Home

Impartner: MDF

Giving partners clarity on funding rules so they could spend with confidence.

My role UX designer responsible for the end-to-end experience of a net-new MDF feature, defining key workflows, designing core screens, and partnering with Product and Engineering to implement the solution
Scope Product + engineering | Net-new feature build | MDF budget dashboard, approvals and proof-of-performance submission, partner and admin reporting, destructive action guardrails
Challenges Building a brand-new capability from scratch, balancing clarity with financial accountability, and designing for multiple audiences while keeping setup and reporting understandable
Impact Delivered a structured program experience for budgeting and reporting, improved confidence around high-consequence actions through clear messaging, and shipped a portal dashboard that made MDF status easy to track
Skills End-to-end workflow design, role-based UX for multiple audiences, dashboard and reporting UX, risk and consequence messaging, financial-process clarity, cross-functional execution

I designed the MDF workflows for requesting funds, tracking approvals, submitting proof of performance, and reporting outcomes. The work focused on making requirements and status unmistakable so partners could spend money confidently and administrators could audit quickly.

Components and layout followed the grid and typographic conventions established in the Impartner design system, keeping the feature consistent with the broader product without requiring a design system update mid-build.

Key decisions Summary: dashboard visibility, role split, guardrails on destructive actions
Design role-based views to prevent admin overhead
DecisionSeparated partner and administrator workflows with role-based views tailored to each audience
TradeoffMore surface area and state handling instead of one shared view
WhyAudit and oversight risk increases when partners and admins share the same model
ResultFeature shipped without adding process burden to program managers
Make budget status visible in the dashboard, not via email
DecisionBuilt a structured budget overview showing allocation, approval state, and remaining funds
TradeoffAdded dashboard complexity to reduce status checks and manual follow-up
WhyBaseline MDF was managed outside the portal, creating uncertainty and back-and-forth
ResultPartners could self-serve budget confidence without contacting a program manager
Gate destructive actions with explicit consequence messaging
DecisionAdded explicit consequence messaging at destructive action points, especially delete
TradeoffA more interruptive dialog in exchange for preventing irreversible mistakes
WhyDeleting budget data is irreversible and creates audit risk
ResultClearer risk understanding before commit and fewer accidental destructive actions

"I need my marketing dollars to deliver real value."

— Impartner User
Outcomes Summary: budget visibility, clearer risk, role-based reporting without admin burden
  • Budget confidence — No MDF capability in the portal and no visibility into status or remaining budget. Budget overview and portal dashboard for allocation and approval tracking. Workflow validated with Product and Engineering against real partner use cases.
  • Risk clarity — High-consequence actions, especially deleting budget data, lacked safeguards. Explicit consequence messaging at destructive action points. Delete dialog reviewed with Product as a deliberate risk communication artifact.
  • Administrative overhead — Concern that a partner-facing MDF tool would increase audit complexity. Role-based views separating partner status from admin reporting. Dual-audience workflow model approved through cross-functional delivery sessions.
What changed in the product
  • Net-new MDF feature covering requests, approvals, proof-of-performance submission, and reporting
  • Budget status surfaced in a portal dashboard instead of email or off-system tools
  • Destructive actions gated with explicit consequence messaging
How we measured

Workflow and role model validated through cross-functional review with Product and Engineering. Dashboard layout explored in alternate configurations and reviewed against portal conventions.