04 / DESIGN LEADERSHIP
Scaling the Design Practice
Building a team, shared systems, and AI-assisted workflows that increased capacity without sacrificing quality.
For years, I worked as the primary designer across StaffingNation. As TCWGlobal’s product portfolio grew, its designers remained distributed across separate teams, limiting our ability to share standards, balance workloads, and improve products consistently.
Beginning in December 2024, I led the transition from individual contributors into a Product Design Team with clearer ownership, shared practices, and stronger integration with Product, Engineering, and QA. I remained hands-on while helping the team take on more work without sacrificing consistency or design quality.
TEAM
Brought distributed designers together and developed broader end-to-end ownership.
SYSTEMS
Established shared practices for discovery, critique, documentation, governance, and review.
DELIVERY
Integrated design earlier and introduced AI-assisted, human-led workflows.
Company
TCWGlobal
Role
Product Design Manager
Platform
Enterprise SaaS
Timeline
December 2024–2026
01 / THE CONTEXT
From Scattered Resources to One Design Team
Before the restructuring, TCWGlobal had three product teams working across different applications. Each operated with its own design resources and ways of working.
I had advocated for nearly a year to consolidate design into one team that could support priorities across the company rather than tying each designer to one isolated product group.
The transition began in December 2024, when I started leading a UX Designer and an Associate UI/UX Designer while continuing to direct the StaffingNation modernization. Over the following year, I moved formally into management, advocated for a designer’s promotion, hired another designer, and helped establish the Product Design Team.
Bringing the designers under one reporting structure created the opportunity. It did not automatically create an effective team.
02 / THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE
Increase ownership without losing consistency
After years as the primary designer, I was accustomed to personally managing stakeholder conversations, design decisions, handoff, and implementation quality. As the team grew, that approach could no longer scale.
The goal was not simply to distribute more production work. It was to give designers the context, authority, and judgment required to own meaningful product decisions while maintaining a coherent experience.
CAPACITY
Support more product initiatives without lowering quality.
OWNERSHIP
Move designers from assigned screens to end-to-end feature ownership.
CONSISTENCY
Create shared standards across products and disciplines.
03 / BUILDING CAPACITY
Building capacity through ownership and systems
I focused on three levers: giving designers clearer areas of ownership, establishing a shared way of working, and moving more decisions closer to the people doing the work.
TEAM
Building around individual strengths
Rather than expecting every designer to develop in the same direction, I aligned deeper ownership with each person’s strengths, interests, and working style.
SYSTEMS & QUALITY
Design system · Component quality
Documentation · File organization
Added rigor to shared systems and standards while freeing me to focus on product strategy and complex feature work.
FEATURES & WORKFLOWS
Feature discovery · End-to-end workflows
Interaction design · Implementation support
Expanded the team’s ability to lead features from discovery through implementation.
These were areas of emphasis, not rigid roles. Clearer ownership helped each designer build deeper expertise while allowing more initiatives to move forward in parallel.
SYSTEM
Creating a shared operating model
Growing the team required more than assigning ownership. We needed a shared way of working that protected quality without creating unnecessary process.
DISCOVERY ─ DESIGN ─ BUILD ─ RELEASE
Earlier collaboration
Rather than waiting for finalized requirements, Design partnered with Product and stakeholders early to clarify problems, challenge assumptions, and shape solutions before implementation began.
Shared critique
Weekly critiques shifted feedback away from individual opinions and toward shared design principles. Designers learned to explain their reasoning, identify tradeoffs, and improve each other’s work.
Clearer documentation
We improved Figma organization, interaction notes, component usage, and implementation guidance so Engineering had a more reliable reference throughout development.
Implementation review
Design remained engaged after handoff, reviewing completed work with Engineering to resolve inconsistencies before release.
Outcome: These practices made design quality a shared responsibility rather than something dependent on one designer or one handoff.
OWNERSHIP
Moving decisions closer to the work
Giving designers ownership required more than assigning larger projects. They needed access to the context behind the work, clear decision boundaries, and permission to question requirements rather than simply execute them.
As their confidence and experience grew, they began leading discovery conversations, working directly with Product and Engineering, identifying risks, and making decisions without waiting for my review.
Ownership became less about completing a design assignment and more about carrying a product problem from early discovery through implementation.
Assigned screens
Complete clearly defined design tasks within an established solution.
Shared problem solving
Contribute to workflow decisions, explore alternatives, and explain design reasoning.
Direct collaboration
Work independently with product managers and engineers to clarify requirements and resolve issues.
End-to-end feature ownership
Lead discovery, design, handoff, implementation review, and iteration.
04 / CROSS-FUNCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Making design part of product decisions
Building a stronger design team gave me the capacity to extend Design’s influence beyond individual projects. As a member of the product leadership team, I partnered with the heads of Product, Engineering, and QA on roadmap priorities, initiative sequencing, requirements, and release quality.
The goal was not to introduce another approval layer. It was to bring design context into the decisions that determined what teams built, how work was scoped, and where product and experience risks needed to be resolved.
PORTFOLIO LEVEL
Roadmap and capacity
I contributed to roadmap and sprint planning, balanced design capacity across modernization and feature work, and helped sequence initiatives so Design could remain ahead of Engineering rather than becoming a delivery bottleneck.
INITIATIVE LEVEL
Requirements and tradeoffs
I worked with Product and stakeholders to clarify the underlying need, question unnecessary complexity, and surface workflow and usability risks before teams committed to a solution.
DELIVERY LEVEL
Implementation and release
I partnered with Engineering and QA through implementation and release validation, helping resolve gaps between requirements, design intent, and the completed experience.
Accelerating delivery without removing human judgment
05 / AI-ASSISTED DELIVERY
As the team’s operating model matured, we began using AI to reduce delays in review, documentation, and implementation. The goal was not to automate responsibility or replace the expertise of Product, Design, Engineering, or QA. It was to surface questions earlier, create stronger first passes, and help work move through the development process more efficiently.
AI-ASSISTED REVIEW
Adding another review pass at critical points in the workflow
We created focused agents that reviewed work at three points where missing details or inconsistencies often created delays later.
Feature-Brief Review
Reviewed early requirements to identify missing details, unclear workflows, usability risks, and unanswered questions before design began.
Design Critique
Evaluated hierarchy, interactions, states, and pattern consistency to help designers prepare for team critique and handoff.
Pull-Request Review
Compared implementation decisions with design-system and interface standards before code was merged.
AI generated another review pass. People remained responsible for every product, design, engineering, and release decision.
CROSS-FUNCTIONAL PRODUCT POD
Testing a faster path from product idea to validated release
We formed a small cross-functional pod to explore how AI-assisted implementation could accelerate delivery. Product and Design defined the problem, requirements, and workflow. AI helped generate the initial implementation, while Engineering reviewed the architecture and code and QA validated the completed experience before release.
PRODUCT + DESIGN
Defined the problem, requirements, workflow, and acceptance criteria.
→
AI-ASSISTED IMPLEMENTATION
Claude Code helped generate the initial working solution and supported rapid iteration.
→
ENGINEERING REVIEW
Engineers reviewed architecture, quality, maintainability, and the final merge decision.
→
QA VALIDATION
QA verified behavior, tested for regressions, and determined release readiness.
The pod delivered dozens of features within several weeks while keeping product, design, engineering, and QA accountability intact.
The speed came from reducing handoff delays and shortening the distance between an idea, a working implementation, and informed review. Not from removing disciplines from the process.
AI was most effective when it strengthened an already clear operating model.
Shared context, defined decision boundaries, and human review made it possible to move faster without treating speed as a substitute for quality.
A team capable of delivering more without lowering the standard
Consolidating the designers and creating a shared operating model increased both capacity and ownership.
06 / OUTCOME
01 / More work in parallel
The team could support multiple initiatives while staying ahead of Engineering during the StaffingNation modernization.
02 / End-to-end designer ownership
Designers moved beyond assigned screens and began leading work from discovery through implementation.
03 / Greater product consistency
Shared critiques, documentation, governance, and implementation reviews reduced gaps between products and between design intent and delivered work.
04 / Faster, more connected delivery
Earlier design involvement and AI-assisted review helped work move more efficiently across Product, Design, Engineering, and QA.
The result was not simply more design output. The team produced a high volume of thoughtful work while expanding the design system, improving product consistency, and supporting a demanding period of modernization.
REFLECTION
From controlling quality to creating the conditions for it
Moving from individual contributor to manager required me to redefine what it meant to be responsible for design quality.
At first, I retained too much control over stakeholder communication, final decisions, and handoff. I was trying to protect consistency, but that also made me a bottleneck and limited the team’s opportunity to grow.
I learned that quality did not require controlling every decision. It required providing context, creating shared standards, defining clear decision boundaries, and giving people room to develop their own judgment.
I would invest earlier in regular one-on-one conversations and intentional coaching. Understanding each designer’s strengths sooner would have helped me delegate meaningful ownership earlier.
The part of this work I am most proud of is the team itself. The designers developed broader ownership, introduced strengths that I did not have, and produced solutions that were sometimes better than the ones I would have created alone.
Leadership is not about remaining at the center of every project. It is about creating a team with the context, confidence, and judgment to produce excellent work without depending on one person for every answer.