Choosing which payment services to support in real-time
When a bank starts planning to enter the world of real time payments it faces many difficult decisions. These include producing a business case that stands out from the many other internal projects competing for investment, choices around the IT architecture to be adopted and then which suppliers to work with. But one of the most critical decisions to be taken often relates to the choice of payment services to be offered in realtime and how these should be prioritised?
We know that there is much internal debate over the payment transaction type and channels to be supported from day one. Is it better to launch an initial service and then over time add new realtime payment options and channels, or are multiple payment services needed straight away in order to achieve sufficient usage and transaction volumes. However great your instant payments implementation may be technically, it cant be considered a success if it does not attract high numbers of users, usage and value.
Should the launch service for a bank or new scheme be person to person payments (P2P) via smartphones to satisfy higher consumer appetite and competitive threat or more traditional business to business (B2B) and person to business (P2B) credit/debit transfers and bill payments? Part of the reason for the debate is that although P2P generates high levels of consumer and media interest, B2B credit transfers are likely to deliver far higher value.
There are many considerations cited for the choices made, these include regulatory mandates, corporate objectives, attitude to risk and competitive pressure. Examples of each of these strategies can be seen in the 38 global real-time payment implementations that the InstaPay Tracker is reporting on.
How do you see things? Which instant payment service would you recommend be launched first? Which payment service do you feel offers greatest potential? Please share your thoughts and suggestions with the LinkedIn InstaPay community.