Tasks

Product Strategy, Vision, Research, IXD, Visual Design

Timeline

1 month

Team

1 Product manager, 1 Engineer, 1 Product designer

Context

No one trusted the system to keep them safe.

One missing fee, one wrong disclosure, one outdated document could trigger triple-damages lawsuits. Regulators were circling, legal was sounding alarms, and property managers were didn't have a system in place for fees, policies, and disclosures to be applied safely at scale.

Impact

20% ↓

Risk drop

40% ↓

Audit prep decreased

✧˖°

Trust in being covered.

As a product design lead

I owned the product strategy and design direction for turning compliance from a liability into a strength.

That meant deciding how to normalize wildly different state regulations, designing a system that scaled across every property level, and creating templates that made legal airtight without overwhelming users.

The compliance hub

A single, central place where partners could stay safe without slowing down.

Built around three pillars

Risk-proof templates

Enforce consistency across states

Bulk edit workflows

Eliminates fear of reduction

Bulk edit workflows

Eliminates fear of reduction

Iterating to a solution

Property managers need to make bulk edits across different levels: state, city, and community.

Early prototypes revealed what wouldn’t scale. 1:1 edits were a dead end and dynamic based on selections was a technical fantasy.

v1 1:1 edits

» Pro

○ Risk adoption based on prominence.
○ Optimize for speed.

Ø Cons

○ Extra step that would increase friction.
○ Doesn't highlight a one stop place to edit it again.
○ Introduces a new drawer pattern.
v2 Dynamic based on selections

» Pro

○ Progressive disclosure solves granularity.
○ Optimize for scalability.

Ø Cons

○ Not technically feasible to pull in regs to flag issues.
○ Too clever for its use case.
○ Introduces new drawer pattern.
Work Single Main Image

I pushed toward a middle path: high coverage, high clarity

Declutter to clarity in one beat. Here’s where compliance isn’t just hidden or buried somewhere.

Our renters also need to know

Visible fees needs to be clear and transparent to make confident decisions.

Since we already had supplementary research on renters' expectations. The goal was to determine what can we solve for now and the future. Leadership approved of "Ask for price" based on speed despite conversion risk.

v1 Ask for price (Chosen)

» Pro

○ Optimize for speed.
○ Least tech work.

Ø Cons

○ Conversion risk.
○ Leadership approved of the risk.
v2 Display all datapoints required by legal regulations

» Pro

○ Increases adoption by visibility.
○ Compliant with regulation.

Ø Cons

○ Increase tech work.
○ Leadership flagged more pressing priorities.
Work Single Main Image

Impact

20% ↓

Risk plummetted

40% ↓

Audit prep decreased

✧˖°

Trust in being covered.