What to answer before building fintech or event platform software

Software projects in fintech and event platforms tend to carry a specific set of risks that surface early or become very expensive later. Regulatory requirements govern architecture from the ground up. Integrations with payment providers, verification services, and ticketing infrastructure behave differently under real load than they do in documentation. Traffic spikes hard and fast, where inventory errors or processing failures have immediate, measurable consequences. And operational ownership left undefined at launch creates quiet system decay that compounds over months.

The briefing phase is where most of these risks are either surfaced and addressed or left to emerge at the worst possible time. The questions below are the ones worth working through before development begins — whether you're building from scratch or evolving a system already running in production.

Understanding what you're solving

What is the operational pain, specifically?

The most useful starting point is a clear description of what's failing today — what's breaking in the current workflow, where it's breaking, and what it's costing the business. The details matter because they determine which parts of the system need to be built and how much resilience each part needs to carry.

In fintech, that tends to look like manual reconciliation consuming hours of finance team time at the end of every settlement period, or onboarding funnels losing applicants because identity verification is slower than competitors, or payment failure rates sitting above a threshold that's quietly eroding revenue. In event platforms, it's often inventory data lagging behind real sales during high-demand on-sales and producing oversells, or entry validation degrading under load until queues form before the event has even started.

What has to measurably change, and by when?

Early in a project, it's worth pinning down how success will be evaluated once the system is live — with enough specificity to drive real decisions. A target drop in payment failure rate. Onboarding approval time reduced to a defined ceiling within a set period after launch. Ticket inventory accuracy maintained within a given window during peak load. These criteria end up shaping architecture decisions, scope trade-offs, and phasing choices throughout the project.

If the right metrics aren't obvious yet, starting with baselines is enough — current processing volumes, drop-off rates, time currently spent on manual tasks. That creates a reference point and tends to surface clarity about what the system is actually supposed to change, which is often less straightforward than it initially appears.

Who uses this, and what are their actual working conditions?

Roles shape logic and interface more than almost any other factor, but the conditions those roles operate under matter just as much as the roles themselves.

A fraud analyst reviewing flagged transactions in a back-office environment has fundamentally different requirements from a field agent completing KYC checks on a mobile device with an unreliable connection. A promoter monitoring pre-sale volumes from a laptop the morning of a ticket release has different needs from a venue operations team running entry validation on handheld scanners during ingress for a sold-out show.

Mapping roles, devices, connectivity expectations, and access requirements before anything is designed tends to surface tensions between user groups that would otherwise stay invisible until the first build is in front of real people. Those tensions are exactly the kind of information that improves a design, and they're significantly cheaper to work through before development starts than after it.

What has already been tried, and why didn't it hold?

Understanding what's been attempted before — internally and by competitors — tends to compress the time it takes to define what actually needs to be built. An internal build that solved the immediate problem but couldn't scale identifies exactly where the architecture needs to be stronger this time. A third-party platform that created compliance gaps points to requirements that off-the-shelf solutions in this space consistently underserve.

Competitor products are worth examining with the same specificity. In fintech, the question isn't just which payment or onboarding flows competitors have built, but where their users publicly report friction — verification delays, reconciliation errors, support failures during high transaction volume. In event platforms, it's where competing ticketing or entry systems visibly struggle: on-sale crashes, oversell incidents, integration failures with venue infrastructure. Those patterns reveal which problems are genuinely hard to solve at scale and which have been solved well enough that a comparable solution is a baseline rather than a differentiator.

For teams starting from scratch, the equivalent is mapping the workarounds that currently exist — the spreadsheets, the manual processes, the makeshift flows standing in for functionality the business actually needs. Those workarounds point directly at what the first release needs to prioritize.

Defining the work before it defines itself

What goes into the first release, and what doesn't?

The first release should be the smallest version that can operate safely in production and deliver the outcome the project was built to achieve. In regulated fintech products, that floor includes the core transaction or compliance flow, audit logging, and enough monitoring to catch failures before users encounter them. In event platforms, it's the ticketing or registration flow, real-time inventory management, and a reliable entry validation path.

Being explicit about the exclusions matters just as much as defining what's in scope. Scope expands quietly — a decision here, an addition there — and the cumulative effect tends to be a release that arrives late, costs more than planned, and still doesn't quite reflect what the project originally set out to do. Naming what moves to a subsequent phase, and why, protects scope in a way that general prioritization conversations rarely do.

What is the real budget, including tolerance for variation?

Budget shapes everything downstream: which architecture decisions are realistic, what team composition makes sense, how deeply any given part of the system can be properly built. A payments infrastructure project and a consumer-facing event discovery product have very different cost profiles, and the right approach to each depends entirely on what resources are actually available.

Sharing a specific number — along with an honest range for how much variation the business can absorb — makes it possible for a development partner to propose something calibrated to the actual situation. If the number is genuinely uncertain, defining the ceiling is enough to make planning meaningful.

Which dates are driven by external reality?

Dates that exist because something external requires them are fundamentally different from dates chosen because they feel achievable. A regulatory filing window, a banking partner go-live clause, a flagship event the platform needs to be operational before — these are constraints to build a plan around. A target quarter selected because it seems reasonable tends to compress everything quietly and then becomes difficult to defend when the schedule tightens.

Staged delivery matters here too. An internal pilot, a controlled rollout with a limited user group, and a validation period before full-scale operation give each phase room to surface problems before they compound. Projects that compress everything into a single go-live moment tend to encounter that tradeoff at exactly the point when there's least capacity to absorb it.

What constraints govern the architecture from day one?

Fintech and event platforms both carry non-negotiable technical and regulatory requirements that need to be on the table before architectural decisions are made. Data residency rules for each market the product operates in. PCI-DSS obligations if payment card data is in scope. Audit trail requirements mandated by a regulator or a financial partner. Existing infrastructure standards — on-premise hosting, specific databases, directory services — that a new or evolving system has to operate within.

A system designed without accounting for these has to be partially or substantially rebuilt to accommodate them, and that rebuild tends to happen when the product is already live and carrying real transactions or real ticket sales — the worst possible time.

Preparing for what doesn't go smoothly

Which integrations carry the most risk?

External integrations are where project risk concentrates, and the reasons are usually subtler than expected. Payment providers that perform reliably in a sandbox behave differently under production load. Identity verification services have latency profiles that only become apparent when real volume increases. Ticketing system data contracts that look clean in documentation turn out to have edge cases once real data flows through them. Background syncs appear healthy and fail silently for hours before anyone notices.

Every integration the product depends on is worth investigating early: what documentation actually exists, what rate and throughput limits apply, whether a functional sandbox is available for testing before production. The failure modes that integrations introduce — partial outages, silent sync errors, inconsistent data under load — tend to surface during an on-sale event or at end-of-day settlement, when there's the least capacity to deal with them.

How should the system behave when something partially fails?

Total outages are easier to plan for because they're visible. Partial failures are more common and often more damaging precisely because they're harder to detect. A payment processor accepting requests but timing out on a subset of them. An inventory system updating correctly for most transactions but silently dropping a small percentage under peak load. A verification service responding but returning inconsistent results for certain document types.

For each critical flow, it's worth defining in advance how the system should behave when a dependency is degraded. Whether it queues transactions and processes them on recovery, surfaces a clean error and allows a retry, or fails gracefully without exposing the underlying problem — these are design decisions that belong in the briefing, not ones to make during an incident.

Who is responsible for the system after launch?

Post-launch ownership requires someone accountable for monitoring the system day-to-day, someone who owns incident response, someone tracking infrastructure costs as they evolve, and someone connecting product analytics back to the business metrics the project was built to move. When those accountabilities are undefined, systems degrade quietly — monitoring alerts go unreviewed, costs accumulate without scrutiny, and small failures that would have been cheap to fix compound into expensive ones.

If internal capacity to own those functions doesn't exist yet, building handover and documentation time into the project plan is significantly cheaper than establishing it under pressure after launch.

What is the failure scenario that would cause the most damage?

Working through a general risk register has limited value. The more useful exercise is identifying the specific scenario that would cause the most harm — and deciding in advance what the response would be.

For fintech products, that tends to be a payment processor outage during a peak settlement window, a verification provider going down and blocking new customer onboarding entirely, or a regulatory change arriving faster than the system can be adapted to accommodate it. For event platforms, it's typically inventory desyncing and producing oversells during a high-demand on-sale, entry validation failing at scale during venue ingress, or refund processing failing after an event cancellation when customer expectations and time pressure are both highest.

For each scenario, having the mitigation documented in advance — a fallback flow, a manual override process, a queue, a defined escalation path — is what allows a team to respond to a production failure calmly rather than improvising under pressure.

Starting well is most of the work

The problems that derail software projects — unclear scope, misaligned expectations, constraints that surface too late — are almost always visible before development starts. In fintech and event platforms specifically, the questions that are hardest to answer in a briefing room tend to be the most expensive to answer in production. A compliance requirement that takes an afternoon to surface and three months to retrofit. An integration limit that takes an hour to investigate and a week to work around once it's hit during a live on-sale. An ownership gap that takes ten minutes to define and creates months of operational drift when it isn't.

Some of these questions will be straightforward to answer. Others will surface disagreements within your team, gaps in requirements, or assumptions that haven't been examined closely enough. That's the point — those are exactly the things worth finding before a development team is involved.

If any of these are proving difficult to answer, get in touch. We can help you work through them and turn what you have into a brief that's actually ready to build from.

‍