Design Feedback and Approval Systems

🌀 How To Stop Endless Stakeholder Reviews (https://lnkd.in/dQh9RaPc), a fantastic honest case study on how to deal with many stakeholders, conflicting priorities and overlapping timelines — and make design reviews more productive and more effective. By Parvaneh Toghiani from Uber. 🤔 Goal of design reviews isn’t to just get a final approval. ✅ Before review, identify its purpose and desired outcome. ✅ Troubles start with misalignment and showing work late. ✅ Frequent mistakes: too many directions + focus on UI. ✅ 3 distinct categories → Alignment, Evaluation, Sign-off. 🧭 Alignment → align on the PRD, discuss concept sketches. 📋 Evaluation → get actionable feedback on 2–3 proposals. 🚢 Sign-off → review design work, its priorities, feedback. ✅ Always reflect on previous reviews and what’s changed. ✅ Have a decision criteria + design recommendation ready. Of course different stakeholders view design through a different lens. For executives, we might need to focus on business impact or company priorities. For cross-functional leads, we better focus on problem space and how our work addresses it. And for the core team, focus on the execution and details. There is a variety of meetings when design is reviewed. For smaller touch points, set up an informal design critique or working session. One thing that has helped me is to always start by explaining our current state of work: 50%, 75%, 90% done — and explaining the desired goal or outcome of that meeting. One point from the article that I loved is to always show ideas on a spectrum: Most practical ↔ Blue sky — with the preferred concept in the middle. However, there is rarely a need to show all the fine detail for each concept — most design reviews are about finding a direction, not pixel-pushing on spot. Also, it's helpful to define a specific meeting type in email invitations, with a custom emoji or color coding for your calendar. I love the meeting format suggested by Rich Watkins: 📣 Broadcast Meetings for announcements and townhalls, 🥁 Rhythm Meetings for regular status updates, 🏗️ Planning Meetings to define timelines and provide estimates, 🛠 Problem-Solving Meetings for workshops and solution finding, 🏕️ Exploration Meetings for big questions and complex problems, 💚 Team Building Meetings for team spirit and collaboration, 🪴 Catch-Up Meetings for connecting moments without agenda, 🏆 Review Meetings for retros, 1:1, performance meetings. As Parvaneh writes, design reviews aren’t just for approvals. They are where influence, trust and alignment are built. They are incredible opportunities to grow as a designer — to test your storytelling, explain and defend your thinking and learn how people make their decisions. And *huge* thanks to Parvaneh Toghiani for the detailed case study! 👏🏼👏🏽👏🏾 I'd love to learn from you what helped you avoid endless loops of stakeholder reviews at your work in the comments below!

Want to get your design system approved? Here's what I learned ⤵️ . Most people think getting buy-in is about fancy presentations. Nope.  It's about showing real value. TL;DR: start small, test, then grow. 👥 Discovery Talk to people: * Watch how they work * Document their frustrations * Map out their daily struggles 💰Value Assessment Don't theorize, show them the money. Get specific: * List the exact problems you'll solve * Point out current pains (with real examples!) * Calculate potential savings 📘Strategy: * Don't add future stuff because "we might need it" * Know where you're going. * Write down your vision in one sentence * Map out rough next steps * Figure out what help you need Think big, but start small. 💎 Proof of Value * Build a prototype (3-5 components, new library, Tokens Studio vs Variables, etc.) * Get it in front of people * Collect real feedback * Document everything One working example beats a hundred slides. 🚨 Buuuut, don't rush to scale. Don't worry about metrics yet. Wait for feedback from your MVP. Learn from it. Only after people are saying, "Hey, this actually helps!" should you move to the next phases: ↗️ Scaling * Create patterns that stick * Automate the boring stuff * Themes * Teach others If you're building a new design system: Get feedback first, scale later. If you already have one: Use your existing metrics to make the case stronger. 📊 Metrics Now you can measure: * Time saved (real hours) * How many people use it * Money saved (actual dollars) * etc. Use what works. Skip what doesn't.  Keep showing value, keep listening, keep improving. That's it. ✌️

💡Hybrid Model of Contribution to a Design System Hybrid model of contribution is a popular approach that many large organization follow. This model combines centralized governance with decentralized contributions, allowing teams to collaboratively enhance the system while maintaining consistency & quality. Key principles of the hybrid model ✅ Central governance: A core team oversees the design system’s vision, principles, and standards to maintain consistency. ✅ Decentralized contributions: Product teams across the organization can propose, design, and build components or patterns. ✅ Collaboration & feedback loops: Mandatory review and approval process ensures contributions align with system guidelines. Structure of hybrid model 1️⃣ Centralized core team responsibilities ✔ Define the vision, principles, and standards of the design system. ✔ Develop and maintain core components, foundational elements (e.g., design tokens), and guidelines. ✔ Manage the repository, versioning, and documentation. 2️⃣ Contributor teams responsibilities ✔ Propose and develop components or updates based on specific product needs. ✔ Follow the contribution guidelines and submission process established by the core team. ✔ Participate in testing, documentation, and reviews for their contributions. 3️⃣ Collaborative governance ✔ Contributions are reviewed and approved by both the core team and representatives from contributor teams. ✔ Regular feedback loops (e.g., workshops, design critiques) ensure alignment with the system’s principles. 🔢 Workflow of the hybrid model Step 1: Contribution proposal Contributors identify gaps or opportunities in the design system. They submit a proposal outlining the problem statement and user needs, the proposed solution (e.g., new component, update to an existing pattern) Step 2: Design & development Contributors collaborate with the core team to ensure that the design aligns with system principles and visual language and the code meets established standards. Step 3: Review and feedback Contributions undergo a structured review process. This includes design review (evaluate alignment with visual, interaction, and accessibility guidelines) and code review (check for quality, scalability, and adherence to coding standards). Step 4: Testing & validation Components are tested for functionality across browsers and devices, accessibility compliance (e.g., WCAG), and performance under different scenarios. Step 5: Documentation and release Contributors document the component/pattern thoroughly. Approved contributions are merged into the system and communicated to all teams. Step 6: Feedback & iteration Post-release feedback is gathered from users and stakeholders. Contributions are iterated upon based on usage and evolving needs. 📕 Great examples of design system contribution & governance processes: https://lnkd.in/dNw_qFDC #design #designsystem #productdesign

On average, it takes 8 days and 3.2 rounds of review to get a project deliverable approved. 7 in 10 project managers say chasing stakeholders for approvals slows down their teams significantly. This explains why projects fall behind schedule, resources are wasted, and deadlines become a constant source of stress. But… Because of these delays, project managers face constant roadblocks like: Endless email chains and follow-ups. Teams waiting idly for approvals that don’t come on time. Budget overruns caused by rework or missed timelines. Chasing approvals isn’t just time-consuming—it derails the entire project. When feedback or sign-offs are delayed, the ripple effect impacts everything: Planned resources go unused. Project milestones are missed. Team morale drops because of constant last-minute changes. Imagine this: You’ve coordinated with multiple stakeholders, only to spend days waiting for someone’s approval. Meanwhile: Your team is idle, wasting valuable hours. You’re scrambling to keep stakeholders aligned. Timelines are collapsing, and you’re stuck fixing the mess. This endless cycle of chasing approvals leaves you overwhelmed and exhausted. So, how do you take back control? The answer lies in streamlined approval workflows. Here are 3 actionable tips to get faster project approvals: 1. Set non-negotiable deadlines: Assign clear due dates for every review stage and automate reminders to keep stakeholders accountable. 2. Be specific in your requests: Specify exactly what needs to be approved whether it's a project charter, timeline, or deliverables so stakeholders know where to focus. 3. Centralize approvals: Use a single tool or platform for feedback and sign-offs to eliminate confusion and back-and-forth emails. The next time you’re stuck waiting for project approvals, ask yourself: • Have I communicated clear deadlines? • Am I specific about the feedback I need? • Is my approval process centralized and easy to follow? Take these steps, and you’ll not only stop chasing approvals but also keep your projects on track, under budget, and stress-free.

Raise your hand 🙋🏻♀️ if this has ever happened to you ⤵ You put a piece of content in front of someone for approval. They say, “You should show this to Sally. She’d have thoughts on this.” So you show it to Sally. She not only has thoughts, but she also recommends you share the draft with Doug. Doug also has feedback, some of which aligns with Sally’s and some of which does not. Now you’re two days behind schedule, have conflicting feedback to parse through, and are wondering how you could have avoided this mess. Try this next time 👇 In the planning phase of a project, put a doc together that outlines 3 levels of stakeholders: 1) Your SMEs 🧠 → Apply as much of their feedback as possible — they are as close a proxy to your audience as you can get. 2) Your key approver(s) ✅ → Keep this group small, 1–2 people if possible. → Weigh their feedback knowing that they are not necessarily an SME 𝘣𝘶𝘵 they do control whether or not the project moves forward. 3) Your informed partners 🤝 → Typically, those who will repurpose or promote your content in some way. (e.g. field marketing, comms, growth, etc.) → Make revisions based on their feedback at your discretion. → You may even want to frame the delivery of your draft as, "Here’s an update on how this is progressing. No action needed at this time." Share this doc with all listed stakeholders. Make sure they understand the level of feedback you’re expecting from them, and by when. Then use the doc to track feedback and approvals throughout the life of the project. Preventing your circle of approvers from becoming concentric: 👍 keeps you on track 👍 keeps your content from pleasing your stakeholders more than your audience