Cabin

Your design system launched six months ago. Adoption looked strong. Now three product teams have forked components, someone built a “better” button, and nobody knows which Figma library is the source of truth.

The system isn’t failing because it lacks components. It’s failing because nobody defined who decides what gets in, what gets changed, and who says no.

That’s a design system governance problem. And it’s more common than most teams admit. A senior consultant reviewing 127 design systems found that roughly 73% never achieved meaningful adoption or impact. The zeroheight Design Systems Report 2025 paints a similar picture — only 54% of respondents were satisfied with their system. The common thread isn’t bad components. It’s missing governance.

This article gives you a phased framework for design system governance — the specific models, artifacts, and rituals that keep a system coherent as it scales. More importantly, it covers what most governance guides skip: how to set up governance that holds up after the team that built the system moves on.

What Is Design System Governance (and What Goes Wrong Without It)?

Design system governance is the set of roles, processes, and decision-making rules that determine how your design system evolves — who can add components, how changes get approved, and what happens when a product team needs something the system doesn’t have yet.

That’s the clean definition. Here’s the messy reality.

Without governance, your design system becomes a suggestion. Product teams under deadline pressure fork components rather than wait for a review. Designers create one-off patterns that never make it back into the library. Engineers hard-code overrides because the contribution path is unclear — or doesn’t exist.

The Sparkbox 2022 Design Systems Survey quantified this gap: only 44% of teams had governance models in place. Just 16% tracked any metrics. Yet teams that invested in support, training, and onboarding reported success 76% of the time. The distance between “has a design system” and “has a design system that works” is almost entirely a governance problem.

And when governance fails, the consequences compound. Sparkbox’s 2021 survey found that 35% of in-house teams had considered or already started building a replacement system — with adoption difficulties and cross-team silos as the top reasons. The Intripid design system rebuild is a textbook example: an audit revealed extensive inconsistencies and ad-hoc patterns across products, forcing the team to rebuild from scratch in Figma to “make sense of the chaos.” Similar patterns surfaced in the Assurant case study, where governance structures had to be introduced specifically to prevent repeating earlier fragmentation.

Governance isn’t bureaucracy. It’s the difference between a living system and a graveyard of forked components.

Three Governance Models — and When Each One Breaks

Nathan Curtis defined the foundational team models for scaling design systems — centralized, federated, and hybrid — and they remain the canonical framework in 2026. His more recent writing focuses on evolving systems across “generations” (new tokens, new architecture, governance changes) but doesn’t replace the core taxonomy. Most articles describe these models. Fewer tell you when they fall apart.

Centralized. A dedicated design system team owns everything — standards, releases, reviews. This works when the team has real authority and capacity. It breaks when product teams move faster than the design system team can respond. UXPin’s research on large-scale systems confirms the pattern: centralized teams struggle when product surfaces and contributors multiply. Feature designers start building workarounds. The relationship turns adversarial. We’ve watched centralized teams become bottlenecks within two quarters when they couldn’t keep pace with four product squads shipping simultaneously.

Federated. No dedicated team. Multiple product teams contribute. This sounds democratic. In practice, it means nobody owns the hard decisions — deprecating a component, enforcing token usage, or saying “no, that’s a one-off.” The zeroheight 2025 report found that federated teams consistently cited lack of dedicated resources and shifting priorities as their top challenges, with many feeling like they were “just keeping the lights on.” Federated governance works for small teams — under 10 designers. Beyond that, it typically collapses into inconsistency because contribution without curation is just accumulation.

Hybrid. A core team sets the standards and manages primitives. Product teams contribute back through a defined process. The core team reviews, approves, and integrates. This is where most mature organizations land. Salesforce’s Lightning Design System runs what they call a “cyclical team model” — a central Design Systems team plus a broad group of product contributors who co-evolve the system. UXPin notes that 63% of enterprise organizations operate at a maturity stage where governance blends central ownership with distributed contribution.

The hybrid model works best for most mid-market and enterprise organizations — but only if the contribution process is specific enough that people actually follow it. The zeroheight report found that managing and encouraging contribution was the single biggest challenge for hybrid teams. A hybrid model with vague contribution criteria will drift just as fast as a federated model with none.

The model matters less than the specifics inside it. The next section covers what actually makes governance operational.

The Governance Artifacts That Make Decisions Stick

Picking a model is step one. Making it work requires artifacts — specific, documented tools your team uses to make and record decisions. A decision log matters more than any model you pick. Decisions made in Slack threads and forgotten by Friday are the number one governance killer we see.

Here are the artifacts that separate governance-on-paper from governance-that-works:

Contribution criteria. A document that answers: what qualifies as a component? How many product teams need to use a pattern before it earns a spot in the system? What’s the bar for quality, accessibility, and documentation?

Salesforce’s SLDS sets a high bar here — proposals must demonstrate broad reuse potential, align with existing design tokens and principles, include accessibility compliance (WCAG), RTL support, and testing (visual regression, a11y audits). Single-product or niche components don’t qualify. That level of rigor prevents bloat while keeping the contribution path clear. Your criteria don’t need to be that extensive on day one, but they need to exist.

Component lifecycle policy. Components aren’t permanent. A lifecycle policy defines how a component moves through maturity stages. Both Shopify’s Polaris and Salesforce’s SLDS use structured progressions: Polaris moves components through alpha → beta → stable → legacy → deprecated, while SLDS follows a similar pattern with 6–12 month deprecation windows and migration guides.

Brad Frost’s governance flowchart is a strong starting point — it maps the decision tree from “I need something that doesn’t exist” through to “this is now part of the system.” The key is that each stage has clear criteria for advancement, not just labels.

Decision log. Every governance decision — component approvals, rejections, deprecations, token changes — gets logged with the rationale. This does two things: it prevents the same debates from recurring, and it gives new team members context on why the system looks the way it does.

A shared Notion page, a changelog in your documentation site, even a structured Slack channel works. The format matters less than the habit. If your decision log hasn’t been updated in a month, governance has stopped — regardless of what the process documents say.

Review cadence. Define when governance reviews happen, who’s in the room, and what triggers an off-cycle review. Tesco’s design system runs weekly governance cycles — a cadence that helped them save an estimated 70,300 days of effort in 2024, with a 33% year-on-year increase already recorded in 2025. Their model treats governance as an enabler, not a gatekeeper, with anyone able to propose and contribute to platform and global components within that weekly rhythm.

Most teams we work with land on biweekly reviews with a standing agenda: new contributions, open requests, and deprecation candidates. The meeting isn’t the governance — the artifacts above are. But the meeting is what keeps them current.

Deprecation protocol. This is the artifact teams skip most often. When a component needs to retire, who communicates it? What’s the migration timeline? How do product teams update existing implementations? Shopify’s approach to Polaris deprecation is instructive: they maintain backward compatibility during transitions (e.g., React versions remain active alongside new Web Components), with developers receiving notices via release notes, changelogs, and migration guides. Without a deprecation protocol, old components linger forever, and design tokens lose meaning.

When to Introduce Governance (A Phased Approach)

Here’s where most governance advice gets it wrong: it treats governance as a one-time setup. In practice, governance needs to scale with your design system’s maturity. Too much structure too early slows adoption. Too little structure too late invites chaos.

Sparkbox’s Design System Maturity Model maps this progression clearly across four stages. Here’s how we apply a similar phased approach, adapted from that model and our own client work:

Phase 1: Build (0–3 months) Your design system is new. You’re shipping core components — buttons, inputs, typography, color tokens. Governance at this stage should be light. You need two things: a single owner (person or pair) with decision authority, and an informal contribution path (“bring it to the design sync, we’ll discuss”).

Don’t over-formalize. Sparkbox’s model describes this stage as focused on foundational decisions — tech stack, initial scope, basic tooling workflows. Establish a single source of truth before you worry about review committees. The system is still finding its shape.

Phase 2: Scale (3–9 months) Product teams are adopting the system. Requests are increasing. This is when drift starts — and when governance needs to formalize. Introduce contribution criteria, a component lifecycle policy, and a regular review cadence. Stand up the decision log.

Sparkbox’s maturity model calls this the stage where education and lightweight contribution channels matter most — demos, workshops, simple feedback loops. The goal is building trust and critical mass. This is also when you choose your governance model (or realize the one you assumed isn’t working).

Phase 3: Mature (9–18 months) The system is established. Governance needs to support a growing user base while balancing flexibility with consistency. This is where metrics tracking begins — adoption rates, component usage, contribution volume. Formal review processes (PR templates, design and engineering reviews) and deprecation policies with migration guides become necessary.

Sparkbox describes this stage as “surviving the teenage years” — the system works, but managing its growth is where governance earns its keep. Communication intensifies: roadmaps, office hours, and balancing feature requests with bug fixes.

Phase 4: Handoff (when applicable) If you’re working with a consultancy or the founding team is shifting focus, this phase is about making governance self-sustaining. Document everything. Run the review meetings with the inheriting team leading, not observing. Build the deprecation protocol. Transfer ownership of the decision log. More on this in the next section.

The timelines above are ranges, not rules. A team of 30 designers building a multi-product platform may hit Phase 2 in six weeks. A team of five may stay in Phase 1 for six months. Match the governance to the complexity, not the calendar.

How to Govern a Design System You Didn’t Build

Most governance articles assume the builders stick around. That’s not how consulting works — and it’s not how most enterprise design systems evolve. Teams change. Contractors finish. Agencies move on.

The handoff problem is real, and the failure patterns are well documented. A UX Planet comparison of agency vs. in-house delivery found that agencies often ship polished libraries without involving product teams, leading to “near zero control” on implementation and quick abandonment. Fundament’s analysis of three agency-led implementations showed a clear split: two succeeded because of co-ownership and early in-house involvement; one failed on adoption because the agency delivered and left.

The pattern is consistent: siloed delivery kills sustained value. Here’s what makes handoff governance work:

Pair on governance, not just components. If an external team is building your design system, your designers and engineers should be in the governance meetings from month one — not as observers, but running the review by Phase 3. This is the capability transfer angle that matters most. Your team keeps the component library. But they also keep the playbook for evolving it.

Document the “why” behind every artifact. Contribution criteria should include the reasoning. Why is the threshold three product teams? Why do components need accessibility annotations before review? Without the rationale, the next team will change the rules without understanding what they’re protecting. The Dribbble course case study on design systems emphasizes this — living documentation as the “single source of truth” that transfers alongside code, including Figma libraries, Storybook, and contribution guides.

Run a governance dry run before the handoff. In the final month of an engagement, the inheriting team should run two full governance cycles independently — reviewing contributions, making approval decisions, logging rationale — while the building team observes and gives feedback. If the dry run surfaces confusion, there’s still time to clarify.

Consider a hybrid extension model. Not every handoff needs to be a clean break. Agency Squid’s model keeps agencies as ongoing partners at a 70:30 internal-to-external ratio, providing check-ins and dashboards to bridge the gap without full handoff shock. This works especially well for organizations where the in-house team is still building capacity.

When we build design systems, these governance artifacts are part of what we leave behind alongside the component library and design tokens. The system works after we leave because the team that inherits it knows how to make decisions about it — not just how to use it.

How to Measure Whether Governance Is Working

Governance that exists on paper but not in practice is worse than no governance at all — it creates false confidence. Mature teams track a mix of quantitative usage metrics and qualitative governance health signals, often integrating them into tools like Compass, Jira, or purpose-built platforms like Omlet, Knapsack, or Radius Tracker.

Here are the signals that matter:

Adoption rate / component coverage. What percentage of your product’s UI is built with design system components vs. one-off patterns? This is the foundational metric. Atlassian tracks this via Compass component analytics, linking GitHub data to deployment frequency. Most benchmarks target 80% coverage, with drops below 70% signaling governance issues. Rising one-off counts mean teams are building outside the system because the contribution path isn’t working — or governance is too rigid.

Contribution volume and velocity. Are product teams submitting components back? How quickly do contributions move through review? Zero contributions in a quarter means the process is either too complex or the team doesn’t feel ownership. Track PR merge rates and review cycle times — if it’s longer than one sprint from “I need a component that doesn’t exist” to “that component is in the system,” product teams will build their own.

Drift and duplication. Tools like Radius Tracker run code scans to detect variant sprawl, component duplication, and inconsistency between Figma and coded implementations. Healthy systems target duplication rates under 5%. GitHub’s internal approach tracks deprecation compliance — how quickly teams migrate off legacy components once a deprecation is announced.

Decision log activity. A stale decision log is a dead governance process. If the log hasn’t been updated in a month, governance has stopped — regardless of what the process documents say.

Business impact signals. Sparkbox’s developer efficiency study found that using a design system (IBM’s Carbon) made a simple form page 47% faster to develop — median 2 hours vs. 4.2 hours from scratch. Track time-to-ship savings and rework reduction to build the ROI case for continued governance investment. Tesco ties design system governance directly to performance KPIs, with their model delivering measurable efficiency gains year over year.

These metrics won’t tell you your governance is perfect. They’ll tell you where it’s breaking so you can fix the right thing.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a centralized and federated design system governance model?

A centralized model puts a single dedicated team in charge of all design system decisions — building, reviewing, and maintaining every component. A federated model distributes that responsibility across product teams with no central owner. Centralized offers consistency but risks bottlenecks; federated offers speed but risks fragmentation. Most organizations at scale move toward a hybrid — like Salesforce’s cyclical team model — that combines a core team with structured product team contributions.

When should you start governing a design system?

Start light from day one — even if it’s just naming a single decision-maker and an informal review process. Formal governance (contribution criteria, lifecycle policies, review cadence) should be introduced when product teams begin adopting the system and contribution requests increase, typically around month three to six. Sparkbox’s maturity model places governance formalization at Stage 2, when education and contribution channels become necessary to sustain adoption.

What artifacts does a design system governance process need?

At minimum, five artifacts: contribution criteria (what qualifies as a component), a component lifecycle policy (stages from proposed through deprecated), a decision log (every approval and rejection with rationale), a review cadence (who meets, when, about what), and a deprecation protocol (how components get retired and migrated). The decision log is the most overlooked and arguably the most valuable — it prevents repeated debates and gives new team members context.

How do you maintain design system governance after a consultancy leaves?

The key is capability transfer during the engagement — not documentation after it. Your team should participate in governance meetings from the start, lead reviews independently before the handoff, and own the decision log. The governance artifacts (contribution criteria, lifecycle policy, deprecation protocol) should transfer with full rationale documentation. Fundament’s case studies show that agency-led systems succeed when in-house teams are co-owners from early in the build, not just recipients at the end.

Design system governance isn’t a one-time setup — it’s an ongoing practice that scales with your system and your team. The framework that matters most isn’t centralized vs. federated. It’s whether your team has the artifacts, cadence, and authority to make decisions and record them.

Start with a decision log this week. Define contribution criteria this month. Match your governance to your system’s maturity — and keep adjusting as both evolve.

If your design system is drifting and your team is spending more time debating components than shipping them, let’s talk. We build design systems and train your team to govern them — so the system holds up after we leave.