Title: RE: The FI e-standardization blues
ï
I believe another problem with Project ACTION was the idea that the banks would run a company to develop and sell ACTION software.  Existing software vendors could have done that in the same way as such support other payment schemes.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 21:49
Subject: RE: The FI e-standardization blues

Having built the original prospectus for Project Action, I can say that a contributing reason for its demise was investments in debit card solutions at the time, and a the lack of interest in credit transfer alternative in the US ACH network. 
 
Regarding standards, most financial institutions participate in standards with a defensive, not offensive posture.   A current day example of this can be seen if you look at BizTalk, RosettaNet, Swift, and IST integrations being prepared.
 
Michael Versace
Financial Services
NEC Solutions America
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Weinberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 3/6/2004 2:14 PM
To: 'internet-payments'
Cc:
Subject: RE: The FI e-standardization blues

Anders,

I agree with the premise on standards.  One small point about Project
ACTION.  It wasn't killed by the banks due to anything related to
standards or the public domain.  It was killed because the banks didn't
want to invest in a system which, while desparately needed, would
threaten the higher revenue streams from existing payments.

Best regards,

Allen
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Try our new site: www.PaymentsNews.com

Allen Weinberg
Glenbrook Partners
Trusted Advisors in Financial Services
(415) 305-6660
www.glenbrook.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 7:49 AM
To: internet-payments
Subject: The FI e-standardization blues


The FI e-standardization blues
-----------------------------------

Have you seen the movie "A beautiful mind"?  In case
you have not it is about a Nobel-prize winner (disturbed
but brilliant at the same time), who's primary thesis is
an game optimization theory that goes as follows:

"You gain more by doing something that your entire group
 gains by, than by doing something that only benefits yourself"

I believe this applies extremely well the establishment of
infrastructure standards.

An industry which seems completely unaffected by this theory as
well as by the virtual cemetery of earlier failed proprietary efforts,
is the financial sector.  Even in a very small country like Sweden
the FI sector (only comprising of 4-5 major banks) have
managed to not unite on:
- Electronic invoices (3 different) [1]
- On-line payment systems (4-5 different)
- Citizen electronic ID software/system (3-4 different)

A recent US example is NACHA's Project ACTION, were
the members preferred shelving the entire project rather than
putting it in the public domain where it might have spurred the
creation of a highly needed on-line payment system standard.

It is also interesting to note that banks in spite of their heavy
use of IT, are virtually invisible in general standardization
efforts and that they in their own standardization efforts,
often charge huge member fees excluding a lot of potentially
useful people and organizations.

I believe it is time for the financial industry to [re]enter the
21st century with an open mind instead of unmotivated fear.

Anders Rundgren

1] After 5 years(!) of unsuccessful operation, they have finally
concluded that the customers' apparently have no interests in
supporting three invoicing "standards" that essentially do the
same thing.




Reply via email to