DepositPro and DecisionPro), also opted for Phoenix in 2013. It selected the platform along with other applications, including uOpen, for online account opening and funding, Cavion, for voice banking, and ActiveView, for content management, item processing, and merchant capture.


The arrival of D+H


In August 2013, Canadian financial technology firm, Davis and Henderson (D+H), acquired Harland for $1.2 billion. Shivdasani retired shortly afterwards. The rest of the management, personnel and organisational structure was to remain intact and the US-based D+H team (which was much smaller than the Harland team) was to be integrated, totalling around 1700 staff in the country, according to Bill Neville, president of D+H, US. Phoenix was of particular interest for D+H, and it was ‘very impressed’ with the solution, he stated. ‘We decided that the US community bank and credit union space is a market that we could make a difference in and do well in, and this acquisition gives us a lot more scale.’


The Phoenix system continues to sell well in the US (there


were eleven new takers in 2013 here), and it seemed that the vendor had resumed an international marketing strategy for Phoenix. In December 2013, it inked a deal with National Student Financial Aid in South Africa. In early 2014 came the latest iteration. This was presented as an evolution of the Phoenix system in two areas: technology and functionality. The vendor wrapped a host of auxiliary solutions around the core, although the latter had not gone through any major transformations and remained client- server and Microsoft-centric. The components include the LaserPro lending system (which D+H claims to be the widest- used lending solution in the US), BI software, point-of-sale and self-service solutions, voice banking, call center, payments, remote banking etc. There is tight integration of the systems rather than just batch interfaces, according to the vendor. The new version incorporates real-time, around-the-clock


processing of transactions originating in all retail delivery channels. However, it also offers a batch processing option or a hybrid of the two. The system is parameter driven. It can be deployed onsite or on an ASP basis. The system is marketed to mid-tier (up to 100 branches) banks, credit unions, thrifts and cooperatives. Implementation, claimed the vendor, would take no longer than nine months. Existing Phoenix users are being encouraged to move to the new version of the system but there are no compulsory migrations or end-dates for the older versions. While Phoenix is now pushed for credit unions as well as


banks, there are credit unions that continue to be ‘traditional and member-oriented’, and have no intention of moving into commercial lending or mortgages, said Zayas, so Phoenix might not be for them. ‘These credit unions insisted we kept Ultradata.’ Its other two core offerings, Intrieve Advantage and


Sparak, are no longer marketed but continue to be maintained. Harland’s trade finance solution, Tradewind, is not promoted either, although its users continue to receive support. A notable 2014 deal for Phoenix was American Savings Bank, a community bank based in Ohio. It took an outsourced version of Phoenix to replace Insight, a white-labelled version of Fiserv’s DNA platform, supplied by Connecticut-based vendor, COCC. The bank’s CEO, Jack Kuntz, said a switchover date of September 2015 had been set. Kuntz said that American Savings Bank’s strategic growth


plan required it to expand its product offerings to both consumers and commercial customers. ‘We needed a system that could satisfy our history of being a thrift and have the applications to satisfy the commercial customers’ needs in the market as well, but our legacy system did not provide a robust combination of both and that was a primary concern.’ The bank commenced its selection in January 2014, initially looking at Fiserv, Computer Services Inc (CSI), D+H, COCC and a local vendor, Smiley Technology Inc. The candidates were then whittled down to D+H and Smiley Technology Inc. The bank discarded the latter firm because it was ‘too new and too few’, said Kuntz. It only had eight clients running its core system, as it was relatively new to the market, and it didn’t provide the ‘comfort level that we needed’. D+H proved to be the highest scoring vendor on a combination of criteria, including functional competency, vendor eligibility and price. Kuntz noted that the ‘quality and integrity’ of the staff and senior management at D+H was also a key factor in the selection. The bank signed in August and also opted for a range of channel solutions, such as internet and mobile banking, bill pay, voice banking, account opening, and item processing services. One 2014 deal for Ultradata was from Four Points Federal


Credit Union, to oust the Spectrum offering from Fiserv, which had been in place for 15 years. The Nebraska-based credit union also took D+H’s internet and mobile banking applications,


remote deposit capture, item processing


services, mortgage origination solutions and a loan servicing system.


The existing platform was ‘outdated and has not kept up with the times’, remarked Donnie Price, president and CEO of Four Points FCU, so the credit union went to market in 2012 to see which solutions were on offer. ‘We were searching for a partner who we believed would have our best interests in mind, have a strong management team and is investing in the future, so we can focus on our core business.’ The criteria comprised the ability of the provider to meet


the credit union’s functional and technical specifications, and to supply an ‘out-of-the-box’ solution that is easy to use and has ‘robust’ integration. Five vendors made it to the shortlist – D+H, Fiserv, the Symitar subsidiary of Jack Henry, and two smaller domestic suppliers, Sharetec and MDS. Four Points FCU felt that D+H and its Ultradata Enterprise product ‘fully met the requirements’. The vendor’s ‘proven track-record surrounding client support and innovation’ also swayed


US Financial Services Technology Market Report | www.ibsintelligence.com 49


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132