How to Manage Product Backlogs and Design Tasks in a Unified System

Design tasks and product backlog items exist in parallel universes. (Sound familiar? It usually is.) The PM prioritizes features in Jira. The designer works from a separate list in Figma or Notion. When planning happens, someone manually reconciles two systems. (Which list is current? Too often, it depends.) Every reconciliation is an opportunity for drift.

I watched a team ship a feature without the designs that were supposed to accompany it. (How does that slip through? Quietly.) The engineering ticket had been prioritized. The design ticket had not. Nobody noticed until launch day. The feature worked but looked wrong. (Could this happen to any team? Yes.)

(Want the short version? Here it is.) Here is the thesis: unified backlog management prevents the coordination failures that separate systems create. One system of record means one source of truth. (One truth, one place? That is the goal.)

Why Separate Systems Fail

Separate systems create synchronization burden. Every change in one system must propagate to the other. (Who is responsible for that propagation? Usually, no one.) Manual synchronization is unreliable. Automated synchronization is complex and fragile. (Can automation fully save it? Not without maintenance.)

This is what I mean by system drift. (What is system drift, exactly? It is the gradual divergence between systems.) The basic gist is this: without constant attention, separate systems diverge, and the divergence causes planning errors that only surface during execution. (When do you feel it? Right when it is most expensive.)

flowchart TD
    A[Feature Concept] --> B{System Architecture}
    B --> C[Separate Systems]
    B --> D[Unified System]
    C --> E[PM Backlog]
    C --> F[Design Backlog]
    E --> G[Manual Sync Required]
    F --> G
    G --> H[Drift Risk]
    H --> I[Coordination Failures]
    D --> J[Single Backlog]
    J --> K[Linked Items]
    K --> L[Automatic Coherence]

‍


Approaches to Unified Backlogs

Option one: Everything in the PM tool. Design tasks live in Jira, Linear, or your engineering system. Designers work from the same backlog as engineers. (Does this reduce meetings? Often, yes.)

Advantages: One prioritization conversation. Clear dependencies.
Disadvantages: Design tools (Figma) do not live in PM tools. Context-switching for designers. (Is context-switching the real tax? Usually.)

Option two: Everything in a flexible hub. Notion or Coda serve as the unified system. Both product and design work tracked together. (Do you want one workspace for everything? This is that bet.)

Advantages: Customization flexibility. Design assets can be embedded.
Disadvantages: Engineering workflow might prefer specialized tools. (Will engineers actually use it? They have to.)

Option three: Integrated specialized tools. Use separate tools that integrate tightly. Figma designs link to Linear tickets. Changes sync automatically. (What makes this work? The links have to stay alive.)

Advantages: Best-in-class tools for each function.
Disadvantages: Integration maintenance. Possible sync failures. (If the sync breaks, what breaks next? Trust.)

Choose based on team size and tool maturity. (What is the deciding factor? Usually, your weakest workflow.)

Structuring Unified Backlog Items

A unified backlog needs consistent structure across item types. Whether it is a feature, a design task, or a bug, items should have:

Clear ownership: Who is responsible for this item? (If it is unclear, it is unowned.)

Status: Where in the workflow is it? (Backlog, in progress, review, done) (Can you tell at a glance? You should.)

Type: Feature, design, bug, tech debt, research? (Is it comparable to other work? Only if type is clear.)

Dependencies: What blocks this? What does this block? (What is the true blocker? Name it.)

Acceptance criteria: What does done look like? (What does “done” mean, specifically? Say it here.)

Linked items: What design relates to what feature? What research informs what design? (What connects the dots? The links.)

The linking is crucial. A feature ticket should link to its design ticket(s). A design ticket should link to its research. This creates traceability. (Can you trace a decision in two clicks? That is the bar.)

Workflow Design for Unified Backlogs

Define how items flow through the unified system. (What is the simplest flow that still works? Start there.)

Stage one: Discovery. Problem defined. No solution yet. Research items here.

Stage two: Design. Solution being explored. Design tickets active.

Stage three: Development. Solution being built. Engineering tickets active.

Stage four: Validation. Solution being tested. QA and user testing items here.

Stage five: Released. In production.

Each stage has different work types, but all live in the same system and flow sequentially. (Do you ever skip a stage? If you do, make it explicit.)

Tools That Support Unified Management

Linear integrates with Figma and supports custom workflows. Good for teams that want engineering-quality tooling with design awareness. (Is this enough structure without rigidity? Often.)

Notion with databases can model any workflow. Requires setup but offers maximum flexibility. (Will someone own the setup? Someone has to.)

Height is designed for cross-functional teams with native design file support. (If design is central, does the tool respect that? It should.)

Productboard focuses on feature management with design integration. (Is feature management your bottleneck? Then this matters.)

For AI-assisted design work, Figr creates designs that you can reference in any backlog system. When a PM generates a prototype, that artifact links to the feature ticket, keeping design and product work connected. (Where should prototypes live? Wherever the ticket lives.)

Prioritization in Unified Systems

When design and product work share a backlog, prioritization must consider both. (Whose “priority” wins? The team’s.)

Do not prioritize features without considering design capacity. If design is at capacity, adding more feature tickets creates a queue that planning ignores. (Is it really “prioritized” if no one can do it? No.)

Consider design lead time. Design work often must complete before engineering can start. Plan accordingly. (What has to happen first? Put that in the sequence.)

Balance exploration and execution. Design includes exploratory work (testing ideas) and execution work (finalizing decisions). Both need backlog space. (Are you making room for both? You need to.)

Migration from Separate Systems

If you currently have separate systems, migration requires planning. (Is migration a one-week task? Rarely.)

Audit current state. What lives where? What would be lost in migration? (What would you regret losing? Capture it.)

Design the unified structure before migrating. Know your ticket types, workflows, and linking scheme. (What is your minimum viable structure? Start there.)

Migrate incrementally. Start new work in the unified system. Migrate active work. Archive old-system historical data. (What is the cutoff? Define it.)

Communicate heavily. Team members need to understand why the change is happening and how to work in the new system. (What will people ask first? Answer that early.)

In short, migration is a change management project, not just a technical project. (Treat it like one? Yes.)

Common Pitfalls

The first pitfall is over-complicating. A unified system does not need to model every possible item type and status. Start simple, add complexity as needed. (What is “simple” here? Fewer types, fewer statuses.)

The second pitfall is designer alienation. If the unified system feels like an engineering tool, designers will resist. Involve designers in system design. (Did designers co-design it? They should.)

The third pitfall is broken integrations. If Figma-to-Linear sync breaks, the system falls apart. Monitor integrations actively. (Do you notice breakage fast? Make it obvious.)

The fourth pitfall is planning theater. A unified backlog is worthless if planning conversations still happen in silos. Change process alongside tools. (Are decisions still made elsewhere? Then the backlog is not the system.)

The Takeaway

Unified backlog management eliminates the coordination failures that separate systems create. Choose an approach (single tool, flexible hub, or integrated specialists) based on your team's needs. Structure items consistently with clear linking. Migrate carefully and involve all affected roles. The goal is one source of truth that reflects the actual state of both product and design work. (Can everyone point to the same truth? That is the test.)

‍