Design system ambassadors–the goldilocks of collaboration

“Ivory tower design system”. That’s a more common four-word combination than people may think. A centralized design system is, by nature, detached from the people using it. It’s a downside that I’ll take every single time. But it’s a real issue.

A detached design system team is risky as hell. Mainly because the symptoms of being cut off from the systems users tend to lag. Once the symptoms begin to show, it can get real bad, real fast.

That’s why design system teams put in a considerable time trying to limit disconnection. Here are the stages of engagement I’ve typically seen:

First stage: Connect with everyone all the time The team attempts to join every crit. They check in with every person. Their existence is a meeting. Welcome to Burnoutville. Population, you.

It’s not rocket science to conclude embedding into consumer teams improves connection. It’s also not rocket science to conclude that does not scale. At all.

Second stage: Connect with everyone some of the time The next logical conclusion is to meet on demand. That’s a no-brainer, right? In my experience that doesn’t work out too well either. Calendars and schedules fill up and needs typically don’t give a two-week notice. I’ve seen this model atrophy as people become unavailabl. The habit trails off–because the process isn’t habitual. Ad hoc becomes no hoc.

Third stage: Retreat to the fortress of solitude The next conclusion is to remove the touch points altogether. Asynchronous communication becomes the primary method. That’s far and away the most cost-effective approach.

But just because something can’t be measured doesn’t mean it isn’t meaningful. Efficiency comes at the cost of connection. Collaboration can wither. It’s not inevitable, but it’s easy to lose touch as a design system team without explicit collaboration.

How about the right people at the right frequency?

Design systems at even moderately-sized companies have to be choosy about engagement. There’s too many people to have deep touch points with every single person. It’s not personal, it’s math.

It’s a vibe-killer to say that some people’s opinions are more valuable than others… But it’s true. Your doctor’s diagnosis for that rash that won’t go away is way more important than some dude in line for coffee. It feels nice for everyone to have a voice. Design system teams have to prioritize the voices with the right context. That’s not to say others should never be heard. But proportion is important.

Who matters the most? That’s up to every team to decide. I don’t think it’s all about seniority. The qualities I look for engagment, commitment and a strong point of view.

The more focused the group is, the greater chance some real collaboration can occur. Especially if the people collaborating actually want to.

Now let’s name it something fancy to make it sound important

I’m not a fan of marketing, but I also am not naive enough about the allure of a fancy title. People are gravitate to the allure of status. Now, that can be bad. You don’t want people joining just to add another corporate merit badge to their collection. But it doesn’t hurt to give this role a little bling to get people’s attention.

This better be worth everyone’s time

Ain’t no one has time for nothing no more. Ambassador programs need to have a high bang-for-buck return. It’s important to bias towards adding the least people for the least time for the most return. Not mind-blowing, I know.

Roles and responsibilities for each side need to be simple, clear and actionable. I have some real mixed feelings about RACI/DACI tables, but this may be a good time to make one.

These meetings better be the crispest and leanest ones the team runs. I’m talking agendas, pre-reads, meeting notes, action items. All that. Hell, with any luck, most meetings end early. Keep it short, simple, productive and (ideally) fun.

Each side needs to get something they want–but otherwise can’t. And make no mistake, there’s no shortage of want. Let’s cover the classics:

Feature teams want support and influence

The people who use the design system obviously want it to support what they’re working on. That can be hilariously hard to predict ahead of time. On Monday, a team thinks they don’t need a new component. On Tuesday, they do. Immediately. Design system teams can’t pivot that quickly. In large part because it sets the expectation that every request will happen that fast. But, maybe exceptions are made for teams that with ambassadors… That can be an enticing incentive.

Hopefully, most support isn’t of the “need it yesterday” variety. Less urgent asks can be made during planning cycles. Knowing that a needed component/pattern will be ready ahead of time can be a huge relief for feature teams. Ambassadors can help steer the design system roadmap to ensure what they need makes it in. That can also be an enticing incentive.

Teams also want the system to work for them. Maybe the type ramp isn’t quite handling their needs. Or some button variant needs tuning. Ambassadors have the ear of the design system team to steer the direction to better meet their needs. Granted, not at the cost of other teams’ needs. But it nonetheless gives them a direct line to the people who make system decisions. Also tempting.

Design system team want visibility and feedback

Anyone who’s worked on design systems knows how important visibility is. It also feels impossible to get. Having a view into all in-flight design work before development begins is priceless. System teams can get that information from ambassadors. They’re the window into all team-level happenings–without having to join every team crit. That’s gold.

Speaking of visibility, design system teams often struggle with having their comms seen. This isn’t surprising given the flood of information that teams are pelted with. But ambassadors represent a liaison to an org’s collective ear holes. Simple design system cascades from team ambassadors can raise awareness significantly.

Then there’s feedback. Design system teams are often starving for input on new/improved components. Getting eyeballs from feature teams can prove to be a herculean feat. Ambassadors can be that reliable input that’s so very needed.

Why not scratch each others’ backs?

The arrangement laid out sounds transactional. Because it is. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Corporate altruism is self-contradictory. It doesn’t mean people don’t want to work together, but it requires mutual benefit. That’s why, any ambassador program needs to be scratch both backs.

This tracks at the individual level as well. Expecting volunteers to put in time on top of all their other work is a recipe for low participation. I’m a big believer that there needs to be some carrot for anyone putting in the time. Fancy title aside.

The carrot may be a prerequisite for promotion past a certain level. It could be a yearly bonus. Or something else altogether. But extra work should come with extra compensation.

Will ambassadors solve poor cross-team collaboration. Hardly. But it can be a good start. Like most things, finding the right balance between competing factors is the key. But hey, you might like Burnoutville–who am I to judge?