Building CODA
Centralizing Design & Front-End to Solve a Resource Crisis
Bringing structure, clarity and predictability to a fragmented product organization through centralized leadership and collaboration.
Role: Sr. of Product Design
When I was working for ORFIUM as Senior Director of Product Design, the product organization followed a distributed, value-stream-driven model. ORFIUM operated through four value streams. Each value stream had its own group product manager and lead UX, and within each stream there were two to three products or internal tools.
How ORFIUM Was Structured
Every product had its own small, embedded team. A product manager or product owner, a product designer, back-end engineers and front-end engineers worked together as a unit. Design support was fragmented and local to each product. In parallel, we also maintained a dedicated design system team consisting of one product designer and one front-end engineer who supported the entire organization.
This structure worked as long as each team had sufficient resources. Every team expected direct ownership. Every value stream had autonomy and full responsibility for its outcomes. And as long as every team had a product designer and a front-end engineer fully embedded, things ran predictably.
But that predictability didn’t last.
The Breaking Point
A company-wide restructuring changed everything.
Several designers and front-end engineers were reassigned or exited the organization. Suddenly, the embedded team model was no longer sustainable. Some products had no design support at all. Others had engineering but no FE capacity. A few teams had only half their original resources. The design system team lost the ability to operate independently.
The result was predictable.
Delivery timelines slipped. Shaping cycles produced work that could not be executed. Value streams escalated concerns about lack of visibility. And with each team trying to solve its own resource issues differently, we saw the beginnings of operational drift.
As the senior design leader, I had to define a path forward that would keep product development functional, protect team morale and maintain the quality of design while navigating uncertainty.
Designing a New Model: CODA
To solve the resourcing crisis, I proposed the creation of a centralized, shared team that could support all value streams dynamically. This team became known as CODA.
Instead of every product having its own designer and front-end engineer, CODA became a unified team that provided support based on actual priorities, company-wide objectives and the shaping pipeline rather than headcount distribution.
The Role of the Design System Inside CODA
Merging the design system team into CODA solved multiple problems at once.
The DS team was no longer isolated or under-resourced. CODA designers and FE engineers could rotate between DS and product initiatives, preventing stagnation. Design system work finally reflected real product needs instead of hypothetical improvements. And DS quality increased because contributions came from multiple contexts.
This hybrid federated model meant that CODA provided governance and consistency while product designers across streams provided input and occasional contributions.
CODA consisted of four product designers and four front-end engineers. I co-led the team together with the Head of Front-End. The design system team was merged into CODA as well, forming a hybrid federated model in which ownership remained central, but contributions could come from anywhere in the organization.
This structure preserved autonomy where it mattered and created central alignment where it was essential.
Operating Inside Shape Up
ORFIUM used a customized version of Basecamp’s Shape Up framework. Each delivery cycle included six weeks of focused product work followed by one week of cooldown.
The embedded model was originally intended to align perfectly with these cycles: designers shaped work, engineers picked it up the next cycle and the system moved predictably.
Once resources shrank, this process broke down.
Design and FE work was no longer ready for engineering at the start of each cycle. Multiple teams were blocked simultaneously. Shaping work was created faster than we could support it.
CODA offered a way to re-synchronize the organization with Shape Up’s rhythm.
To achieve this, I needed to create a new operational cadence for CODA in sync with the broader product cycles.
New Ceremonies and Cross-Team Alignment
To make CODA project work with the rest of the organization, I introduced a set of ceremonies that created structure, predictability and transparent communication.
CODA standups
A focused update ritual for designers and FE to track progress, identify blockers and redistribute effort if needed.
Cooldown planning session
A planning checkpoint where CODA evaluated outstanding work, design system needs and upcoming priorities.
Mid-cycle shaping alignment
A meeting with group PMs and lead UX to review what was being shaped for future cycles and confirm readiness.
Design and FE pairing
One-on-one or small-group sessions for faster alignment and shared ownership.
End-of-cycle readiness review
A ceremony confirming which design work would be handed off to engineering in the next cycle.
Design System review
A hybrid federated process for merging contributions and maintaining consistency.
These ceremonies stabilized communication and ensured that no value stream operated in silo
KPIs and Indicators of Success
Several measurable improvements followed the creation of CODA.
Cycle readiness improved.
Before CODA, few shaped items were engineering-ready. After CODA, readiness consistently rose to a far healthier level.
Resource utilization stabilized.
No value stream was left without support and workload distribution became balanced and predictable.
Rollovers decreased.
The number of projects that could not start on time due to missing design or FE specifications dropped significantly.
Cross-team alignment improved.
Group PMs and lead UX leads reported fewer escalations and more clarity around pipeline expectations.
Design system activity increased.
With continuous contributors across products, design system improvements accelerated and became more consistent.
Employee engagement rose.
Designers and FE engineers reported higher satisfaction thanks to rotation and exposure to more diverse product challenges.
This initiative demonstrated that structural challenges can become opportunities for strategic redesign. CODA replaced a strained, legacy embedded model with a flexible, centralized capability that lifted the entire organization. It protected quality, empowered teams, balanced workloads and created a healthier long-term operating rhythm.
As Director of Product Design, I guided ORFIUM through a period where success depended less on headcount and more on clarity, alignment and the ability to re-imagine how teams work together.