Skip to content
Back to workbench

Architecture Note7 min read

Building an Enterprise Finance UI Like a Real Product

Dense UI is not automatically bad. Finance tools need speed, filters, drilldowns, saved views, exports, and auditability.

Enterprise finance software has a different definition of good UX. The best interface is often dense, predictable, auditable, and fast for someone who uses it every day.

What I was trying to do

I was trying to make Intacct feel like a serious finance workspace instead of a decorative dashboard.

What I learned

  • Dense UI is not automatically bad when users need comparison, repetition, and speed.
  • Finance tools need filters, saved views, exports, audit logs, and drilldowns more than marketing-style polish.
  • Role-based workspaces make the product feel smaller for each user without reducing platform scope.
  • Tables become product surfaces, not just data displays.

Technical notes

  • AP, AR, GL, Cash, Reporting, Admin, Notifications, and Audit should share table and filter primitives.
  • Saved views need durable metadata, not local-only UI state.
  • Exports should be permissioned and audited.
  • Drilldowns should preserve context so users can return to filtered lists without losing state.

Open questions

  • How much configurability should be available before it overwhelms the UI?
  • What is the right line between module-specific behavior and shared table infrastructure?
  • How should audit log visibility vary by role?

Next steps

  • Keep moving hardcoded UI data into service-layer calls.
  • Standardize saved view metadata.
  • Add module-specific empty, loading, and error states.
  • Tie exports and drilldowns into audit logs.

Tags

  • Intacct
  • Enterprise UX
  • Finance
  • RBAC

Have an interesting problem?

I am most useful on the ones that cross a boundary: a product decision that turns out to be a data-model decision, or a bug that only reproduces in production. If that sounds like yours, I would like to hear about it.

vanshajpoonia06@gmail.com