Executive Summary: Front-End Framework and Design System Selection

Overview

This decision addresses the critical selection of a front-end framework and design system for our B2B SaaS application serving 5,000 concurrent users. With a team of 12 UI developers possessing limited React experience and 3 UX designers, the decision prioritizes developer productivity, design consistency, and minimal learning curve over advanced technical capabilities. This is a multi-year architectural commitment requiring VP Engineering approval with strategic implications for hiring, team velocity, and technical debt.

Key Findings

• Team Capability Gap: Current team's limited React experience creates significant adoption risk; frameworks with lower cognitive overhead (Vue.js, Svelte) warrant serious evaluation against React's ecosystem maturity
• Design System Governance Challenge: Three designers must maintain consistency across twelve developers, requiring robust tooling (Storybook integration, Figma plugins) and pre-built component libraries (Material UI, shadcn/ui, Chakra)
• Critical Success Factors: Learning curve and onboarding speed represent the highest priority—team productivity within 6-8 weeks is essential to avoid feature delivery delays
• Organizational Structure Supports Decision: Frontend Engineering Manager (Marcus Rodriguez) is optimally positioned to drive evaluation, with senior engineers (Thompson, Garcia, Volkov, Johnson) providing specialized technical input
• Cross-Functional Impact: Backend integration patterns, product roadmap timelines, QA testing strategies, and recruiting profiles all require coordination and clear communication post-decision

Recommendation

Marcus Rodriguez (Frontend Engineering Manager) should drive a 3-4 week structured evaluation process comparing React, Vue.js, and Svelte through technical prototypes, team hands-on testing, and design system tooling assessment. The evaluation should heavily weight team adoption speed (60%), design system ecosystem maturity (25%), and long-term viability (15%). Senior engineers should lead framework-specific spikes while mid-level developers provide learning curve feedback. VP Engineering (Sarah Chen) must approve the final recommendation, ensuring alignment with 3-5 year technical strategy before cascading the decision organization-wide. The selected framework must demonstrate clear paths to productivity within 8 weeks and provide mature design system tooling that enables the UX team's governance requirements.

Next Steps

• Week 1-2: Chris Johnson and Alex Thompson conduct technical spikes on Vue.js and React/Svelte with proof-of-concept implementations focusing on learning curve and build tooling
• Week 2: Maria Garcia completes design system comparison matrix (Material UI, shadcn/ui, Chakra); UX team workshop on tooling requirements and designer-developer workflow
• Week 3: Mid-level engineers (5 team members) complete hands-on evaluation sessions; Elena Volkov documents architecture patterns and integration requirements
• Week 3: Marcus Rodriguez synthesizes findings into trade-off analysis and formal recommendation to VP Engineering
• Week 4: VP Engineering approval with CTO visibility; immediate communication cascade to frontend team, backend team, product management, and QA with tailored messaging by stakeholder group

Risks & Mitigations

• Extended Ramp-Up Risk: Team may require longer than 8 weeks to reach productivity, impacting Q2/Q3 delivery commitments. Mitigation: Structured training curriculum designed by Maria Garcia with mentorship from senior engineers; pilot adoption on non-critical features before full migration; maintain fallback capacity for urgent features.
• Design System Tool Limitations: Selected framework's ecosystem may lack mature Figma integration or component library gaps emerge post-adoption. Mitigation: Validate tooling through hands-on UX team workshop in Week 2; prioritize frameworks with multiple viable design system options; budget contingency for custom tooling development.
• Wrong Framework Selection: If choice proves unsuitable after 6 months, pivot costs could reach 1,200+ engineering hours. Mitigation: Proof-of-concept validation with team feedback before commitment; ensure 80%+ team buy-in through inclusive evaluation process; document clear success metrics for 90-day retrospective review.

Select Front-End Framework and Design System for B2B SaaS

Framework: DACI | Complexity: complex | Status: in_progress

Created: 11/10/2025

Decision Context

Objective: Select a front-end framework and design system for our B2B SaaS application to enable rapid, consistent development while accommodating the current skill levels of our development team.

Key Constraints & Considerations:

Team Composition: 12 UI developers with limited React experience and 3 UX designers. Learning curve and onboarding speed represent critical success factors.

Scale: Approximately 5,000 concurrent active users. Performance optimization is necessary but not a primary constraint.

Primary Objective: Establish design system consistency and enhance developer productivity across multiple products and features.

Team Capacity: Limited existing expertise necessitates selecting a framework with strong community support, comprehensive documentation, and lower cognitive overhead.

Decision Implications:

Framework selection should prioritize team ramp-up time, design system tooling maturity, and ecosystem support over advanced features. The design system must enable three designers to effectively govern consistency across twelve developers.

Key Considerations for Evaluation:

• Assess whether Vue.js or Svelte present lower adoption barriers for your team relative to React
• Evaluate pre-built design systems (Material UI, shadcn/ui, Chakra) for their ability to accelerate consistency implementation
• Confirm that design system tooling (Storybook, Figma plugins) adequately supports your designer-to-developer workflow

Next Steps: Define specific decision criteria or explore framework and design system options.

Referenced Documents

1. org-chart.docx (77% relevance)
2. product-roadmap.docx (77% relevance)
3. team-skills-matrix.docx (76% relevance)

Framework Analysis

Driver

DRIVER Recommendation

WHO: Marcus Rodriguez, Frontend Engineering Manager

Based on the organizational documents, Marcus manages the 12-person frontend team that will be directly impacted by this decision. He has the organizational authority and technical context to drive this process effectively.

WHY MARCUS IS SUITED:

1. Direct Accountability: As Frontend EM, he owns team productivity, skill development, and delivery outcomes—all directly affected by framework choice
2. Technical Credibility: He manages engineers with varying expertise levels (5 senior, 5 mid-level, 2 junior) and understands their learning capabilities
3. Cross-functional Position: Reports to VP Engineering (Sarah Chen) while working closely with the 3 UX designers, positioning him to coordinate both technical and design perspectives
4. Vested Interest: His team's success metrics (velocity, quality, onboarding time) depend on selecting the right framework

KEY RESPONSIBILITIES:

• Coordinate technical evaluations with senior engineers (Alex Thompson, Maria Garcia, Elena Volkov)
• Facilitate design system discussions with UX team
• Gather input from Backend EM (Aisha Patel) on API integration requirements
• Create evaluation framework comparing React/Vue/Svelte against defined criteria
• Manage timeline from research → recommendation → VP approval
• Document decision rationale for future reference

SUCCESS CRITERIA:

• Process: Recommendation delivered within 3-4 weeks with stakeholder consensus
• Quality: Decision backed by prototypes, team feedback, and skills gap analysis
• Buy-in: 80%+ team support for selected framework
• Clarity: Clear migration/adoption plan with training requirements identified

Marcus should escalate to Sarah Chen (VP Engineering) for final approval, but he drives the end-to-end process.

Approver

APPROVER Recommendation

Approver: VP of Engineering (Sarah Chen)

Why This Authority Level

This is a high-stakes architectural decision with multi-year implications affecting:

• Technical strategy across the entire frontend organization (12 engineers)
• Team productivity and hiring profiles for 2-3 years
• Integration with design systems (affecting 3 UX designers)
• Developer experience and onboarding efficiency
• Technical debt trajectory

Based on your org chart, the CTO has unlimited authority but delegates technical architecture decisions to the VP level. Framework selection sits at the strategic architecture tier, not day-to-day implementation. The Frontend Engineering Manager (Marcus Rodriguez) would be insufficient authority given the cross-team impact and long-term commitment.

Approval Criteria Sarah Should Use

1. Team Adoption Risk: Can 12 developers with "limited React experience" reach productivity within 6-8 weeks?
2. Design System Maturity: Does the framework ecosystem support robust design system tooling (Storybook integration, component libraries)?
3. Hiring/Retention Impact: Does this expand or constrain the talent pool?
4. Ecosystem Longevity: 3-5 year viability and community support trajectory
5. Migration Cost: If wrong, what's the cost to pivot?

Recommended Approval Process

1. Input Phase: Frontend EM (Marcus) leads evaluation with senior engineers (Alex Thompson, Maria Garcia, Elena Volkov) and UX lead
2. Recommendation: Marcus presents trade-off analysis to VP Engineering
3. Decision: Sarah approves with CTO visibility (architectural decisions require CTO awareness per org structure)
4. Escalation Path: If cross-departmental conflict (e.g., Product disagrees on timeline impact), escalate to CTO for final arbitration

Timeline: 2-week evaluation → VP decision → 1-week CTO review window

Contributors

CONTRIBUTORS for Front-End Framework & Design System Selection

Key Contributors

1. Chris Johnson - Senior Frontend Engineer

Expertise: Vue.js expert (5/5), React advanced (4/5), build tools expert (5/5), DevX focus
Input Needed:

• Technical feasibility assessment of Vue.js vs React vs Svelte for the team's skill level
• Build tooling and developer experience implications
• Migration path analysis from current state
  Consultation Method: Technical spike (1-2 weeks) evaluating frameworks with proof-of-concept implementations
  Timeline: Weeks 1-2

2. Alex Thompson - Staff Frontend Engineer

Expertise: React/Next.js expert (5/5), TypeScript expert (5/5), performance optimization expert (5/5), team leadership advanced (4/5)
Input Needed:

• React ecosystem assessment (if selected)
• Performance characteristics at 5,000 concurrent users
• TypeScript integration best practices
• Team training and mentorship plan
  Consultation Method: Framework evaluation workshop + written recommendations
  Timeline: Weeks 1-2

3. Maria Garcia - Senior Frontend Engineer

Expertise: React expert (5/5), accessibility expert (5/5), state management expert (5/5), mentoring advanced (4/5)
Input Needed:

• Design system evaluation (Material UI, shadcn/ui, Chakra)
• Accessibility compliance requirements
• Component library assessment criteria
• Training curriculum design for 12-person team
  Consultation Method: Design system comparison matrix + onboarding plan draft
  Timeline: Weeks 2-3

4. Elena Volkov - Senior Frontend Engineer

Expertise: TypeScript expert (5/5), architecture advanced (4/5), API design advanced (4/5), documentation expert (5/5)
Input Needed:

• Architecture patterns for design system implementation
• Documentation requirements and tooling
• API integration patterns
  Consultation Method: Architecture review sessions
  Timeline: Weeks 2-3

5. UX Design Team (3 Designers)

Expertise: Design consistency governance, Figma workflows, component specifications
Input Needed:

• Design system tooling requirements (Storybook, Figma plugins)
• Designer-to-developer handoff workflow
• Component library feature requirements
• Governance model for maintaining consistency across 12 developers
  Consultation Method: Workshop on design system tooling + workflow mapping
  Timeline: Week 2

6. Frontend Mid-Level Engineers (5 team members)

Expertise: Current React/TypeScript skills (3-4/5), representative of team learning needs
Input Needed:

• Learning curve feedback on framework prototypes
• Documentation clarity assessment
• Onboarding time estimates
  Consultation Method: Hands-on evaluation sessions with prototype implementations
  Timeline: Week 3

Informed

INFORMED Stakeholders for Front-End Framework Decision

Who Needs to Be Informed

1. Entire Frontend Team (12 Engineers)

Timing: Immediately after VP approval (Week 4)
Method: Team all-hands meeting + written summary document
Key Messages:

• Selected framework and design system with rationale
• Training timeline and resources
• How this improves their workflow (faster development, better tooling)
• Migration/adoption roadmap with clear milestones
• Support structures during transition (mentorship, documentation)

2. Backend Engineering Team (Aisha Patel's team)

Timing: Week 4, after frontend team briefing
Method: Engineering sync meeting + Slack update
Key Messages:

• API integration patterns for selected framework
• GraphQL/REST requirements changes (if any)
• Testing collaboration needs
• Timeline for coordinated releases

3. Product Management Team

Timing: Week 4 (same day as VP approval)
Method: PM sync meeting + written impact analysis
Key Messages:

• Feature development velocity changes during 6-8 week ramp-up
• Design system benefits (faster prototyping, consistent UX)
• Timeline adjustments for in-flight projects
• Improved estimate reliability post-adoption

4. QA/Testing Team

Timing: Week 4
Method: Testing guild meeting + documentation
Key Messages:

• New testing tools/frameworks required
• Component-level testing strategy
• Visual regression testing approach (Storybook integration)

5. Executive Leadership (CTO, CEO, Board if applicable)

Timing: Week 4 (CTO immediate; CEO/Board in monthly updates)
Method: CTO: brief memo; CEO: included in VP Engineering update
Key Messages:

• Strategic rationale (team productivity, design consistency)
• Investment required (training time, tooling costs)
• Risk mitigation (proof-of-concept completed, team buy-in achieved)
• Expected ROI (faster feature delivery post-ramp)

6. Recruiting/People Ops

Timing: Week 5
Method: Email brief + hiring profile updates
Key Messages:

• Updated job descriptions requiring new framework skills
• Expanded talent pool implications
• Training budget needs for new hires

7. Customer Success (if customer-facing impact)

Timing: Week 6 (post-migration start)
Method: CS team meeting if UI changes expected
Key Messages:

• Potential UX improvements customers will notice
• Timeline for visual consistency improvements

Communication Principle: Cascade from decision-makers → implementers → adjacent teams → broader organization. Emphasize benefits (consistency, speed) over technical details for non-technical audiences.

Generated by DeeCee.ai Your Decision Companion on 11/12/2025