Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We all know it's really hard to get good pricing and cost information.
Please share what you can so you can help your peers.
In your experience, what fraud detection tool is the most effective?