to use the design system.

This is nonsense.

For starters, migrating just the codebase of hundreds or thousands of digital products would take years.

The solution is a more pragmatic point of view: only some of an organization’s products should use the design system.

Which begs the question: which products should use the design system and which ones shouldn’t?

This is a question I’ve spent time on with every single organization I’ve consulted with.

A design system prioritization matrix

Luckily, I found a handy guide a few years ago that I use every time:

This is a super useful matrix by design system consultant Nathan Curtis entitled “Must/Should/Could a Product Adopt a System?” The two axes are “Product Stage” and “Upcoming Investment,” a smart combination that juxtaposes two of the most important factors of valuable design system work.

The green “Must” and red “Avoid“ areas make obvious what many teams struggle with without a matrix like this to help them:

• New products with more upcoming investment compared to the prior period must use the design system. Launching a new flagship website or app that’s gonna get a lot of executive and/or marketing attention? Use the design system for sure.

• Legacy products with no upcoming investment compared to the prior period should avoid using the design system. That old Lotus Notes-based application approaching end-of-life in 2 years? Don’t bother migrating that over.

The “Should“ and “Could” areas get trickier, so spend more time here. An emerging product with less upcoming investment? Hmm. It should probably use the design system, but it’s worth a few conversations to make sure. An established product with the same investment as last quarter? It could use the design system, but it’s worth considering if there are higher priority places to spend your time.