Why Technology Acquisition isn't the Big Answer to Loss Prevention Questions

(A response to LPM Podcast episode titled “A Look at 2020 Technology Trends in Retail Through a Loss Prevention Lens”)

I appreciate the conversations initiated by Loss Prevention Magazine around this and other topics of interest to its readers, and I especially appreciate the salient and honest points made by all parties regarding privacy and ethics in new technology solutions. These conversations are important and necessary to keep LP Professionals on the foreground of business evolution.

However, after listening to this latest podcast episode I continue to fear that our quest for technological innovation, rather than opening us up to one potential option, will instead replace the more pressing need for innovation of thought and strategy in our programs.

Below are my top concerns when it comes to the pursuit of new technology acquisition in the Loss Prevention industry, followed by my own high-level solutions.

Concerns (in no particular order: )

1. Technology can be viewed and sought out as a potential panacea, often due to a lack of successful strategy or an inability to take a GLOBAL, STRUCTURAL VIEW of the Loss Prevention role within the business or sector as a whole.

2. Technology vendors utilize salespeople to communicate the potential benefits of their products, but a salesperson’s immediate profit motives do not align with our organizations’ LONG-TERM PROFIT MOTIVES.

3. Technology products, and the vendors who create and sell those products, don’t often align with our organizations’ CORE VALUES AND MISSIONS.

4. Every major business study has shown that innovation by itself does not lead to long-term success, without the simultaneous actions taken to SCALE IT ACCURATELY within the organizations' core missions and strategies.

5. Most available LP technology is focused on identification, apprehension and aid to law enforcement, when the focus should be primarily on the PREVENTION OF CRIME AND SHRINKAGE in our organizations in order to protect the product, people and profits.

6. The ETHICS QUESTIONS have not been adequately answered.

So what should we strive for, if not technological innovation? The answer is Innovation of Thought and Strategy.

Only after achieving “The Flywheel Effect” on all the following points should we, as an organization/division/department, pursue technological innovation:

1. Alignment on WHO were are as an organization (Action Step: Hire, promote and terminate people based primarily on these cultural values and characteristics, not experience or skill.)

2. Alignment on WHY we do what we do (Action Step: Receive and communicate clarity on your organizational mission as it is defined by organizational leadership.)

3. Alignment on HOW we are going to achieve that mission (Action step: Develop and communicate clarity on your high-level strategy with organizational leadership.)

4. Alignment on WHAT steps our Loss Prevention Teams will take to achieve our mission, within the strict parameters of the organization’s culture and strategy (Action step: meet weekly with your team to determine your progress and create next steps.)

5. DEVELOP our people to make decisions on their own and ultimately succeed us in your roles (Action step: dedicate consistent, active learning sessions with your team.)

Once we have achieved significant momentum on these five points, we can easily fold any new technology acquisition into our now self-propelling mission, culture, strategy and tactical decision matrices.

Below is an example of this concept, based on actual instances of technology acquisition:

Two Loss Prevention Directors work for competing hardware store chains (Companies A and B) with similar cultures, known for their customer experience and speed of checkout. Both Loss Prevention divisions are struggling with reduced payroll and increased ORC threats within their respective stores. Both are dealing with frustrated store managers and local PD departments due to changes in prosecution of property crimes.

Director A determines that she needs increases in technology to make up for her reduced personnel. She sells the COO of Company A on the need for new video systems and additional alarming physical deterrents to get the ORC problem under control. She then takes bids from competing vendors and settles on the best bid (product * cost.)

Director B first focuses on creation, communication and alignment of the five key points within her division, as Company B has determined that the mission of customer experience and low prices, and the strategy of service in the aisles and speed at the register, will stay the top priorities. Director B’s teams have been trained to adjust their tactics but not their goals or overall strategy.

How will this change the way Director B views potential technology solutions from the same vendor working with Director A? How do better cameras, monitors or video resolution help the customer experience? How do additional alarming deterrents help the customer experience? How do these technological advances increase customer service in the aisles and speed at the register?

They most likely don’t, so Director B will most likely not pursue them when presented by a salesperson.

However, there actually may be technology available on the market that does automatically fit into the direction of Company B. Due to the nature of that potential technological solution, that vendor is more likely to be created and sold by a vendor more aligned with the company’s values. Also, the right product will be much more recognizable as potential solution to Director B, preventing wasted resources and time, and ultimately avoiding the frustrations and backpedaling that almost always accompany the reliance of a company on the wrong panacea.