How do you choose which part of the payment process is worth upgrading first?

It examines where the most obscure operations, manual checks or customer referrals are generated. One company is most relevant for the reconciliation of payments, the other is the review of partner integration or risk. The choice is determined by the operating model, the capabilities of current systems and the consequences of a particular disorder.

Can the developer portal confirm the merchant's eligibility?

It coordinates the preparation and receives the conclusion of the responsible evaluation process. Technical test and commercial activation remain separate approvals.

How do you assess the impact of the fraud prevention rule on customers?

At the same time, verified fraud losses, rejection of legitimate payments and customer referrals are compared. The results are assessed for transaction flows of similar value and composition.

When is the return of an operation considered to have been made?

When its principal approves a financial action and it is linked to the original operation. The resolution of a dispute or the sent return request is not yet a receipt of money.

LT Let's Connect

Industry digitalisation analysis

Digitalization of payment and financial technology companies

Clear payment progress and faster investigation of uncertain transactions

Digital maturity Typical digital maturity Shows the level of digitalisation companies in this line of business typically operate at. The assessment considers use of core systems, how far processes are digitalised, integrations, data readiness and advanced use of data. A 3 means ordinary, middling maturity. A 5 is given only where real-time data, automated decisions and advanced optimisation are already a routine part of core operations.: high
Digitalisation potential Digitalisation potential Shows the scale of business impact digitalisation could have in this line of business. It weighs economic leverage, the scope for digital impact, the scale and repetition of processes, value lost today, and the leverage of better data and decisions. A business area’s score is calculated from five weighted dimensions. A sector’s score is derived from the scores of its business areas.: 84/100
Biggest challenge: It is unclear whether the payment was made and registered
Biggest opportunity: Faster determination of the result of payment and reason for non-conformity

Operating model

Payments can be served by multiple partners and technical systems. The responsibility of the company depends on whether it is making payments, providing bills, or building technical infrastructure.

Billing and transfer services

The provider executes customer transfers and administers payment accounts in accordance with the scope of its operations. It tracks the result of the payment, returns and cancellation requests.

Card payments services

The service provider tracks the card payment confirmation, debiting the amount and billing with the merchant. In case of a dispute, it requires a full specific transaction history.

Payment Technology Services

The company provides an agreed-upon technical function or data interface to another service provider. It communicates the execution states and resolves its technology failures.

Other financial technology platforms

A company can provide accounting, analysis or financial planning software. Its workflow is selected based on the actual service, incorporating payment functions only when they are provided.

Market context

The payment services company connects merchants, payment partners and settlement systems. The trader needs to know whether the payment has been accepted, when they will receive the funds and how the dispute is resolved. Uniform transaction marks and reliable event history help service and financial teams provide a consistent response.

Reliable payment resultA broken connection must be separated from a rejected or already executed payment so that the action is not mistakenly repeated.
Merchant serviceAn explanation of settlements, returns and fees requires a linked transaction history.

Workflow and responsibilities

Preparation of a client or partner

The contractual, risk and technical conditions necessary for the particular service are verified.

Enquiry and checks

An identifier is assigned to the operation and the results of checks required for that payment are collected.

Execution progress

The answers, repeats and subsequent events of the authorized executor are processed.

Financial reconciliation

Settlements, taxes, balances and corrections are explained separately.

Exceptions and continuity

A responsible employee and deadline are assigned to the dispute or incident. Before completion, the actions performed and the financial result are verified.

Digital maturity scale

Separate records and manual work

Information is mainly held in separate files or notes. Employees pass it on and reconcile it manually.

Organised data within individual teams

Teams record their work consistently, but sharing information with colleagues still requires considerable manual checking.

Partially integrated systems

Core work is managed in systems. Some information is transferred automatically, but repeated data entry remains.

Coordinated systems and teams

Systems deliver the required data on time. Employees can see unfinished work and know who is responsible for resolving discrepancies.

Continuous measurement and improvement

The team checks data quality, evaluates results and uses them to improve operations. Automation is applied where its value can be demonstrated.

Executive conclusion

The team needs to find all the progress and mismatched records of a particular transaction. Acceptance of a payment request must be clearly distinguished from actual settlement.

Common digitalisation challenges in this business activity

It is unclear whether the payment was made and registered

Critical

The query, network response, and subsequent events are not linked by a consistent history of the operation.

Consequences: The client is shown the incorrect status of the operation, and the employee risks repeating an action that has already occurred.

Fraud signals not connected in real time

Critical

Identity, facilities, behavior and transaction data are evaluated separately.

Consequences: It is found too late or blocked by too many legitimate transactions.

Settlement and reconciliation have manual exceptions

Critical

Accounting records for banks, payment networks, partners and internals do not always coincide.

Consequences: Inconsistencies prevent the status of the payment from being determined, can mislead the customer and lead to incorrect accounting records.

Critical supplier dependencies are not visible enough

Critical

The payment service depends on the banks, networks, cloud and identity providers. Disruption plans do not always show which customer actions are affected by a specific partner's problem.

Consequences: The team has a longer explanation of the scope of the disruption and recovery options. The trader has trouble explaining the inoperable settlement and assessing which orders need to be reviewed.

Partner activation stalls between checks

High

Contractual, business risk and technical preparation do not have a common course and clear lack of responsibility.

Consequences: The partner waits for unclear approval or obtains technical access before the necessary assessment is carried out.

Disputes and returns process fragmented

High

Dispute documents, response deadlines and the status of refunds are managed in different locations. A service worker does not always see the last decision made.

Consequences: The buyer and trader receive a incomplete answer and apply repeatedly. A missed submission or an unmatched financial action can increase the loss of a particular dispute.

Evidence of Service Control Not Linked to Incident

High

Records of recovery attempts, vendor dependencies and incident actions are kept separate from the service maintained.

Consequences: It is difficult to verify whether the detected weak spot has been removed and whether the repeated test involved the affected flow.

Partner integrations are developed individually

Medium

Data formats, payment statuses, accesses and tests are being re-tuned to connect a new partner. Teams track confirmed and pending jobs at different locations.

Consequences: The partner waits longer for the opportunity to provide the service. New connections compete for technical team time, making it more difficult to plan customer development.

Opportunities

Opportunities to improve operations

Payment and settlement reconciliation systemHigh impactTransaction amounts are reconciled with fees, partial settlements and deadlines.The team singles out unexplained differences and more quickly determines the cause of missing or misattributed payment.

Payment dispute and refund management systemHigh impactEach dispute receives the time limit and the responsible executor applied to it.The team is less likely to miss the necessary action and check previous repayments before a new financial correction.

Payment service incident management systemHigh impactTechnical disruption is linked to specific payments and customer actions.The team determines the impact more quickly, selects recovery priorities and checks for remaining unfinished operations.

Payment integration partner self-service portalHigh impactThe partner finds examples and test results suitable for his version of integration.Recurring help requests are decreasing, and the integration team can focus on complex errors.

Payment system integrations and transaction monitoring toolsHigh impactThe payment provider's responses are assigned to the correct transaction and show the status of its execution.This decreases due to integration errors in failed actions and unreasonable repayments.

Payment fraud risk review management systemHigh impactThe risk signal is transmitted to a process capable of carrying out the permitted protective action.Reviewing verified results helps reduce fraud losses and false rejections of legitimate payments.

Biggest opportunity

Faster determination of the result of payment and reason for non-conformity

The team sees the initial payment request, provider responses, and billing records. It can check an obscure transaction, resolve the data difference, and provide a customer with a reasonable response.

Fewer manual operations paralleling
Faster clarification of payment problems
Clearer merchant service
The trader can more reliably continue the buyer's order based on the payment result

Business impact assessment

Potential operational benefitsTracking a specific payment and its executor's responses will speed up the resolution of unclear cases.
Why the problem mattersNot knowing the outcome of the payment carries the risk of re-write, accounting difference and customer dispute.
Implementation dependenciesIntegrations must reliably handle repeats, belated events and states of different providers.
Smoother payment to buyer and partnerA reliable payment response helps complete the purchase, and a clear course of dispute reduces customer uncertainty. Partner readiness measures help to move from technical testing to real use.

Sprendimai

How to solve these problems

Solution directions linked to specific business area problems they address.

Problem

It is unclear whether the payment was made and registered

The client is shown the incorrect status of the operation, and the employee risks repeating an action that has already occurred.

Solution direction

Payment system integrations and transaction monitoring tools

Payment requests are forwarded to the providers and their responses are returned to the channels used. The employee sees if the operation has been executed, rejected, or is still subject to verification.

Problem

Fraud signals not connected in real time

It is found too late or blocked by too many legitimate transactions.

Solution direction

Payment fraud risk review management system

The risk team evaluates payment alerts and assigns the necessary checks. Research results help monitor losses and cases where checks unreasonably hinder a customer.

Problem

Settlement and reconciliation have manual exceptions

Inconsistencies prevent the status of the payment from being determined, can mislead the customer and lead to incorrect accounting records.

Solution direction

Payment and settlement reconciliation system

The system compares payments to bank, partner and accounting records. The employee receives mismatched amounts and related data to figure out the difference.

Problem

Partner activation stalls between checks

The partner waits for unclear approval or obtains technical access before the necessary assessment is carried out.

Solution direction

Payment integration partner self-service portal

The payment partner handles access request, technical testing and preparation work on the portal. See what is already coordinated and what is missing to start integration.

Problem

Partner integrations are developed individually

The partner waits longer for the opportunity to provide the service. New connections compete for technical team time, making it more difficult to plan customer development.

Solution direction

Payment integration partner self-service portal

The payment partner handles access request, technical testing and preparation work on the portal. See what is already coordinated and what is missing to start integration.

Problem

Disputes and returns process fragmented

The buyer and trader receive a incomplete answer and apply repeatedly. A missed submission or an unmatched financial action can increase the loss of a particular dispute.

Solution direction

Payment dispute and refund management system

The team examines the payment dispute or return request and collects the necessary documents. Separately, the decision made and whether the money has already been returned is seen.

Criteria for assessing the investment

Investment justified

The dispute resolution is recorded, but the team does not see if the refund or other financial action has been carried out.
After a connection error, employees are unable to reliably determine the payment status.
When preparing period reports, the team manually searches for differences in payments, benefits and accounting records.
The payment service is joined by many partners who are repeated with the same technical explanations.
A technical error is seen in the incident, but it is unclear which customers and payments it affected.
Suspicious operations are seen too late when they can no longer be stopped.

Implementation requirements

The scope of payment decisions is determined by the role of the provider in executing the operation, managing client funds or providing technical infrastructure. Status and financial records are compatible with external participant responses, and exceptions have responsible solvers.

Account and Transfer Service Provider

Describe the states of execution, financial reconciliation, and responsibility of external integrations.

Card-taking or card-release services

Link operations to network settlements, returns and dispute procedures.

Technical provider of payment infrastructure

Combine partner activation, technical service statuses, and disorder exposure determination.

Non-payment Financial Technology Platform

Evaluate the continuity of the service actually provided and the reliability of the data transmission.

Key implementation requirements

Enforcement and reconciliation

The execution of the payment keeps the statuses of the transaction, and the reconciliation checks financial facts and exceptions. The amount authorized is not necessarily already settled.

Disputes and returns

Dispute resolution, return order, and outstanding returns have separate states. A network dispute does not alter the client's rights and terms applicable to the provider.

Partner activation

The Partners Portal coordinates contractual, risk and technical preparation. The conclusion of the client's knowledge and the permitted activities are confirmed by the responsible process.

Extent of resistance control

The Resilience page includes evidence of service, supplier and incident control. All financial or money laundering prevention compliance is not classified as technical monitoring.

Operational performance indicators

Time before payment result is confirmedminutes

Measure up to the reliable result of the executor.

Uncertain settlement amountmonetary amount

Show at the expiration of the applicable settlement deadline and separately by currency.

False Rejections of Legitimate Paymentscases per thousand transactions

Compare transaction flows of similar composition and count only their confirmed results.

Part of partners that have started to use integration%

Partners who have started real operations are divided by all partners accepted into the integration phase. Trial access is not considered to be a real use of the service.

Part of negative feedback on the settlement of payment disputes%

When a company starts collecting feedback, negative reviews about the settlement of a payment dispute are counted from all assessments received on the topic. The same method of evaluation is applied before and after installation and similar customer groups are compared. Without initial data, the actual change is not determined.

Key risks

Repeating payment that has already taken placeA connection error is automatically equated to an unexecuted operation.How to manage Before repeating the payment, check the result of the previous test and use the same query identification procedure.
Technical Reconstruction Closes Financial ExceptionAfter the incident, the service was operational, but some operations remained unclear.How to manage Check the outcome of each affected operation and make the necessary financial adjustments.

Discuss the progress of your financial service

Let's talk

Digitalization of payment and financial technology companies

Operating model

Billing and transfer services

Card payments services

Payment Technology Services

Other financial technology platforms

Market context

Workflow and responsibilities

Preparation of a client or partner

Enquiry and checks

Execution progress

Financial reconciliation

Exceptions and continuity

Digital maturity scale

Separate records and manual work

Organised data within individual teams

Partially integrated systems

Coordinated systems and teams

Continuous measurement and improvement

Executive conclusion

Related digitalisation topics

Common digitalisation challenges in this business activity

It is unclear whether the payment was made and registered

Fraud signals not connected in real time

Settlement and reconciliation have manual exceptions

Critical supplier dependencies are not visible enough

Partner activation stalls between checks

Disputes and returns process fragmented

Evidence of Service Control Not Linked to Incident

Partner integrations are developed individually

Opportunities to improve operations

Faster determination of the result of payment and reason for non-conformity

Business impact assessment

How to solve these problems

Recommended solutions

Payment system integrations and transaction monitoring tools

Payment fraud risk review management system

Payment and settlement reconciliation system

Payment integration partner self-service portal

Payment dispute and refund management system

Payment service incident management system

Criteria for assessing the investment

Implementation requirements

Account and Transfer Service Provider

Card-taking or card-release services

Technical provider of payment infrastructure

Non-payment Financial Technology Platform

Key implementation requirements

Enforcement and reconciliation

Disputes and returns

Partner activation

Extent of resistance control

Operational performance indicators

Key risks

Innovation and practical applications

Search for the cause of payment disruption by events

Analysis of Fraud Signal Communications

Frequently asked questions

How do you choose which part of the payment process is worth upgrading first?

Can the developer portal confirm the merchant's eligibility?

How do you assess the impact of the fraud prevention rule on customers?

When is the return of an operation considered to have been made?

Discuss the progress of your financial service