DIREKT Payments and Communication Research

Status: Open; no payment, SMS, OTP or messaging provider approved.

Objective

Understand how customers and providers prefer to communicate, authenticate, request work and make payments, while preserving accountability and avoiding unnecessary financial or communications complexity in MVP.

Decisions controlled

  • structured enquiry versus immediate direct contact;
  • phone, SMS, WhatsApp and in-app messaging roles;
  • phone OTP requirements and recovery;
  • notification channels;
  • whether DIREKT handles customer-to-provider payments in Version 1;
  • provider subscription payment methods;
  • mobile-money/provider evaluation criteria;
  • receipt, refund, reconciliation and complaint expectations;
  • consent and privacy rules for sharing phone numbers.

Communication research questions

Customer

  • Which channel is used first for local services?
  • Is calling preferred for urgent work?
  • Is WhatsApp used for photos, directions and price negotiation?
  • Are SMS messages read reliably?
  • Would a structured enquiry be completed before receiving a provider phone number?
  • What information should remain hidden before the provider accepts?
  • Is an in-app inbox necessary, or would it duplicate familiar channels?
  • How should spam, harassment and repeated calls be controlled?
  • What record is needed to support a review or complaint?

Provider

  • Which channel produces usable enquiries?
  • What information is needed before calling back?
  • How are multiple phones, SIMs, staff or WhatsApp Business handled?
  • How quickly can the provider respond?
  • Would the provider update accepted/declined/completed states?
  • What creates notification overload?
  • What happens when a business phone changes?
  • How should after-hours and emergency availability be represented?

Candidate MVP enquiry model

Research this sequence:

  1. customer selects provider;
  2. customer enters structured need, broad location, preferred time and contact channel;
  3. DIREKT creates a tracked enquiry;
  4. provider receives notification;
  5. provider accepts, declines or requests clarification;
  6. phone number/external messaging handoff occurs with consent;
  7. DIREKT retains only necessary state and timestamps;
  8. interaction can later support review or complaint eligibility.

Compare against:

  • immediate public phone number;
  • click-to-call with a platform event;
  • click-to-WhatsApp;
  • full in-app chat;
  • provider-only callback request.

Authentication and OTP research

Investigate:

  • shared and recycled phone numbers;
  • dual-SIM use;
  • number changes;
  • SMS delivery delay;
  • data-off/SMS-on situations;
  • phone theft or loss;
  • provider staff sharing one business number;
  • inability to receive short codes;
  • accessibility of numeric codes;
  • recovery without insecure support overrides.

Do not select a vendor until current ZICTA, pricing, delivery, privacy and security considerations are reviewed.

Payment scope options

Option A — No customer-service payment through DIREKT in MVP

DIREKT tracks enquiries and verification but customers/providers settle externally. This reduces regulated money-flow complexity but limits payment accountability.

Option B — Provider subscriptions only

DIREKT integrates approved payment methods only for provider plans/verification operations, not customer job payments.

Option C — Customer booking/deposit payments

Higher accountability but materially increases regulatory, refund, fraud, dispute and reconciliation requirements.

Option D — Full marketplace payment/escrow

Explicitly out of initial scope unless later legal, operational and economic evidence supports it.

Phase 1A should not assume Option C or D.

Payment research questions

Customers

  • How are call-out fees and deposits paid now?
  • Which methods are trusted?
  • What evidence or receipt is expected?
  • What scams occur around deposits or payment requests?
  • Would platform payment increase confidence?
  • Who should handle refunds after a dispute?
  • Would users pay before meeting a provider?

Providers

  • Which payment methods are accepted?
  • How are receipts and reconciliation handled?
  • How often do customer names/numbers differ from payer details?
  • What fees and settlement delays are acceptable?
  • Would providers pay subscriptions monthly, annually or per lead?
  • What happens when mobile-money service is unavailable?
  • Is cash still necessary?

Provider evaluation criteria

For each approved candidate collect current official/commercial evidence for:

  • Bank of Zambia authorization/status;
  • supported mobile-money networks and banks;
  • collections and disbursements;
  • webhooks and transaction verification;
  • idempotency support;
  • settlement schedule;
  • refund/reversal process;
  • fees and taxes;
  • KYC/business onboarding;
  • sandbox availability;
  • reconciliation reports;
  • uptime/support;
  • data protection and cross-border processing;
  • prohibited business models;
  • dispute and chargeback rules.

Commercial separation rule

Research copy must repeatedly test:

  • paying for a plan does not produce verification;
  • promoted listings are labelled;
  • payment status does not alter trust score;
  • failed subscription may affect commercial visibility/entitlements, not historical verification facts;
  • verification fees cover the process, not a guaranteed approval.

Data-minimization rules

  • do not store mobile-money PINs or credentials;
  • tokenize/provider-host payment data where possible;
  • do not expose payer details to unrelated parties;
  • record transaction references only when operationally necessary;
  • avoid copying payment screenshots into support cases;
  • separate billing records from trust decisions;
  • audit refunds and manual overrides.

Phase 1A outputs

  • preferred contact-channel findings by segment;
  • structured-enquiry acceptance;
  • MVP messaging recommendation;
  • OTP and account-recovery constraints;
  • provider subscription payment preferences;
  • customer-payment scope recommendation;
  • payment-provider selection criteria;
  • official regulatory questions;
  • fraud and dispute scenarios;
  • decisions explicitly deferred to later phases.