Increasing payments fraud highlights rules-based processing benefits
The recent AFP report (Association for Financial Professionals) on payments fraud in 2008 makes grim reading for financial institutions…
…especially compared to the previous 2007 one. 30% of respondents said they experienced more payments fraud attempts in 2008 than 2007, and incidence accelerated throughout the year with 38% saying that fraud increased in the second half of the year, probably due to worsening economic conditions.
From an IT point of view, this just reinforces the need to have systems that are easy and cost-effective to change. Lustratus developed a detailed report in 2008 about the shift in the area of IT payments processing solutions, where it outlined the key elements of the new, ’2nd generation’ approach to payments processing as follows:
…the 2nd generation payments processing model needs to be based on the following key design points:-
-An extensible, service-oriented approach featuring plug-in capabilities
-Enterprise-wide, consolidated and centralized, real-time visibility and control of all payments processing activities, from anywhere to anywhere, based on a generic, standards-based payments model
-A business rules-based architecture governing payments processing functionality
- And, of course, the continued provision of reliable, efficient and repeatable payments handling as provided by 1st generation systems
The two key features that apply to thispayments fraud example are the extensible approach with plug-in capabilities, and in particular the rules-based concept. The idea behind having a business rules-driven payments processing infrastructure is that when changes are needed in the way payments are handled, these can be implemented quickly, safely and verifiably with rules as opposed to having to change program internals with all the associated implications. For example, rules could be used to enforce the use of separate accounts for handling checks or ACH payments, or having different accounts for every different payment type. In addition, rules when combined with events processing can provide an easy way to detect out of line situations and raise a red flag.
Payments fraud is only one of many examples of the need for systems to be able to respond quickly to change – and rules-based processing combined with an extensible, service-based approach to delivering functionality provides the ideal environment to tolerate that change quickly, safely, cheaply and effectively.
Steve
Recent Comments
November 1, 2010 (8:36) CICS and PHP - DON'T PANIC It's great to see transactional support of any kind for a cloud language... be it PHP or not (whi...
July 16, 2010 (12:41) Does Micro Focus Server for SOA miss the point? I think Micro Focus has done a tremodeous introduction of Web Service from a COBOL. May not be a ...
June 15, 2010 (6:14) CICS and PHP - DON'T PANIC Hi Steve, Well, we don't actually *demand* that you host the PHP in regions separate to those ru...
April 3, 2010 (12:27) AMQP - Great idea, but it will never work As someone who has worked on DDS from an implementation perspective as well as an OMG standards p...
December 12, 2009 (9:15) Did Teilhard's JuxtaComm patent wipe out IBM, Microsoft and SAP? Subsequent to my post, the Calgary Herald ran an article (http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/P...
December 10, 2009 (9:01) AMQP - Great idea, but it will never work Now, this is a late reply! @Thorlin. I looked at DDS before embarking on AMQP (I also looked a...
December 7, 2009 (2:40) Come in Texas East District Court, your time is up The important thing to remember about patents is that they're all about the claims. While the bu...
October 27, 2009 (9:08) BAM vs BI Good article. Thanks, Emil
October 23, 2009 (11:04) So Oracle got Sun - but why? Oracle has stepped up the rhetoric when it comes to its plans for Sun. In a message to Sun custom...
September 16, 2009 (1:15) IBM gets Cognos to fill the gaps IBM has two BAM solutions now Cognos Now! and Websphere Business Monitor. Why two BAM solutions f...