Tim Bass
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:06:23 +0000
This week I completed a*presentation on complex event processing at Wealth Management Asia*2007*where I had a chance to field some tough questions from risk management experts working for some of the top banks in the region.
In particular, one of the meeting attendees*voiced*strong scepticism over emerging event processing technologies.** The basis for his scepticism was,*in his words, that the other “65 systems” the bank had deployed to*detect*fraud and money laundering (AML) simply did not work.* In particular, he referenced Mantas as one of the expensive systems that did not meet the banks requirements.*
My reply was that one of the advantages of emerging event processing platforms is the “white box” ability to add new*rules, or other analytics,*”on the fly” without the need to go back to the vendor for another expensive upgrade.*
Our friend the banker also mentioned the*huge problem of “garbage-in, garbage-out”*where*the data for real-time analytics*is not “clean enough” to provide*confidence in the processing results.*
I replied that this is*always the problem with stand-alone detection-oriented systems that do not integrate*with each other, for example his “65 systems problem.”*** Event processing solutions*must be*based on standards-based distributed communications, for example a high speed messaging backbone or distributed object caching architecture, so enterprises may correlate the output of different detection platforms to increase confidence.** Increasing confidence, in this case,*means lowering false alarms while, at the same time, increasing detection sensitivity.
As I have learned over a long career consulting, the enemy of the right approach to solving a critical*IT problem is the trail of previous failed solutions.** In this case, a long history of expensive systems that do not work as promised is creating scepticism over the benefits of CEP.



Source...