Subsidized real-estate financing
A government-backed housing institution needed to digitize a paper-heavy loan application process — one that first-time applicants and experienced professionals navigated in completely different ways. I led UX from zero to launch: research, blueprints, wireframes, and a scalable design system.
My Role
Lead UX/Product Designer (sole designer)
Team
1 junior designer, 2 business analysts, 2 product managers, and a cross-functional dev team.
Duration
1 year
↓ 40%
Drop in incomplete applications after guided flow launched
3×
Faster time-to-submission for first-time applicants
↑ 62%
Users who could check approval status without calling support
Early
Stakeholder sign-off after first usability test round
Problem
A process designed for administrators, not people
The existing financing workflow lived in spreadsheets and in-person visits. Users had no single place to track their application — and the institution had no visibility into why so many applications were abandoned mid-process.
Four root problems surfaced in early stakeholder interviews before any user research began:
No guidance for first-time applicants on eligibility or what documents to prepare — most arrived unprepared.
Information was scattered across branches, PDFs, and phone calls — no single source of truth.
Approval tracking was opaque — applicants couldn't see where they stood without calling.
No self-serve eligibility check — users only discovered disqualifying factors after submitting a full application.
Ahmad Otayim
Anna is a business analyst who helps her clients to create strategies, to conduct user research and analyze business and user experience goals.
Occupation
Broker
Family
1 wife, 2 children
Age
34
Location
Saudi Arabia, Riyadh
Needs
Ahmad's main goal is to find a home that is within his budget and secure financing that will allow him to purchase it.
He also wants a user-friendly platform that makes it easy to apply for financing and get approved.
He is also concerned about the complexity of the home-buying process and the difficulty of finding a financing option that will meet his needs.
Pain Points
Needs a financing option that is both affordable and accessible
Opportunities to connect with other experienced professionals in the industry
He also needs help understanding the home-buying process and navigating the various financing options available to him.
Wants to see several recommendations from bank.
Sarah Jackson
Anna is a business analyst who helps her clients to create strategies, to conduct user research and analyze business and user experience goals.
Occupation
Software Engineer
Location
London, UK
Family
Single
Age
30
Needs
Learn about new technologies and trends in the industry
Network with industry professionals and potentially find job opportunities
Network with industry professionals and potentially find job opportunities
Gain insights and knowledge to further their career in technology
Pain Points
Access to high-quality, informative sessions with industry experts
Opportunities to connect with other experienced professionals in the industry
Detailed information about the event location, transportation options, and parking
An easy-to-use app that provides all relevant event information, including session details and speaker bios
MY STRATEGIC READ
"The product didn't have a design problem — it had a trust problem. Users couldn't see what they were entering, couldn't compare competitions easily, and couldn't tell if the platform was legitimate. We needed credibility before we needed features."
What I owned
End-to-end UX — research, service blueprinting, information architecture, wireframes, usability testing, design system, and final handoff.
Heuristic evaluation, navigation overhaul, competition discoverability, mobile consistency. Small dev team, high-impact-only changes. A/B tested every significant change before rollout.
Phase 2
Post-MVP — Research-led feature expansion
12 user interviews across two groups (MVP users + post-MVP). Informed the order bump structure, exclusive offers logic, and the checkout cross-sell approach.
Service blueprint
Mapping the invisible work
Before wireframing anything, I built a full service blueprint that mapped the user journey against the backend approval workflow — including the manual steps that happened off-screen.
This document became the shared contract between UX, PMs, and developers. Three critical gaps it revealed:
Four root problems surfaced in early stakeholder interviews before any user research began:
No handoff visibility after submission
Applications entered a black box — nobody internally tracked status in a queryable way, which is why users had to call. We designed the approval tracker as a product priority, not a nice-to-have.
Eligibility checks happened too late
Staff manually verified eligibility at review — often days after submission. Moving an automated eligibility check to the front of the flow cut wasted effort for both users and staff.
Beneficiary
FI agent
Key design decisions
Not just what — why these choices, not the obvious ones
Before wireframing anything, I built a full service blueprint that mapped the user journey against the backend approval workflow — including the manual steps that happened off-screen.
This document became the shared contract between UX, PMs, and developers. Three critical gaps it revealed:
Four root problems surfaced in early stakeholder interviews before any user research began:
Eligibility check as the entry point
On the dashboard, users choose between a step-by-step guided flow (for first-timers) and a direct application form (for professionals). Both reach the same backend submission.
Why: The obvious choice was to start with the application form and validate at the end. But data showed ~30% of in-person applicants were ineligible. An upfront check removes their wasted effort and reduces staff review load — a business win, not just a UX win. I framed this to stakeholders as an abandonment-rate reduction strategy, which got it prioritized.
Two entry modes: guided vs. direct
The approval tracker shows 5 milestones (submitted → under review → additional documents → approved/rejected) rather than an internal step count.
Why: I considered using behavioral signals to auto-detect user type — but this added implementation complexity and could misroute users at critical moments. Explicit choice takes one extra tap and gives users full control. In testing, 100% of professional users chose "direct entry" without hesitation.
Mobile-first throughout, not mobile-adapted
All wireframes began at 375px. Desktop layouts were derived from mobile, not the reverse.
Why: Analytics from a comparable government service showed 78% mobile usage. Designing mobile-first forced prioritization decisions on every screen — if it couldn't fit on mobile, it didn't belong in the flow at all.
+ 50 more screens
Outcome & impact
Shipped, tested, and handed off with confidence
The product was handed off to development after two rounds of usability testing. Early-access testing with a pilot group of 80 applicants confirmed the core hypotheses:
Fewer incomplete submissions
Guided flow and upfront eligibility check reduced mid-form abandonment by ~40% versus the previous paper process.
Fewer incomplete submissions
Guided flow and upfront eligibility check reduced mid-form abandonment by ~40% versus the previous paper process.
Support call reduction
62% of pilot users checked status via the tracker without contacting support — a major ops cost reduction signal.
Stakeholder alignment
The service blueprint became the product team's shared source of truth throughout development — referenced in sprint planning.
What I'd do differently
Reflections
Two things I'd change with more time or earlier buy-in:
Quantitative baseline earlier. We didn't have instrumented analytics on the old process, so improvement metrics relied on user recall and staff estimates. A brief intercept survey or call-log analysis upfront would have given us a harder baseline to compare against.
Test with professional users sooner. The Sara persona was recruited later in usability testing because we assumed first-time applicants were the primary risk. In hindsight, the professional flow had more edge cases and deserved its own testing round.