The solution needs to mitigate and provide an update for one listener process that keeps failing. For a particular platform list or rule, the solution fails after crossing 500 transactions.

We were not sure if this failure is due to how we implemented the solution in our systems or if it is a generic issue in the solution itself.  We checked with the vendor but there was no solution for it. 

We came up with another way of doing additional, double monitoring. 

The systems are always open to upgrades and improvements. There are always new updates. I know some other versions that will come up. The one that has been deployed is the fifth of its kind and when we were running the test during the deployment, we encountered some technical issues. When we tried to refer to other countries where the solution was deployed, we realized that we had run the older version there.

This particular version needs an improvement in the Customer Due Diligence model. There are two different modes on which the solution runs which include the batch mode and the real-time mode. Initially, the solution was running in batch mode. The real-time mode got introduced as a result of advancements in mobile technology where customers needed to access the system using their mobile devices. Real-time mode, which is the opposite of batch mode, runs the system in real time. On the other hand, batch mode runs at a specific period where you go and check what the result is.

Real-time mode runs 24/7 and you can see the information updated on the database whenever you check it. It is one of the new features that this particular version came out with.

Sometimes when we move from one version to another, a few things don't work as expected. We upgraded our designer from 5.6 to 6.2 to ActOne, but I was unable to synchronize or save. I had to raise a request again and roll back to the old version.

When using the user interface, it can be helpful to have a step-by-step guide when adding UI elements or moving shapes, as this can sometimes cause issues.

Some aspects of the product are not achievable and require us to use other warehouses. For example, when a merchant is onboarded, and we want to block them from terminals or the merchant limit section, we have to create our plugin. We are unable to do that inside the product because of the limitations. If we want that capability developed in the product, it will cost a lot of money.

We use a separate system for level-two escalations — those are deeper investigations. If I was designing a tool, I guess it would be able to track a case from level-one to level-two to the conclusion, so that we wouldn't have to use multiple instances of different software. A more holistic surveillance approach would be a step in the right direction.

In my experience, I've never seen any facility on Actimize to facilitate level two and conclusions. If they did go in that direction, it would allow firms like mine to drop yet another piece of software that we use to track level two and level three escalations.

The solution's user interface could be better. We struggled to migrate the server to the newer version of Windows. It took a lot of work going through onboard users and carrying out training before they could seamlessly use the platform on the new Microsoft Edge browser.

It would be better if it integrated with other tools. Actimize uses many databases, and everything on Actimize has been deployed to the database. On the customer side, on the front end side, if they focus more on integrating with other applications, it can make the tool better. The reporting feature and dashboards could be better. In the next release, I would like them to incorporate a Tableau-type reporting structure within this tool.

In terms of what could be improved, one of the problems that our clients generally talk about is the price of the product when they have to purchase the product and the licenses for it. Those are on the higher side, in which case they would go ahead developing the built-in solution. Otherwise, the product is good compared to Actimize's competitors' products.

They have provided a feature wherein you can develop your own goals and targets along with it. There are some applications that will restrict you from doing something. But this application always provides you a plugin. You develop a plugin, you configure something and you can add any data. You can introduce any source. You can write to any file. You can then read reports, whether it is a PDF or something, or you can directly interact with a third party, such as a government organization wherein there is a feature like RFI, a request for information.

For example, let's consider there is a federal investigation going on and they need to have a response from a federal team. They will send out the RFI request. Once the federal team responds back on that, the response will automatically trigger an action once it is received. There are a lot of automated things and they haven't restricted anything. Even if there is a little drawback or a shortcoming, you can always create a Java code to use and just patch something in there. So in that sense, I would say that it is an open-ended product, it's not a closed environment.

I haven't had the chance to work on robotics, so I can not comment on that part. But it looks like that is something that they have developed recently. The other issue is that if you want to learn about the application itself, the training is not available as an open-source. It is restricted and you have to pay for it and get a formal certification, and only then you would be able to implement something with that. Even if you try to Google it, you won't be able to find the actual code or how to configure it and all that information.

It is complex in terms of daily maintenance. Other detection platforms run on a 15-day or one-month window, whereas this particular platform runs daily. Therefore, it requires daily maintenance. If there is a delay due to this daily maintenance, it creates a snowball effect impacting the subsequent days. It takes a lot of effort to catch up and get into BAU mode. It would be great if they could include certain features to make the daily processing less complex, but I don't see that happening. It is a complex product, and with each version release, it is just becoming more and more complex.

I think this solution is unnecessarily complex. The transaction monitoring software, SAM, in particular, is extremely complex.

An additional feature I'd like to see would be a good data quality monitoring module. Currently, we have to build our own module, our own functions, in order to monitor the quality of data which goes into Actimize. Actimize knows that if the data quality is not up to the mark, the solution doesn't function as expected. If they could build some sort of data quality monitoring module on top, which is inbuilt into their functionality, that would be really helpful.

The patch section has room for improvement. For example, if we have a fax number system in a google search with a particular person who has anything attached to their relationship, there should be an easier way to match the information. Also when a customer ID or address changes the information should sync up and match. 

I have experience using Actimize with two different organizations, Citibank and UOB. Both are slightly different in terms of the user interfaces, but when it comes to what rules we set and the threshold in scoring, that actually depends on the bank itself, on the compliance- side. In UOB in particular, the response time was a bit slower than Citibank.

It has become too complex for its own good with a lot of versions. They are trying to do too much. Instead of keeping it sort of traditional and keeping the core search engine as a standalone and having analytical bolt-ons, they have decided to jam it all into the same product, which made the product overly complex and difficult to implement.

Their professional services group could certainly use a boost. Their QA process is getting better, but it is still not where it should be. Their release QA crew could certainly use improvement.

Risk Control Monitor, RCM, needs improvement. Whenever we go for another generation, if it happens to have a lead generation failure or a high amount of alerts, the generation filers take a longer time. 

From the front end side, the UI is definitely user-friendly. It is highly compatible as long as the reading is at the coding point of view. But it can't provide certain high coding. When a person clicks on any kind of scenario or alert, I would like to have a metadata help menu.

As business user, we do not encounter challenges working on the solution. Minor customizations will help to improve the processes. 

I would like for it to proactively give suggestions or hints before initiating the transaction. It could make use of the data that has already occurred, like machine learning. It should learn patterns from specific countries. 

One of the issues with the product is that when the front end is down, the processes don't work. I think they could improve that. The front end doesn't have to be connected to the different processes because the processes go to the database. Sometimes the processes fail because of the front end and it creates a lot of problems. 

The interface is a little old, and sometimes slow depending on the client server and the RAM, for example, because Actimize requires a lot of hardware. They should solve that although I know that in the new version the interface has been improved.