A note on “One formula to rule them all: the ROI of a Design System”

Where do the “120” and “240” come from?

Maximilian Speicher
UX Collective

In September 2022, Guido Baena Wehrmann and I published an article on how to calculate the (approximate) ROI of a design system in Smashing Magazine and The UX Collective. At the heart of the article is a ready-to-use formula based on only three variables: X, the percentage of time invested in building the design system; Y, the percentage of time invested in ongoing maintenance after the ramp-up phase; and Z, the amount of time saved by using the design system in percent. It’s specifically intended to support anyone needing a tangible, concrete argument for investing effort into a design system.

cost = max((240/X), 6) * X% + min(60-(240/X),54) * Y% | gain = max((120/X), 3) * (Z%/2) + min(60-(240/X), 54) * Z% | ROI = ((gain-cost)/cost) * 100

After reading our article, quite some readers reached out to us, slightly (or not so slightly) confused about where exactly the seemingly magic numbers “120” and “240” come from. In fact, it’s happened often enough by now that we’ve decided to write this separate note as an explanation. We can assure you there’s nothing magic about these two numbers.

Before continuing, please make sure to refresh your memory and have the original article present.

We gotta admit, the “120” and “240” aren’t perfectly intuitive, and we’re gonna revisit that for future editions/revisions of our formula. But they’re relatively easy to reverse-engineer. The “240” stems from the assumption that, in the cost part of the formula, a 20% investment leads to a 12-month ramp-up phase: 240/20 = 12.

With this, a lower investment results in more months of ramp-up, and vice versa. Correspondingly, we have only “120” in the gain part of the formula because we assume gains only for half the ramp-up phase.

Talking about units of measurement, strictly speaking it must be 240 months and the 20 is dimensionless. If you’d prefer to express the 20 as 20%, it would be 2.4 months / 20% = 12 months. In the end, we only have one unit of measurement, and that is “months”, which we omitted in the formula for matters of readability.

Hi! 👋🏻

I’m Max, a Design Director with a Ph.D. in Computer Science, and I write about leadership, strategy, and anything UX. If you’ve enjoyed this article, you can buy me a coffee, which is always highly appreciated, or subscribe to my newsletter. You’ll stay up to date on all my latest writing, and I’ll be sure to keep you entertained with new and interesting insights.

Sign up to discover human stories that deepen your understanding of the world.

Membership

Read member-only stories

Support writers you read most

Earn money for your writing

Listen to audio narrations

Read offline with the Medium app

Published in UX Collective

We believe designers are thinkers as much as they are makers. Curated stories on UX, Visual & Product Design. https://linktr.ee/uxc

Written by Maximilian Speicher

A designer who writes about leadership, strategy, & anything UX • Doctor of Computer Science • formerly University of Michigan • maxspeicher.com/newsletter

No responses yet

What are your thoughts?

Much is made of Google’s “slow” pace of embracing AI. Reality is that AI is the enemy of Google’s business model. Speed of accurate information was the original big idea of Google search. But, that idea is distant past. Forcing a user through…

This article is excellent in that it makes the case, not for the death of anything, but for the capability of adaptive , regenerative evolution. This ability is at the heart of competencies for succeeding in the ever changing and unproductive…

This was a really interesting read! It puts together the pieces we see in history about how major jumps in technological development have had ripple effects that led us to evolve. As UX-ers, we're currently in that space where we have to learn how to mould these powerful tools to elevate our process.