Initiative 1
Pareto Prioritization (80/20)
Identify the vital few services/incidents generating ~80% of impact. Focus efforts where it matters most with live metrics and scoring.
- Impact × Frequency matrix
- Quick‑win pipeline
- Drill‑down to root contributors
Initiative 2
Revise Payment Architecture
Migrate from in‑house payment ops to a Payment Gateway integration (e.g., Razer) to offload channels, recon, refunds, settlements, and compliance.
- Multi‑channel readiness
- Unified reconciliation & refunds
- Reduced operational risk
Initiative 3
Log‑Driven Development
Treat logs as product features: rich request/response metadata, correlation IDs, and human‑friendly search to accelerate debugging and support.
- End‑to‑end traceability (TRN‑ID)
- Structured JSON logs
- SLO/SLA observability
Architecture: Before vs After Payment Gateway Integration
The diagram highlights scope reduction on ASNB’s side by offloading channel complexity, reconciliation, and refunds to the gateway.
flowchart LR
%% Mermaid 10.9.4–safe, no subgraph styling, HTML entities escaped
subgraph BEFORE["In‑House Payments"]
A["ASNB Apps"] --> B["In‑House Payment Layer"]
B --> C["Channels"]
C --> C1["FPX"]
C --> C2["Cards"]
C --> C3["E‑wallets"]
B --> D["Reconciliation Jobs"]
B --> E["Refund Processor"]
B --> F["Settlement & Reports"]
B --> G["Compliance / Updates"]
end
subgraph AFTER["With Payment Gateway (e.g., Razer)"]
A2["ASNB Apps"] --> H["Payment Gateway SDK / API"]
H --> I["Channels (Managed by PG)"]
I --> I1["FPX / Online Banking"]
I --> I2["Cards"]
I --> I3["E‑wallets & Alt Pay"]
H --> J["Gateway Reconciliation & Reports"]
H --> K["Gateway Refund API"]
H --> L["Gateway Webhooks"]
end
Operational Load
High ➜ Lower
Time-to-Market (New Channels)
Slow ➜ Faster
Compliance Surface
Broad ➜ Reduced