Investigators using Procurement Integrity Visual Investigator Solutions (CMPI) on Viya4 need the ability to manage, assign, and route alerts at the scenario-fired event or incident level, not just at the entity level (e.g., vendor or employee).
Currently, Visual Investigator treats alerts as entities, meaning investigators must handle all scenario-fired events/incidents linked to an entity before closing an alert.
Disposition: Management has difficulty tracking progress because investigators need to address all events linked to an entity before an alert can be closed. Although investigators can manage a subset of events, they cannot disposition of individual scenario-fired events/incidents directly, only assess them.
Assign/Route: Investigators might need to review all incidents related to a specific scenario, such as multiple vendors sharing the same VAT number. Typically, investigator groups need to focus on specific scenarios, but the system currently routes all events associated with an alert together, making it hard to focus on individual scenarios.
Rollup: Incidents cannot be categorised under multiple alert types or strategies, which complicates the disposition and assignment processes.
Bulk Disposition: Users would need to export alerts to Excel, update disposition reasons and productivity ratings, and then upload the results back to Visual Investigator. This process is often faster than using the Visual Investigator interface directly, especially for repetitive tasks. For instance, an auditor reviewing instances where a vendor and an employee share a phone number would find it more efficient to use Excel than navigating through each alert individually.
ROI: Calculating ROI is challenging due to the lengthy implementation process (averaging 6 months) and the time required for system stabilisation and user training. The current process for capturing disposition at the alert level delays ROI reporting, which the sales teams need for end-of-year assessments and contract renewal. In some cases, solution rollouts have been delayed because clients cannot provide ROI figures on time.
These issues have been consistently encountered in all Viya/Visual Investigator implementations. Many of these features were available in the previous SAS Fraud Framework UI, and existing migrations cannot proceed until these issues are resolved, extending support for the older SAS Fraud Framework.
How does R&D receive client feedback and determine what is working or not working with the product? As SAS Partners, we do not have access to internal SAS systems and cannot log feature requests directly.
