Making temporary solutions sustainable

Context

I worked on an enterprise SaaS product for Managed Service Providers. Within a cloud-focused area, I supported an existing Microsoft 365 integration and later a new Google Workspace integration planned for gradual rollout.

The project operated in a quad model (UX, PM, engineering lead, architect), with close collaboration with frontend engineers and dependencies across teams. In parallel, I was part of a broader UX group responsible for other areas of the platform.

The “temporary” solution

Due to cost and timeline constraints, the onboarding flow for Google Workspace started as a temporary approach: a right-side panel layered over the main UI (with dashboard preview underneath), no progress indicator, and an integration method chosen as a pragmatic first step.

The assumption was that this would evolve once the integration moved to a more streamlined approach — at which point the onboarding could become simpler and closer to established patterns already used elsewhere in the product.

What changed

During an unrelated discussion, I realized the team was treating this temporary solution as final — with an implicit expectation that other parts of the product would adapt to it over time.

That was the moment the decision stopped being “local UI design” and became a cross-product UX governance issue.

Risks I identified

Concrete risks, beyond personal preference:

• Increasing learning curve for users managing multiple data sources.
• Inconsistency between similar onboarding flows across the platform.
• Deviation from established design system and style guidelines.
• Higher cost of change after broad adoption and user habituation.

My role and actions

My goal was not to block delivery, but to slow the decision down and make trade-offs explicit. I used a recurring design review (which I set up for the quad) to:

• Present improved variants of the temporary solution.
• Compare the new onboarding directly with an existing full-screen flow.
• Demonstrate implications using interactive prototypes.

In parallel, I proposed a plan: validate with user research, gather feedback beyond “like / dislike”, involve designers from other product areas, and only then decide whether this should become a shared pattern.

Resistance and constraints

The proposal met strong resistance — technical, emotional, and organizational. I deliberately kept a calm, service-oriented approach: focusing on clarity, documentation, and repeatable reasoning rather than escalation or confrontation.

At the same time, the situation made it clear that boundaries and communication patterns needed refinement to avoid similar dynamics in the future.

Current state

The work is ongoing. The research plan is defined, broader UX involvement is underway, and the next step is to engage stakeholders beyond the immediate team to make an informed, cross-product decision.

Reflection

Temporary solutions become permanent not because they are good, but because no one takes responsibility for stopping and reassessing them.

This case reinforced the importance of evidence-based decisions, explicit trade-offs, and clear boundaries — especially in environments where delivery pressure can quietly override long-term coherence.

Want to discuss more context? I can share additional details and artifacts in a call.