The lending platform behind a micro-finance lender.
A web platform where a micro-finance lender's staff, credit managers, partner banks and affiliates work the same loan application, from lead to sanction.
Rinova is a pseudonym. Names, figures and applicants in the screens are sample data.
A loan file changes hands four times. At each hand-off the next person had to get familiar with the file again, documents could go missing and customers could be left waiting without knowing why.
Turned the client's brief into five portals on one shell, 83 screens, a design system and a state model the developers built from while I was still designing.
I designed a single review screen that every desk shares, with twelve states for the stages of a loan. The layout stays familiar as the file moves between people.
The business behind the platform and the brief it came from.
01The business
Rinova is the operations side of a micro-finance lender. Customers apply from the borrower app, which I also designed. Everything after that happens across five portals that each see the same file from a different desk, and that web platform is what this case study covers.
Rinova earns when a file reaches sanction and the money is disbursed. The platform needs to get each file there with as few delays and send-backs as possible.
If every role works from the same file and every send-back includes a reason, loans should reach sanction in fewer rounds and customers should wait less.
Sees every file, reassigns staff, onboards banks and affiliates, tracks sales and finance.
Works a personal queue, checks each document, asks customers to re-upload.
Sets the amount, keeps the loan in-house or sends it to partner banks.
Receives a complete file with a ZIP, approves or rejects, manages its loan products.
Follows each lead's status and sees commission earned, paid and pending.
Revenue, insurance and platform fees came up again and again in the client's review notes. Tracing the money in one loan showed me what the dashboards needed to count.
So the offer lists every deduction and the amount the borrower receives. Insurance became a product line with its own KPIs. Affiliates earn 2.5% on each approved referral, and the admin sees that commission across the whole partner network.
02The brief
I had no direct access to borrowers, staff or bank officers. My inputs were the client's written brief and the notes they left on each review round. The brief described how a loan file moves between people, and I turned that into what each role needs to see and do.
The same application record, ID and timeline appear in every portal, trimmed to what that role acts on.
Rejecting a document, returning a file to staff and re-uploading are designed paths, each with its own state and message.
Partner banks open a finished dossier with scorecard, verified documents and a ZIP, and respond with an approval or a rejection.
How a file is read, checked and sent back, and the calls behind it.
03Decisions
Most screens came out of a few product decisions, and each one had a trade-off.
ChoseOne review screen in twelve states, shared by staff, the credit manager and the admin.
Gave upScreens tailored to each role.
WhyA file changes hands four times. With the same layout at every desk, each person picks up where the last one left off, and developers build one screen with stage blocks.
ChoseSend one file to several banks at once and compare their offers.
Gave upSimpler one-bank-at-a-time routing. Partial rejections needed their own state.
WhyBanks respond at the same time, so the customer only waits as long as the slowest bank.
ChoseReject a single document, with a reason.
Gave upA quick "reject file" button at the staff desk.
WhyIf a PAN card is blurry, the customer re-uploads only that document. The rest of the file stays verified.
ChoseOnly the files sent to that bank, in a portal under its own name.
Gave upA shared partner view that would have been faster to build.
WhyKYC data stays with the people who act on it, and one bank's numbers are never mixed with another's.
ChoseLeads, stages and commission. No documents.
Gave upAffiliates cannot fix a document for their customer.
WhyFewer people handle KYC data, and what affiliates want to know is whether a lead converted and whether they were paid.
ChoseA confirmation step before a file goes to banks.
Gave upOne extra step for the credit manager.
WhyA sent file cannot be recalled, so the last look lists every bank and representative it goes to.
ChoseOne internal sign-in with a role picker. Separate sign-in pages for banks and affiliates.
Gave upThree sign-in pages to maintain.
WhyPartners never see internal roles, and each sign-in page explains why that partner would use it.
04The review screen
The application review is where most of the work happens. The layout stays the same and only the stage-specific blocks change, so a staff member, the credit manager and the admin all read the file the same way.
Name, amount, loan type, stage and owner in one card, with a short path to message the owner.
Four scores out of 100, each showing the two facts behind it, so reviewers don't have to scroll to see where a number came from.
The right column opens with the requested amount and the EMI it implies, then fees and insurance.
A timeline of each step with who did it and when, next to the chat with the customer.
Approve the requested or a custom amount, then keep the loan in-house or open the partner-bank picker.
Send back to staff, reject with a reason or move forward. The note sits above the buttons.
When one document is rejected, the customer re-uploads only that document. Rejection has its own state, message and second check.
How a loan is sanctioned, and what the other roles see.
05Sanction
Approve the requested or a custom amount. Choosing external opens search by IFSC, district or partner, a bank category, the banks and an optional named representative.
Several banks can be selected at once. Naming a representative sends the file straight to that person's queue at the bank.
A last look at the banks and representatives the file is going to, because a sent file cannot be recalled.
Each bank replies with its amount, rate and EMI. The credit manager sends the chosen offer to the customer. A rejection shows which bank declined.
Partner banks get their own portal under their own name. Everything a loan officer at SBI needs is already verified, scored and bundled, so they can focus on the decision.
The scorecard and four verified documents come first, with one ZIP for the bank's own records.
Each document can be viewed or downloaded without leaving the file.
The bank approves the requested amount or sets its own, adds a note and decides.
06Every other desk
Admin, staff, affiliates and the sign-in pages.
07The system
The first build leaned on yellow everywhere. In the system, yellow marks the next action and the page you're on. Every other colour shows where a file is in the process.
It's built on 44 colour variables, 6 text styles and a small set of components with variants, so every one of the 83 screens reads the same way.
The developer handoff, changes from the client review and how we'll measure it.
08Building it
Developers worked alongside the design, so the handoff started with a state model and the screens followed. Every stage has one owner, a fixed list of exits and a message for the customer.
Can go toIn review
The customer sees"Application received" in the app
Can go toDocument rejected, or with the credit manager
The customer seesA checklist showing which documents are done
Can go toRe-uploaded
The customer seesWhatsApp or SMS with the reason; the document turns red in the app
Can go toIn review, for a second check
The customer seesNothing until it is checked
Can go toBack to staff, rejected, sanctioned in-house or sent to banks
The customer sees"Under review"
Can go toApproved with an offer, or rejected by that bank
The customer sees"Approval pending"
Can go toAccepted, or a call with the credit manager
The customer seesThe offer with fees, credited amount and EMI
Can go toOne review request from the customer
The customer seesThe reason, and the date they can apply again
With every screen in place, I audited all 83 against one checklist: hierarchy, colour meaning, tables, forms and the review flow. Drag across the screen to compare.
| Area | Found | Changed |
|---|---|---|
| Navigation shell | A 100px header, every sidebar icon yellow, no search | 64px header with global search; only the current page is highlighted |
| Status and colour | Three pill styles; every KPI change green, even rising rejections | One pill style; changes are coloured by what they mean for the business |
| Tables | Vertical dividers, 16px text, the same applicant in every row | Horizontal rules only, 14px text, realistic and varied rows |
| Hierarchy | Page titles the same size as card titles; labels in capitals | 24px page titles, 18px sections, sentence case throughout |
| Application review | Loan details under an empty timeline; decision split across columns | Loan terms first; approval and decision in one flow ending in one action row |
| Modals and forms | Scrims stopped short; a button inside the note box | Full-height scrims, modals in the first view, a separate note field |
Scope moved twice: once when the brief became screens, and again with each review round. Tasks with priorities, leave requests, a notice board, a revenue tab and an insurance summary came in. Forecasting and budgets, a lead-conversion card and the staff profile header went out.
09How I used AI
10How we'll know
There are no numbers from before launch to compare against, so these are the measures I'd read once real files flow. Each comes from events the timeline already records. The main measure is the median time between "Lead created" and "Offer accepted", since that's what the bet is meant to improve.
| Supporting measure | Read from | What it tells us |
|---|---|---|
| Files with a re-upload | "Document rejected" events | Which documents customers get wrong at upload, and where the app's guidance needs work |
| Files sent back to staff | "Back to staff" events from the credit manager | A high share means staff checks and credit rules disagree |
| Reply time per bank | "Sent to banks" to each "Bank response" | Which partners to rely on for urgent files |
| Offers accepted | Offers sent against offers accepted | Whether showing every fee upfront lowers acceptance |
| Referrals that reach approval | Lead source and final stage | Which affiliates bring customers who qualify |
Record timeline events from day one, so the first month of real files sets the baselines.
Follow one real file from lead to sanction with the staff and credit manager who handle it, and note where they stop or switch tools.
Check muted text and tinted pills on raised surfaces against WCAG AA before the build freezes the tokens.
All 83 web screens, grouped by portal, are in the full case study on Behance.