Case study 04 · Regtech · KYC

Self-Service Portal: business registration from weeks to hours

Registering a company meant paper forms, email chains and weeks of waiting. For one of the UK's leading company-formation services, I took one adaptive KYC journey 0 to 1 and live in one month, in place of three separate flows

Read
New account4 steps
    2–24 hrsregistration, down from one to three weeks
    −71%support calls, once people could see their own status
    14 peopleoff manual email, onto reviewing complete applications
    Owned
    I was design lead and acting product manager, 0 to 1
    • I owned the strategy, defined the MVP with the CTO, MD and CEO, and made the call: one adaptive journey in place of three flows
    • I led the engineers through the build and kept legal and the technical teams to one plan
    Scope
    • Onboarding, identity verification, status tracking, three account types
    • The design system and style guide the build ran on
    Method
    • User research, journey mapping, A/B tests
    • The MVP defined with the CTO, MD and CEO, no product manager in the room
    ProblemSigning up meant paper forms, long email chains and slow compliance checks. Three account types made three separate flows look like the obvious build. Mistakes slipped in early and surfaced late, after days of waiting.
    The callI argued for one sign-up that sorts itself, and won it. Each applicant sees only their own steps, whichever brand they arrive through, while compliance keeps one rulebook. The branching is the system's job, not the customer's.
    ResultRegistration dropped from one to three weeks to 2–24 hours, and support calls fell by 71%. Compliance stopped chasing half-done applications, and the 14 people who had handled email by hand moved onto reviewing complete ones.

    See it from three sides. Switch the account type and the path changes with it.

    Your details

    Documents required

      Your application

        Carol invites Andrew, a co-director. He completes his own ID and proof of address, and it returns to her checklist marked done.

        Before · 1 to 3 weeks
        1. Register and pay
        2. Wait for email instructions1 to 3 days
        3. Email the documents by hand
        4. Wait for manual review3 to 14 days
        5. Call support to chase status
        After · 2 to 24 hours
        1. Register
        2. Instant portal access
        3. Complete the smart formchecked as you type
        4. Automated document validation
        5. Live status, no chasing
        Two of the old five steps were just waiting. The new path removes the waiting and the chasing.

        The pain was never the paperwork. It was never knowing where you stood.

        Why three flows lost

        The client registers companies at national scale, for direct clients and partner businesses. The same portal also runs white-labelled under other companies' brands, serving their customers as their own product. I defined the three account types this needed, and three separate flows looked like the obvious build. But three flows means three copies of the compliance rules, drifting apart every time the regulation changes. And the rules are not light. Every applicant clears identity and KYC checks. Companies bring directors and beneficial owners, each verified in turn, and a banned country or a forged document has to stop the application cold.

        So I called it: one system. One adaptive portal proves the rules once, against a single rulebook compliance can certify, and asks each applicant only what their case needs. The build cost is paid once. Drift would have cost at every regulation change, forever.

        View my comment

        The recommendation was mine, and I didn't argue it as design. I argued it as money. The CTO and Managing Director backed the case, and the CEO signed it off.

        One adaptive journey

        The portal works out the account type at the start, then everything after it adapts. The fields, the documents, the checks, the order. Identity verification runs through an external provider, embedded so it never reads as a handoff: I agreed the outputs with them and designed the closing screen around it, everything ticked, application complete. Face verification with clear guidance, email confirmation, and a PIN login for white-label partners, whose own customers need secure access without ever seeing the platform underneath. The partners themselves get a dashboard: every customer account, its compliance status, invites sent and tracked, all under their own branding.

        Danielle's dashboard, the white-label partner view: a table of client companies with order date, order number, company name and a live compliance status for each, Completed, In Review, Provide information or Rejected, with search, filter and sort above.
        The same portal wearing a partner's brand. Danielle tracks all 156 of her registrations, each with its live compliance status.
        the applicant completes
        the system reviews
        Portal accesssecure link
        Assessmentbusiness type
        Documentssmart form
        Second chancere-upload, no restart
        Reviewauto + staff
        Revisionback to Documents
        Blockedbanned country or forgery
        Statuslive updates
        Completeapproved
        the applicant's path a gate the system handles
        One rulebook, drawn once. This is the journey map the solutions architect built the backend schema from, and every branch the system handles maps to a rule compliance can certify.

        1Carol onboards herself

        See it from three sides. Switch the account type and the path changes with it.

        Your details

        Documents required

          Your application

            When it takes more than one person

            Regulated accounts rarely belong to one person. A company has directors, and each has to be verified. So the portal lets the applicant bring the others in without losing the thread.

            View my comment

            The best backend discussion was about coming back. The platform belongs to the white-label brand, so applicants never create an account. Their application lives behind an emailed link, one click back to the live checklist, nothing to remember, nothing to reset. An invited director arrives the same way.

            2Carol invites Andrew

            Flow 2, the collaboration. Carol invites Andrew, a co-director. He completes his own ID and proof of address, and it returns to her checklist marked done.

            Making the process visible

            One research finding shaped the whole interface. What made onboarding painful was not the effort. It was not being able to see what was happening.

            I mapped the end-to-end journey and ran A/B tests, and four pain points came up every time. Applicants did not know which documents to submit, could not see their status, and waited days with no estimate. Behind the scenes, 14 people kept the whole thing moving by hand.

            So the design showed the state everywhere. Guidance at each step, errors caught as you type in plain language, and live status with notifications in place of the email chase. In testing, more applicants finished when problems surfaced at entry rather than at submission.

            View my comment

            They weren't struggling. They were in the dark. Everyone read the problem as too much effort. Research said otherwise. The frustration was not seeing what was happening, or what came next. So the design showed every step and every state, at every moment. That was the whole job.

            What it changed

            Registration dropped from one to three weeks to 2 to 24 hours, and support calls fell by 71%. The 14 people who had handled email by hand moved onto reviewing complete applications instead of chasing half-done ones. The business could grow without hiring for it.

            There was no product manager on this build, so product strategy sat with me as well as design, from a blank page to live in one month. I defined the MVP with the CTO, Managing Director and CEO and kept legal and the technical teams working to one plan. The design system and style guide the build ran on were mine too. The solutions architect drew the backend schema from my user-flow maps.

            Reflection

            Three account types looked like three flows. One system was the harder build and the right one, because three rulebooks drift and one holds. The design work that mattered most never reached a screen. It decided where the complexity lives: in the system, so it never lands on the applicant.

            Next

            01 · Fund evaluation for institutional investors