Comments on: Real-time alerts required for loss prevention?

By: Dan Caruso

Dan Caruso — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:20:48 +0000

How about when an RFID tag sets off an alarm. This would be a good situation to review, and perhaps a real time review might be interesting. Why real time? Because the incident will be fresh on the minds of the employees (assuming real time means ~20 minutes after-the-fact) and hence much more can be learned as to why alarm triggered and what employees did in response.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:50:09 +0000

John – thanks for the comment. I have seen your point #1 already with a partner and it has taken me some time to coach them on how this really works and why it is valuable. Part of the challenge of new players getting into loss prevention and operational improvement processes (coming from straight security) is that they are applying their security metaphors (instant reaction, proactive intervention) onto areas that don't really fit.

By: John Honovich

John Honovich — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:49:56 +0000

While I think real time alerts can have value, I have found 3 main problems: 1. The biggest problem is that it is sexy and has the 'conceptual potential' to reduce losses significantly. Vendors often push hard on this point, set expectations that cannot be met and result in disappointment and dissatisfied customers. 2. I agree with your point about too many alerts. Customers often do not anticipate until they use it in production. Then they are rightfully frustrated. 3. Many retailers do not like to stop an incident in real-time because of the liability risks that something goes wrong and an employee or customer is injured in the process (this can happen when dealing with criminals). This makes it more appropriate to do it after the fact. I think alerts can have value but they positioned in a reasonable way to prevent over-selling and customer frustration. Best, John