Skip to Main Content
IBM Data and AI RegTech Ideas Portal

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Post your ideas

Post ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted and upvote them if they matter to you,

  1. Post an idea

  2. Upvote ideas that matter most to you

  3. Get feedback from the IBM team to refine your idea

Help IBM prioritize your ideas and requests

The IBM team may need your help to refine the ideas so they may ask for more information or feedback. The offering manager team will then decide if they can begin working on your idea. If they can start during the next development cycle, they will put the idea on the priority list. Each team at IBM works on a different schedule, where some ideas can be implemented right away, others may be placed on a different schedule.

Receive notification on the decision

Some ideas can be implemented at IBM, while others may not fit within the development plans for the product. In either case, the team will let you know as soon as possible. In some cases, we may be able to find alternatives for ideas which cannot be implemented in a reasonable time.

For product documentation, see Knowledge Center.
Create and View Support Cases and Use the Discussion Forum here

Shorter URL for this site is: or

Status Future consideration
Component Other
Created by Guest
Created on Sep 30, 2020

Creating MX message via sample queues/flows

Dear support team,

We already have opened a requirement (ID145570) but they suggested to address here a new idea with the following text which we already used in the requirement:


This requirement is NOT related to IIB, but to FTM SWIFT. There is NO option to choose FTM SWIFT.

As suggested in the PMR TS004224434, we opened this requirement similar to MR011915414.

We have the following observations:

1. Formatted view tab: Required Header information (Transfer option set, Remote address) can NOT be entered, although the Hdr fields are cursor sensitive (but greyed-out).

2. Context view tab: Required Header information (Transfer option set, Remote address) CAN be entered, but the Hdr fields are at the bottom part of the view which is not user-friendly (in the formatted view, the Hdr information is at the top of the view).

3. Another issue relates to the fact that the Transfer option set needs to be entered at all - no MER end user is familiar with this CO. The default value of this field should be configurable and in case of multiple Transfer options sets, the possible variants should be selectable from a listbox.

4. Due to the ISO 20022 migration, the business application header (BAH) becomes important, but neither a BAH can be created nor required information (Receiver-BIC/field “To”) can be entered.


1. Header information (Transfer option set, Remote address) should be enterable under tab Formatted.

2. Header information (Transfer option set, Remote address) is supposed to be at the top of the Context view tab.

3. For Transfer option set, a default value should be configurable; in case of multiple Transfer options sets, the possible variants should be selectable from a listbox.

4. BAH information (field "To") should be enterable under tab Formatted.

Use case:

An end-user, who mainly works with SWIFT FIN messages, will be confused by the processing of MX messages. It is not user-friendly to show in the Formatted tab required header information cursor sensitive, but to edit the values, switching to the Context tab is necessary.

Furthermore, the manual entering of the transfer option sets, will lead to much typos resulting in errors, which could be avoided.

If an end-user creates a message for T2 or EURO1, the BAH is mandatory. Even if the processing after the creation of the message is able to create a BAH, it needs information about the receiver, which must be provided by the user. At the moment, this is not possible.