LP Magazine

NOV-DEC 2018

LP magazine publishes articles for loss prevention, asset protection, and retail professionals covering shrinkage, investigations, shoplifting, internal theft, fraud, technology, best practices, and career development.

Issue link: http://digital.lpportal.com/i/1053401

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 65 of 85

by Read Hayes, PhD, CPP Dr. Hayes is director of the Loss Prevention Research Council and coordinator of the Loss Prevention Research Team at the University of Florida. He can be reached at 321-303-6193 or via email at rhayes@lpresearch.org. © 2018 Loss Prevention Research Council EVIDENCE-BASED LP Plan to Win E very loss prevention and asset protection team puts together some kind of "plan to win." As we've discussed before, there is too much at stake to lose not to plan. Crime and loss means injuries, reputation damage, revenue loss, and much more. And the way we win is to defeat potential offenders. We convince them not to attempt crimes in the first place, or we disrupt their efforts so that they're not profitable, or we get them apprehended and sanctioned. LP has layers. The top decision-maker is clued into how their company works and what and how their goals and process to success is designed to work. The "number ones" should very often live at the strategic level. (Strategy should always come first and is defined as a plan of action designed to achieve a major or overall aim.) Being strategic isn't easy or even trained, and in fact it can be difficult. Many leaders avoid it by hiding in tactical details and tasks. But if you're the corporate asset protection head, then the company's leaders are looking to you to strategize how your department is going to support their plans and overall corporate success. An LP plan to win incorporates layers including: 1. Enterprise Support Strategy. At this level we determine our protective focus, our LP priorities. We determine important business outcomes, like sell more handbags or increase store safety, that need better precision and success to achieve organizational goals. We also look to improve our protection of key processes like handbag supply chain and in-store display while focusing on the highest-risk places and assets. Our goal here is to support overall corporate safety, sales, and margin-growth objectives by reducing loss and crime risks at data-identified opportunity points. This level is our asset protection strategy. 2. LP Operational Framework. After our strategic-focus planning, the team outlines the required protective process—how we will specifically protect and enable important company goals and processes. At this level, the leader and team spell out their action framework. In other words, we must precisely describe who does what, where, when, and why. The framework should outline a highly focused but agile, cross-functional game plan designed to address the strategy with specific people, programs, and systems. The framework also outlines how deployed treatments will be placed and kept refreshed to maintain treatment effects and ease of use over time. 3. Evidence-Based Protective Countermeasures. The lowest level describes specific evidence-based programs, technologies, and tactics. Here is where we plug in our components. Featured Research: ePVM Impact Evaluation Retailers striving to further suppress crime attempts are using varying ePVM (enhanced public-view monitors) to create deterrence in high-theft and other risky locations. This paper compares different studies conducted by LPRC to understand the effectiveness of the public-view monitor (PVM) and the enhanced public-view monitor (ePVM means enhanced to boost Being strategic isn't easy or even trained, and in fact it can be difficult. Many leaders avoid it by hiding in tactical details and tasks. But if you're the corporate asset protection head, then the company's leaders are looking to you to strategize how your department is going to support their plans and overall corporate success. A comparison of ePVMs over multiple RCTs IMPACT % Change in Shrink Efficacious Positive ROI % Change in Sales Unit Cost/ Retail Study 1 (asset protected - Razor Blade) YES YES 5% 45% 35% Study 2 (asset protected - Razor Blade) YES YES 1% 26% 23% Study 3 (asset protected - Auto Parts) YES YES 8% 16% 13% Study 4 (asset protected - Premium Spirit) YES YES 37% 30% 30% Study 5 (asset protected - Infant Formula) YES 16% (Ret. 1); 17% (Ret. 2) 70% (Ret. 1); 215% (Ret.2) 64 NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2018 | LOSSPREVENTIONMEDIA.COM

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of LP Magazine - NOV-DEC 2018