Client Showcase: Global IDV Orchestration Layer

TLDR:

Client Profile: Top Identity Verification Orchestration Layer 

Notable Quote: “We didn’t know it sucked so much”  

Type: Public 

Industry: Identity Verification 

Operates: Globally  

ROI: 10:1 

Top Use Cases: 1) Vendor Assessment and Consolidation. 2) List Update Monitoring 

An identity verification orchestration technology consolidates different types of technologies and services to evaluate the onboarding of users into a business. Identity verification services are used virtually by every business on the internet, and financial institutions have had such processes even before online was a thing. Regulated entities are required to have a process commonly referred to as KYC, or “Know Your Customer”. KYC processes include a heavy dose of identity verification services.  

Many of these orchestration layers include sanctions and PEP (Politically Exposed Persons) screening services. Our client, through their orchestration layer, uses four different screening vendors. They have thousands of clients, ranging from border security to online gaming, to banking, to FinTechs, to online dating, etc. They have clients virtually in every non-sanctioned country and territory in the world. They contracted us to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their screening providers vis-à-vis the jurisdictions each provider supports, and to ensure their providers were offering their clients full, up-to-date coverage for the jurisdictions they operate in. And ultimately, give direction as to which provider, or providers, are to be kept and which ones to phase out. 

A consulting firm was quoting them $400K/year just to provide assurance of coverage. They contracted with us for 10% of the consulting firm cost, plus some one-time professional services cost. 

We have explained List Update Monitoring in a previous post, so we’ll focus on Vendor Assessment and Consolidation. 

One of the key functions of Yanez’s system is being able to assess how well a screening system performs, given the risk characteristics of the client. We were able to provide evidence of coverage for each provider in each of the regions and make this information available such that they can have assurance of their services to their clients. However, there were clear issues with PEP coverage, in particular, in a very important region. “We didn’t know it suck so much” was the comment from the product manager for such a product in the region. This led them to establish a deeper conversation with their provider and get them on a plan to improve their offering substantially, and gave the opportunity to our client to craft a strategy to back up their support in the region. Not knowing and fixing this may have caused their clients to be out of compliance in such a jurisdiction and potentially a large embarrassment in the marketplace. Which in turn could have resulted in client churn, to say the least. 

From Yanez’s side, it compelled us to understand our capabilities in creating complete data sets, not just test data sets. It turns out that our technology is so good at collecting and evaluating data that building full data sets for coverage in a region is very achievable. This has opened up a different type of possibilities for us (we’ll follow up on this in a different post). 

One of the benefits of creating a framework for profiling screening system performance is that it allows for clear comparisons across screening providers. Having independent, unbiased data to compare system performance, a sort of apples-to-apples comparison, gives quantifiable indicators to assist in such a decision. Our client is in that process at the moment. Consolidating services will allow them to get a better agreement in place with better economics. We’ll report back once we understand the savings and the impact to the ROI of using Yanez in the process.