As a loss prevention (LP) product or service provider, the performances of products or services are mainly judged together with amount of successful theft encountered for the implementation of that product or service. Typically than not, this is the sole criteria in grading the effectiveness of losing prevention initiative and will subsequently decide on future sales or whether this initiative will be recommended to others.
Depending around type of product/service provided, the end-user or client is often involved within maintenance or ongoing operation of the LP initiative. For a simple example, a locksmith can offer a deadbolt lock for a house doorway. Installation, and even testing, might be conducted your locksmith along with the lock could operate totally. However, if the entranceway isn’t locked by the resident of the house as well as the house is robbed from the unlocked door, who was a student in fault?
It’s simple blame the resident, also in this rudimentary (although prevalent) case they’re probably at fault. However, the more complex LP will be implemented from a retail environment, similar incidents occur and the retailer often places the blame back about the loss prevention system.
There are common more parties involved within the retail environment when a loss prevention item is under critique. 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 for the in-store operator. If a theoretical 100% impregnable LP solution was available, providing specific 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 in which?
This is a more relevant scenario for your retail environment, and can be deemed in three different suggestions. Is the product provided through loss prevention company truly impregnable- is it possible to a solution which doesn’t even demand a switch for activated from your user and still be impassable? Contrastingly, is merely a simple error for the store operator for not activating the switch? Finally, has retail management implemented effective work practices for the in-store workers?
Blame, in other words responsibility, can not be placed solely on a single of these parties- 1 has a responsibility to help create an effective loss prevention system. The LP company should offer an exceptional product/service which is a snap to operate and maintain; not just easy with regard to the loss prevention employee but straightforward for the end-user (the in-store operator in the retail environment). Retail management need to carry out their part by implementing effective work practices have to be eliminated employees motivated to make use of the products correctly and maintain their operation successfully. Finally, the in-store operators must have to make the system come together by i really hope work practices when utilizing the LP tool.
In doing so, the 3 parties can produce a loss prevention system which advantage each party individually.