Why Traditional Bank Dispute Processes Are Breaking Down
Payment disputes happen when a cardholder questions a transaction with their bank. Common types of disputes include fraudulent transactions, non-receipt of goods/services, duplicate charges, incorrect billing amounts, and subscription cancellations that were still deducted.
When the team handles disputes manually in a disconnected system, they face challenges such as delays and increased costs, as explained below.
Fragmented Systems Create Operational Silos in Bank Dispute Handling
When banks face disputes, the management is not a single workflow. It is a chain of disconnected activities spread across systems that requires:
- Pull transaction data from a card processor or core banking system
- Retrieve customer interaction history from CRM
- Access chargeback status from network portals (Visa/Mastercard)
- Check fraud alerts in a separate risk system
- Track SLA deadlines manually in spreadsheets
None of these systems was initially built to function as a unified dispute orchestration engine, leading to:
- Longer resolution time: When an investigator is overloaded, a tracking spreadsheet is not updated, or an email reminder is overlooked, the SLA clock continues to run silently in the background.
- Confusion in case status across platforms: A dispute may appear “under review” in CRM but “awaiting documentation” in another system, creating confusion.
- No end-to-end visibility: The team lacks visibility into the full lifecycle of a dispute in one dashboard, forcing them to scan across different platforms.
- Revenue loss: The lack of a "single source of truth" makes it difficult to understand the status of pending disputes, which results in a delayed deadline.
How Pega Dispute Management helps
Pega Smart Dispute Agentic Automation is built on Pega Customer Service for Financial Services (CSFS), which leverages the Financial Services Common Data Model (CDM-FS) and the Pega Platform.
The Pega CSFS helps in bank disputes by unifying interaction management across channels. Instead of operating multiple disconnected tools for case tracking, chargebacks, customer interactions, and reporting, banks can centralize dispute workflows on a unified case management layer with standardized data definitions.
This structured approach defines clear relationships among the customer, their transaction, and the dispute case, creating a connected, streamlined process.
Manual Workflows Slow Down Resolution
Traditional dispute handling heavily depends on manual task assignment and follow-ups. Cases are forwarded through email, escalations rely on individual oversight, and SLA tracking is often reactive. This manual structure creates bottlenecks:
- Delayed evidence collection: When supporting documents are gathered manually across systems, response timelines are extended, delaying the dispute management process.
- Missed regulatory deadlines: Without system-driven SLA tracking, mandatory response timelines can lapse before teams are alerted.
- Inconsistent prioritization: With no automated risk-based routing, high-impact disputes may be handled at the same speed as low-risk cases.
Over time, this increases the average resolution cycle, directly affecting customer satisfaction.
How Pega Dispute Management helps
Pega Smart Dispute Agentic Automation addresses these inefficiencies by centralizing and automating the end-to-end dispute lifecycle.
The multi-channel dispute case intake allows customers to raise disputes through call center, web, chat, email, or digital messaging channels, while routing all cases into a single, standardized workflow.
The straight-through processing (STP) automates routine claims and chargeback submissions. Instead of manually reviewing and forwarding cases to card networks, eligible disputes are processed automatically and submitted in near real time.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
