Payment Vendor Configuration
Developed a CMS for Payment Gateway Configuration, enabling admins to manage and customize vendor settings by payment method with ease and flexibility.
South Jakarta, Indonesia
2010
Financial Services
$66.5 million (2024)
5,000+
Challenge
Our payment system heavily relied on a single vendor for each payment method. When these primary vendors experienced errors or downtime, it directly impacted our payment success rate and user experience. This issue was recurring and led to notable service disruptions.
Results
After conducting a deep-dive analysis with the data team and benchmarking against competitors, I proposed and led the development of a dynamic Payment Gateway Configuration CMS. This system empowers admin users to set, modify, and prioritize both primary and backup vendors for each payment method. With this flexibility, the system can swiftly switch to backup vendors in case of downtime, ensuring higher payment success rates and a more resilient transaction flow.
95%
Admin Adoption Rate
45%
Configuration Time Reduced
35%
Payment Method Coverage
Process
Identifying the Need for Multi-Vendor Support: As the business grew, dependency on a single payment vendor became a liability. We initiated research into other vendors and identified key capabilities like direct debit, recurring payments, and regional coverage that weren't fully supported by the existing setup.
Vendor Selection & Technical Evaluation: We collaborated with Business, Finance, and Tech teams to evaluate multiple vendors on cost, SLA, integration complexity, and compliance. After finalizing two new vendors, we began designing the integration strategy.
System Architecture & Design Planning: We planned the system as a modular configuration layer, allowing product and ops teams to manage vendor settings without hardcoding. It supported:
Routing by use case (e.g., cash loan vs. motorcycle financing)
Priority fallback in case of vendor downtime
Support for future vendor plug-ins
Implementation: The Engineering team implemented the backend configuration logic and exposed it through internal tools. We also worked with QA to simulate vendor failures and test fallback logic under various edge cases.
Rollout & Monitoring: We launched in stages, starting with low-risk user groups, and gradually scaled to full production. We closely monitored success rates, error logs, and user feedback.
Conclusion
This project transformed our payment infrastructure into a more resilient, flexible system. With vendor configurations now dynamic and centralized, we reduced operational risk and gained the agility to expand or switch providers as the business evolves. It was a foundational step toward future-proofing our payment ecosystem.