Ship Critique Workflow in Databricks

Project Background

Databricks wants to improve how designers and cross-functional partners review work for the Lakeview dashboards and Databricks SQL experience. Today, design critique happens across scattered Figma comments, Slack threads, and ad hoc meetings, which slows decisions and causes repeated rework before launch.

You are the UX/UI Designer leading a small execution effort to introduce a more structured critique workflow for a redesign of the dashboard creation and sharing experience. The project team includes 1 product designer (you), 1 design manager, 1 PM, 4 engineers, 1 UX writer, and 1 user researcher. Leadership wants the redesigned experience ready for a private preview in 10 weeks because two enterprise customers have escalated usability issues.

Key Stakeholders

The PM wants fast decisions and minimal scope so engineering can start on time. The design manager wants critique quality to improve across the org, not just for this feature. Engineering wants fewer late-stage design changes. The research lead wants critique feedback grounded in user evidence rather than opinion.

Constraints

• Timeline: 10 weeks to private preview
• Budget: $35,000 for research ops, prototype support, and limited design QA
• Team capacity: no additional headcount; engineers are only available 70% due to another Databricks SQL initiative
• Dependencies: design system updates from the Databricks design systems team due by Week 4; user validation sessions available only in Weeks 5-6

Complications

1. A senior staff designer strongly disagrees with your proposed navigation pattern and is influencing other reviewers.
2. The design systems team may slip the component update by 1 week, which would affect prototype fidelity and engineering handoff.
3. PM asks whether critique improvements should be built into the current project or deferred to protect the preview date.

Your Task

1. Create an execution plan for running critiques, incorporating feedback, and keeping the redesign on schedule.
2. Define how you would prioritize conflicting critique input and document decisions.
3. Propose launch trade-offs if design system dependencies slip or feedback requires major changes.
4. Identify success criteria for both the critique process and the private preview outcome.
5. Outline risks, mitigations, and stakeholder communication checkpoints.