Effective Loss Prevention Requires More than Just a ‘Perfect’ Product.
As a loss prevention product or service provider, the performances of products or services are mainly judged by the amount of successful theft encountered after the implementation of that product or service. More often than not, this is the sole criteria in grading the effectiveness of the loss prevention initiative and will subsequently decide on future sales or whether this initiative will be recommended to others.
Depending on the type of product/service provided, the end-user or client is often involved in the maintenance or ongoing operation of the loss prevention initiative. For a simple example, a locksmith can provide a deadbolt lock for a house door. Installation, and even testing, could be conducted by the locksmith and the lock could operate perfectly. However, if the door isn’t locked by the resident of the house and the house is robbed via the unlocked door, who is at fault?
It’s easy to blame the resident, and in this rudimentary (although prevalent) case they’re probably at fault. However, when a more complex loss prevention system is implemented in a retail environment, similar incidents occur and the retailer often places the blame back on the loss prevention system provider.
There are typically more parties involved in the retail environment when a loss prevention product is under scrutiny. The loss prevention provider, in-store operator and retail management replace the locksmith and home resident from the earlier example. The final breakdown in effective operation, from personal experience, is typically related to the in-store operator. If a theoretical 100% impregnable loss prevention solution was available, providing that one switch needs to be activated by the in-store operator, yet a theft still occurs due to that switch not being activated, the fault lies with who?
This is a more relevant scenario for the retail environment, and it can be looked at in three different ways. Is the product provided by the loss prevention company truly impregnable- is there a solution which doesn’t even need a switch to be activated by the user and still be impenetrable? Contrastingly, is it just a simple error on behalf of the store operator for not activating the switch? Finally, has retail management implemented effective work practices to the in-store operators?
Blame, or rather responsibility, cannot be placed solely on any one of these parties- each one has a responsibility to help create an effective loss prevention system. The loss prevention company should provide an exceptional product/service which is easy to operate and maintain; not just easy for a loss prevention employee but straightforward for the end-user (the in-store operator in the retail environment). Retail management need to do their part by implementing effective work practices to keep employees motivated to use the products correctly and maintain their operation successfully. Finally, the in-store operators need to make the system come together by following the work practices when using the loss prevention product.
In doing so, all three parties can create a loss prevention system which will benefit each party individually.