YK●

Case study 01 · Fintech · Shipped MVP

Payment
without doubt.

Redesigning installment repayment around the questions users actually ask: what is due, what is overdue, and what happens next?

My roleProduct Designer
PartnersPM, Research, Engineering
ScopeDiscovery to shipped MVP
ProductKeepa BNPL

01 · Context

Users were paying—but not confidently.

Installment payment had become one of the top three support topics. The interface exposed transactions, but did not help people understand urgency, order, or completion.

~100support calls reviewed
7user interviews
8pain points identified

02 · Research

Confusion followed the payment.

I used support data as the discovery baseline because the product had no event tracking, funnel, or dashboard. Alongside the researcher, I reviewed roughly 100 calls and CRM patterns, interviewed seven overdue, recently paid, and randomly selected customers, and benchmarked four comparable payment products.

Key observationUsers did not only struggle to pay. They struggled to predict the consequence of each choice—and to confirm afterward that the system had understood them.
01

Current and overdue debt looked alike

Visual parity hid risk and made payment order unclear.

02

Manual amount created uncertainty

Users had to calculate what the system already knew.

03

Success lacked evidence

No useful receipt meant users could not verify what had been paid.

04

The minimum safe action was invisible

People could not tell what would prevent further overdue status.

03 · Priorities

Four MVP decisions.

Separate overdue from current

Make urgency visible before users select anything.

Guide the payment order

Prioritize the oldest installment and prevent risky sequences.

Replace manual amounts

Use direct selection and multi-select for predictable totals.

Close the loop

Provide status, amount, tracking code, date, paid items, and remaining balance.

04 · Solution & trade-off

One decision at a time.

The redesigned flow turns system logic into visible guidance, from the first overdue warning to a receipt users can trust.

How the direction was chosenEngineering proposed a lower-effort alternative. I built both directions as interactive prototypes and tested two key scenarios with 10 participants. The selected design performed better on speed, clarity, and preference; the evidence aligned the team around the added effort.

Overdue first.
Selection second.
Proof at the end.

A CLEAR STATE FOR EVERY PAYMENT MOMENT
What shipped firstTwo highest-impact improvements entered the initial release. Two additional capabilities moved to the roadmap rather than expanding the MVP.

05 · Outcome

Clarity reduced avoidable support.

After launch, customer support reported that installment-payment issues were no longer among the most common requests. Because product analytics were not available, I present this as a qualitative operational signal—not a fabricated conversion metric.

Shipped evidenceTwo highest-impact improvements released in the MVP.
What I would changeInstrument the baseline earlier and involve Engineering during discovery, before the direction is set.
NEXT CASE STUDY

Digikala
moderation

→