GROW Case Study

Overview

Designing a new operational foundation for managed funds administration

I led design on a managed funds admin platform and supporting investor portal to modernise how transfer agencies and fund managers operate. My work focused on defining features, flows, and shared interaction patterns that enabled complex, regulated work to be executed with clarity, safety and consistency.

Problem

Fund administration relies on fragile processes and institutional knowledge

Day-to-day fund operations were supported by outdated systems, manual workarounds, and inconsistent processes that varied across teams and clients. Admin users carried significant cognitive load, with limited visibility into ownership, status, or downstream impact of their work, increasing the likelihood of errors and rework.

The managed funds industry as a whole operates on legacy infrastructure, meaning point fixes or surface-level improvements wouldn’t meaningfully reduce risk or improve confidence. Any new platform needed to support existing regulatory requirements while fundamentally changing how work was understood, processed and controlled.

Opportunity

Reimagine how managed funds are administered by creating a platform that brings clarity, control and confidence to both operators and investors.

Project journey

From market research to platform transformation: Building systems that enable strategic evolution

This wasn't a redesign project—it was building a new capability from the ground up. My design work focused on translating requirements into systematic, reusable patterns that enabled both immediate delivery and long-term platform evolution.

Phase 1 (May - Sep 2023)

Market research and solution design

Joined GROW in Oct 2023

Extensive market research laid the foundation for a new managed funds capability, not a redesign of existing systems.

• Market research and opportunity papers developed
• Solution design documentation commenced
• Head of Managed Funds created presentations explaining the vision to leadership
• Early conversations with potential clients to validate the opportunity

Phase 2 (Jan - Dec 2024)

Systems mapping and collaborative workflow definition

Role: Design Lead

Translating vision into buildable reality through systematic mapping, collaborative workshops and structured requirements.

• Mapped end-to-end managed funds flows in Miro with BAs across Admin and Investor journeys
• We ran intensive workshops over 8 weeks with external client to align on system requirements
• Helped shape how user stories were structured and visualised for collective reasoning
• Started designing and building Managed Funds capability on existing Superannuation products and architecture

Phase 3 (Dec 2024 - Jan 2025)

Strategic platform shift and architectural evolution

Role: Design Lead

Navigating a major platform transition while protecting experience coherence and reducing risk through systems thinking.

• Product and Engineering proposed moving away from existing Superannuation architecture
• Earlier systems mapping became critical — we understood workflows deeply enough to adapt quickly
• Treated migration as system evolution rather than a reset, significantly reducing risk
• Made strategic decision with Design/Product/Engineering to adopt PrimeVue component library

Phase 4 (Feb - Dec 2025)

Feature execution and portfolio expansion

Role: Design Lead

Designing core platform capabilities and expanding the portfolio to serve new user groups.

• Designed reconciliations workflows connecting bank, account, and payment data
• Created distribution flows for fund payment processing
• Designed dual-key authorisation and maker-checker patterns for regulated operations
• Extended platform to include new Adviser portal alongside Admin and Investor

Strategic impact

Phase 2's systems mapping became the foundation that made Phase 3's platform shift possible.
By deeply understanding workflows end-to-end and designing composable patterns, we could evolve the architecture without disrupting the experience—treating migration as system evolution rather than a reset. This approach significantly reduced risk and enabled both immediate delivery and long-term strategic flexibility.

System architecture

Platform overview

The Admin platform acted as the operational core, executing and coordinating workflows for accounts, transactions, payments and reconciliations. The Investor portal provided a controlled surface for account holders, while the Adviser portal extended this capability to financial advisers managing multiple accounts. Together, they form a system designed to execute complex, regulated workflows clearly, safely and consistently.

Investor portal

Admin portal

(Core operations)

External systems

System architecture showing the three-part platform structure.

Platform capabilities

The platform’s capabilities are grouped by function, highlighting how Admin enables operational workflows, the Investor portal supports account holder interactions and external systems provide source-of-truth data.

Admin portal

• Operational core handling accounts, transactions, and payments
• Reconciliations ensure financial accuracy and traceability
• Distributions and processing automation with manual overrides
• Reporting and statements for investors and internal stakeholders

External systems

• Banks, custodians, registries and payment rails
• LAB Group (investor onboarding workflows)
• Calastone (settlements and fund distribution)
• Xplan (IRESS) (portfolio reporting and integration)

Investor portal

• Portfolio visibility and account management
• Investment control: applications, redemptions, switches
• Approvals and multi-party workflows
• Access to statements, reports, and updates

Adviser Portal

• Built as an extension of the Investor portal
• View and manage multiple client accounts in one interface
• Bulk operations: generate reports/statements for multiple accounts
• Submit applications, redemptions and switches on behalf of clients

Feature deep dive

Reconciliations

Reconciliations was selected as a feature deep dive because it exemplifies the platform's hardest challenges: financial accuracy, regulatory risk, and cross-system alignment - and reveal how design influenced operational control at scale.

My approach

My primary goal was to establish shared understanding and alignment early, so design decisions could move quickly without rework or late-stage risk escalation.

Rather than starting with interfaces, I focused on:
• Creating early buy-in across organisations
• Making the reconciliation problem space explicit and shared
• Converging on a clear MVP within tight time constraints

Design process

2 week timeline

Week 1

Week 2

Problem clarity

Internal framing

Risk alignment with GROW stakeholders

Stakeholder buy-in

Client partnership alignment

Solution convergence

Co-design workshops

GROW + client collaboration

Design synthesis

Wireframes & prototyping

Validation

User validation

Testing with real users

MVP delivery

Build handover & alignment

Visual overview of the reconciliations design process

The process, in detail

I structured the work to move from problem clarity → solution convergence → validation in a compressed timeframe.

Step 1

Internal framing & risk alignment

I kicked off with the Head of Managed Funds and Product Lead to:
• Clarify the regulatory and operational risks tied to reconciliations
• Define what "success" looked like for both the business and our external client
• Identify where ambiguity or manual work created the most exposure

This ensured workshops were anchored in the right problems, not assumptions.

Step 2

External stakeholder buy-in

Given our client's critical role, I proactively reached out to key their stakeholders to:
• Socialise intent and scope early
• Secure buy-in for collaborative workshops
• Ensure the right operational users were involved from the start

This reduced friction later during validation and sign-off.

Step 3

Facilitated co-design workshops

I facilitated structured workshops with GROW and client teams, using a mix of strategic and generative activities
• Pre-filled long-term goals and key questions to focus discussion
• End-to-end mapping sessions to surface real reconciliation flows and failure points
• How Might We exercises to reframe constraints into opportunities
• Sketching and solution exercises to explore multiple approaches before converging

We deliberately avoided jumping to UI too early. Instead, we aligned on: core reconciliation states, key user actions and decision points.

Workshop artefacts: collaborative mapping, sketches, and How Might We exercises with GROW and external client teams

Step 4

Design synthesis & prototyping

I translated workshop outputs (sketches, flows, and decisions) into:
• Clear wireframes and interaction designs
• Key reconciliation screens
• A coherent reconciliation experience that balanced clarity and safety

Early wireframes showing key reconciliation screens and first hi-fidelity iterations

Step 5

Validation with real users

Before broader rollout I:
• Shared designs back with all workshop participants for feedback and correction
• Tested flows with client stakeholders who would actively use the feature
• Iterated on terminology, hierarchy, and information density based on feedback

This step was critical for trust and adoption.

Step 6

MVP alignment & delivery

Within two weeks, I aligned with Product and Engineering on:
• MVP scope and sequencing
• What was intentionally deferred vs required for compliance
• Clear handover into build with shared confidence across teams

Outcomes

Strong cross-company alignment on reconciliation workflows and responsibilities

Validated designs with end users before build

Clear MVP definition agreed across Design, Product, Engineering and our client

Reduced downstream risk by resolving ambiguity early

Final reconciliation screens showing the MVP delivered within 2 weeks

Key design decisions & trade-offs

These decisions reflect usability findings and demonstrate judgement, synthesis and system thinking - not just feature delivery.

Decision 1

Separated Applications and Disbursements

Users treated these as fundamentally different workflows with different pricing, timing, and reconciliation rules. I separated them at the dashboard level to align with user mental models and reduce errors.

Trade off: Slightly more navigation in exchange for clarity and correctness.

Decision 2

Designed for manual reconciliation first

Testing showed users relied heavily on manual matching due to overpayments, edge cases, and inconsistent references. I made manual reconciliation a first-class workflow rather than hiding it behind automation.

Trade off: Less "set-and-forget" automation, more operator control and trust.

Decision 3

Optimised for high-volume exception handling

Users needed to quickly see where problems existed. Dashboards surfaced unmatched counts and amounts upfront so teams could triage issues before drilling into detail.

Trade off: Less emphasis on individual transactions early, faster and safer prioritisation.

Decision 4

Deferred Disbursements to narrow scope

Disbursements required distinct logic and language. I scoped them out of the initial iteration to avoid premature abstractions and validate the core model first.

Trade off: Narrower MVP, stronger foundation for future expansion.

How we'll measure success

We've defined clear success metrics that will demonstrate the impact of our design decisions on operational efficiency, risk reduction and user confidence post-launch.

Automated matching success rate 85%+
Significantly reducing manual review workload.

100% audit trail capture
‍Every action logged automatically, eliminating manual documentation gaps.

90% independent task completion
‍Admin users complete reconciliations without BA escalation.

100% compliance adherence
‍Meeting regulatory requirements for financial tracking.

Designing an admin and investor platform for managed funds

Project journey

Context and constraints

System architecture

Design ownership and scope

Feature deep dive

Let's chat!