Design System Proof of Concept

A design system proof of concept (POC) demonstrates that a proposed approach is technically feasible and potentially valuable before committing significant resources. POCs help organizations make informed decisions about design system investment by providing concrete evidence rather than theoretical arguments.

What Is a Proof of Concept

A POC is a limited implementation that tests whether something can work, not whether it is complete or production-ready. For design systems, a POC might demonstrate that components can be built with desired characteristics, that integration with target technology stacks is feasible, or that expected benefits are achievable.

POCs differ from pilots in scope and purpose. POCs primarily test feasibility and potential; pilots test actual adoption experience. POCs typically precede full design system development to inform go/no-go decisions. Pilots test design systems that already exist in reasonable completeness.

How to Create Design System POCs

Scope definition focuses the POC on key questions. What must be proven for the design system initiative to proceed? Technical feasibility? Value proposition? Integration capability? Focusing on critical questions prevents scope creep that dilutes learning.

Rapid implementation prioritizes speed over polish. POCs should demonstrate capability, not production quality. Cutting corners on non-essential aspects focuses effort on proving what matters. The POC should be clearly positioned as disposable rather than foundation for production.

Realistic conditions test capabilities under relevant constraints. If production code uses specific frameworks, the POC should too. If performance matters, the POC should be tested for performance. Unrealistic conditions produce misleading results.

Stakeholder involvement builds buy-in through participation. When stakeholders see the POC develop and can provide input, they become invested in its success and more likely to support proceeding. Transparent development builds trust.

Clear assessment evaluates whether the POC proved what it needed to. Honest acknowledgment of both successes and limitations maintains credibility. Recommendations should follow logically from what was demonstrated.

Key Considerations

• POCs should be time-boxed to prevent indefinite exploration
• Disposability should be explicit; POC code should not become production code
• Questions the POC cannot answer should be identified upfront
• POC success does not guarantee project success; limitations should be acknowledged
• Documentation of POC learnings benefits future decisions

Common Questions

How much should organizations invest in POCs?

POC investment should be proportional to the decision stakes. Larger design system investments warrant more thorough POCs. Time-boxing prevents excessive exploration. Typical POCs might span a few weeks with limited team involvement. The investment should be enough to answer key questions without approaching full implementation cost.

What if the POC reveals problems?

Problems revealed by POCs provide valuable information. Some problems may be addressable through different approaches. Others may indicate fundamental infeasibility. POCs that surface problems early save much larger investments in failed initiatives. Honest assessment of problems is more valuable than optimistic interpretation of limited success.

Summary

Design system proofs of concept demonstrate feasibility and potential before major investment. Effective POCs focus on key questions, implement rapidly under realistic conditions, involve stakeholders, and assess outcomes honestly. POC learnings inform whether and how to proceed with full design system development.