Kora Payments cut support contacts by 58% with voice and WhatsApp agents
AI & Automation
A worked example, not a client result. The organisation, the figures and the quotation below show how an engagement of this shape is structured and what it sets out to move. They are not outcomes achieved for a named client.
Nexa RemitTech
Nexa Remit replaced a legacy platform without losing a single agent
A staged remittance management system migration ran in parallel across 40 counters, so the network never experienced a switch-over day.
0agent churn
−73%reconciliation time
0AGENT CHURN
−73%RECONCILIATION TIME
4 daysNEW CORRIDOR SETUP
22 wksMIGRATION
Measured over 22 weeks against a matched prior period. Attribution and confidence notes available on request.
The situation
Nexa Remit had run the same platform for eleven years. It worked, in the sense that money moved and books balanced, and it had become the reason nothing else could change.
Adding a corridor took roughly six weeks of vendor work. Agent commissions were calculated in spreadsheets and reconciled manually. Compliance reporting was assembled by one person who had been there nine years.
The migration risk was not technical, it was human. Forty agent counters run by people who had used one interface for a decade, in a business where a counter that stops working means a sender walks to a competitor on the same street.
What we found
The existing platform had no meaningful API layer, so every integration had been built as a file transfer with a scheduled job behind it. Payout partner switching was effectively impossible.
Reconciliation consumed roughly two full days per week across two people, almost all of it matching payout partner statements to internal records by hand.
Agent commission logic existed in three places that disagreed, and the disagreements were resolved by the operations manager from memory.
Funnel and diagnostic table
| Stage or area | Position | Cumulative or detail | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| New corridor setup | 6 weeks | Vendor dependency | Blocked growth |
| Payout partner switching | Not possible | No API layer | Margin locked |
| Reconciliation | 2 days per week | Manual matching | Cost and risk |
| Agent commission logic | 3 conflicting sources | Resolved by memory | Key-person risk |
| Compliance reporting | Manual assembly | One person | Continuity risk |
What changed
1. Built the new platform module by module rather than as a replacement, starting with the modules that carried the least operational risk.
2. Ran both systems in parallel for eleven weeks, with reconciliation between them as a daily check rather than as a final cutover test.
3. Migrated agent counters in cohorts of eight, with the previous cohort's issues resolved before the next began.
4. Rebuilt commission logic in one place, validated against twelve months of historical payouts before any agent saw it.
5. Built the API layer first, so payout partner routing became a configuration decision rather than a development project.
Twenty-two weeks is longer than a rebuild needs to take if the goal is a working platform. It is roughly what it takes if the goal is a working platform and forty agents who never noticed.
The parallel running period is where most of the cost sat and where all of the risk was removed. Every discrepancy the two systems produced was a defect found before it reached a sender.
They built our remittance management system and then marketed it. Having one partner who understands both sides removed a translation layer we had been paying for without realising.
— Tomas Nowak, CEO, Nexa Remit
How the work ran
Module migration sequence
Lowest operational risk first, with parallel running as a daily check rather than a cutover test.
Agent cohort rollout
Eight counters at a time, each cohort's issues closed before the next started.
Payout routing configuration
API layer built first, turning partner switching from a project into a setting.
What moved
| Metric | Before | After | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent churn through migration | 0 | Held | |
| Reconciliation time per week | 2 days | Under 4 hours | −73% |
| New corridor setup time | 6 weeks | 4 days | Improved |
| Payout partners connected | 1 | 4 | Expanded |
| Commission disputes per month | Baseline | −91% | Resolved |
| Compliance report assembly | Manual | Automated | Continuity |
Mandatory line beneath: “Measured over 22 weeks against a matched prior period. Attribution and confidence notes available on request.”
The engagement in brief
Scope and shape
- MTO with agent network
- Europe → Morocco
- 22 weeks
- Tech
Eleven weeks of running two systems felt excessive until the third week, when we started finding things.
— Tomas Nowak, CEO, Nexa Remit
Same funnel, different corridor?
A fixed-fee growth audit covering acquisition, KYC completion, retention and tracking across your corridors. You keep the roadmap whether or not we work together.