Building Financial Products That Last: From MVP to Bedrock

Many promising products in finance soar quickly only to crash just as fast. The culprit? A rush to add features without a solid foundation. In this article, we explore why a feature-first approach fails, how Minimum Viable Products (MVPs) can save you, and why focusing on a single 'bedrock' feature—like everyday account servicing—creates products users truly love and stick with.

What is the feature-first approach and why is it problematic in financial product development?

The feature-first approach means starting with a list of desired capabilities—transfer money, track spending, set savings goals—and building them as quickly as possible. The logic seems sound: more features equals more value. But in practice, this leads to what Jason Fried calls a 'feature salad': a confusing mix of unrelated functions that satisfy internal department demands rather than user needs. When every team wants their pet feature included, the product bloats. Maintenance becomes a nightmare, and users feel overwhelmed. For financial products, where trust and clarity are paramount, a bloated interface erodes confidence. The original text warns that this approach often ignores security (the 'narcs' or security team) and leads to features that break under complexity or simply don't resonate. The result? A product that looks impressive on a roadmap but fails to deliver real, lasting value.

Building Financial Products That Last: From MVP to Bedrock

How does the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) concept help avoid common pitfalls?

The MVP philosophy, championed by Jason Fried in his book Getting Real and podcast Rework, calls for building just enough to keep users engaged—nothing more. This ruthless focus forces product teams to identify the single most valuable feature and perfect it. For financial products, an MVP might be a simple mobile app that lets customers check their balance and view recent transactions. That's not flashy, but it's foundational. By resisting the urge to add features like chatbots or complex analytics, teams can deliver a stable, easy-to-use experience. The original text emphasizes that this requires 'a razor sharp eye, a ruthless edge and having the courage to stick by your opinion.' Without an MVP mindset, teams get seduced by 'the Columbo Effect'—always wanting one more thing—which leads to delays and a product that tries to do everything but excels at nothing.

What is 'the Columbo Effect' and how does it hinder product development?

Inspired by the TV detective who always says 'just one more thing', the Columbo Effect describes the tendency of stakeholders to continuously add new requirements. In financial product development, this can happen at any stage: after user testing, during demo, or even after launch. Each 'one more thing' seems small, but collectively they derail the MVP. The original text notes that it's easy to be seduced by this effect because each addition appears to solve a real user problem. However, it's a trap. Every extra feature increases complexity, testing time, and risk. The Columbo Effect often stems from internal politics—departments pushing their own agenda. To counter it, product teams must have a clear vision of the core value proposition and a disciplined process for evaluating requests. Saying no, or deferring features to a later phase, is an act of strategic courage that preserves focus and velocity.

Why do many finance apps become 'feature salads' influenced by internal politics?

Original text explains that finance apps often become 'a reflection of the internal politics of the business' rather than an experience centered on customers. When product roadmaps are driven by competing departments—marketing wants a rewards tracker, operations wants automated alerts, compliance wants detailed audit logs—the result is a jumble of features that serve internal fiefdoms. Each feature may be justified individually, but together they create a confusing user interface. Users struggle to find what matters most because the app is packed with tangential tools. The original calls this a 'mixed bag of confusing, unrelated and ultimately unlovable customer experiences.' This happens because internal success metrics (e.g., 'my department shipped X features') replace true user outcome metrics (e.g., 'customers completed their goal in under 30 seconds'). To break this cycle, teams must align around a shared north star metric that reflects genuine user value, not internal output.

What is 'bedrock' in the context of product design?

Bedrock, as introduced in the original text, is 'the core element of your product that truly matters to users.' It's the fundamental feature so essential that without it, the product fails—but with it, everything else can be built on top. Bedrock is not trendy; it's stable and timeless. For financial products, bedrock often involves basic servicing: checking balances, making payments, viewing transaction history. These activities might seem mundane, but they are the daily needs of users. The original text argues that if you get bedrock right, your product becomes 'sticky'—users return because it reliably solves their core problem. Recognizing bedrock requires deep user research to understand what users cannot live without. It also demands the discipline to ignore shiny objects and instead invest in making that one experience excellent. Bedrock is the opposite of a feature salad: it's a single, solid foundation.

Why is regular account servicing a key bedrock for retail banking apps?

The original text specifically highlights regular servicing journeys—like checking a current account balance—as the bedrock in retail banking. Why? Because users perform these actions daily, though they may open a new account only rarely. 'People open their current account once in a blue moon but they look at it every day.' This frequency creates an opportunity for habitual engagement. A banking app that nails the daily check-in—fast loading, clear balance display, easy transaction search—becomes part of the user's routine. If that experience is smooth, users trust the app for less frequent but higher-stakes actions like setting up direct debits or applying for loans. Conversely, if the daily check-in is slow or confusing, users will abandon the app altogether. Therefore, investing in regular servicing as bedrock ensures that the app earns its place in the user's daily life, building the foundation for deeper financial relationships.

How can product teams shift focus from internal departments to user needs?

Shifting focus starts with establishing a clear, user-centered product vision that everyone can rally behind. The original text implies that internal politics thrive in the absence of a strong north star. Teams should conduct user research to identify the single most important job the product must do. Then, define success metrics around that job—like 'time to complete a balance check' or 'percentage of users who log in three times a week'. When new feature requests come from internal departments, evaluate them against these metrics. If a feature doesn't support the bedrock, postpone it. Also, include user experience (UX) designers in roadmap meetings to champion the user's perspective. Finally, adopt a 'ruthless' MVP mindset: ship the bedrock feature first, gather feedback, and only then add complementary features. This approach flips the dynamic from 'how many features can we ship?' to 'how perfectly can we solve the core problem?'—making products that actually stick.