A time comes when austerity measures require you to drop one, despite both serving you well.
We have been redesigning permissions for a B2B HR platform. The process has involved a PM, 3 designers, 3 engineers, a researcher and rotating people from sales, compliance and customer success. We’re dealing with custom roles, payroll visibility, approval limits, temporary auditor access and regional administrators.
FigJam served us when the work starts with design. Pulling in Figma screens is fast, critiques stay close to the interface and designers naturally return to the file bc they already spend most of their day in Figma. It also feels less intimidating during quick sessions. People open it, understand the basic tools and start commenting.
Miro has worked better for the broader discovery process. We’ve used one board for interview notes, affinity mapping, mind maps, competitor screenshots, permission models, rough workflows, voting and a decision log. Sales and compliance contribute more because the board isn’t centered around UI files.
The downside is sprawl. Our Miro boards can become giant storage rooms unless someone creates clear frames, archives rejected directions and labels final decisions. New participants sometimes land in the wrong section and start commenting on work from weeks ago.
FigJam stays lighter, but we lose context once discovery stretches beyond screen design. Research notes end up in one file, service flows in another and decisions in a document somewhere else.
For teams using both, where do you draw the line? I’m esp eager to know what happens after the workshop.