Why Federated Design Systems Keep Failing

"The federated model suggests that design system work can be distributed across multiple teams without a central authority. It sounds democratic. It sounds efficient. It sounds empowering. In practice, it creates an ownership vacuum. Who's responsible for defining the architecture of the design system? Who establishes and evolves the processes needed to scale? Who ensures quality and consistency? Who maintains the infrastructure on which the system depends? Who deals with the unknown challenges that will inevitably"

"Nathan's analysis of the myths surrounding the federated model, the way these systems are sold, and the false promises about distributed ownership and community contributions is spot on. He dismantles the theory brilliantly. But here's what I want to explore: what happens when organisations try to make federated work anyway? Not because they misunderstand the theory, but because the promises sound genuinely appealing. During my nine years at Spotify, I watched the federated approach fail twice, in two different ways."

Nine years leading design systems and accessibility produced lessons from both successes and failures. The federated model promises distributed ownership across teams without a central authority, appearing democratic, efficient, and empowering. In practice, the federated approach often creates an ownership vacuum. Key responsibilities vanish: defining system architecture, establishing scalable processes, ensuring quality and consistency, maintaining supporting infrastructure, and addressing unforeseen challenges. Organizations often pursue federated models because the promises appeal, not because the theory is misunderstood. Implementation exposed two distinct failures of federation, showing that theoretical understanding does not prevent practical breakdowns when responsibilities lack clear owners.

Read at Shaun Bent