Evidence-Based by Read Hayes, Ph.D., CPP
How Protective Countermeasures Actually Work
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. © 2013 Loss Prevention Research Council
J
udgment is everything for a loss prevention decision-maker. And good choices are a lot easier with good information—hence evidence-based loss prevention (EBLP). As part of our march toward EBLP, it’s important to continue rolling out a common language and understanding in the same way as other professions. In earlier columns I’ve discussed how critical it is to accurately diagnose the causes and dynamics of a problem to properly treat it using techniques like the SARA problem-solving process. In this column we mention how it is equally important to be able to align and describe how a selected protective countermeasure or treatment actually works to affect a problem. We want to be able to describe an LP effort’s mode and mechanisms of action.
Modes and Mechanisms of Action
As part of our research team’s efforts to support multiple retailers, we have attempted to carefully describe how solutions we work with actually affect theft attempts. By knowing how solutions work, we can better determine why or why not and how well they work so we can make improvements. Our current research ranges from using large datasets to extensive in-store offender interviews to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the case of offender interviews, we are increasingly running subjects through stores that we have specially set up in order to determine what countermeasures offenders tend to notice (see), recognize (get), and respect (fear). We can then compare which interventions work best, and how we can boost intervention performance by “tweaking” our deployment and execution. A huge part of this process is thinking about how these protective treatments actually work. We generally categorize treatment actions into overall modes of action, and then describe the specific mechanisms of action of these modes. Modes of action are therefore broader and usually mean the countermeasure makes stealing harder for a thief, appear riskier, or makes theft less rewarding. Some treatments can have more than one mode and even multiple mechanisms of action. Below are examples of some current LP treatments we are to which we are exposing offenders in our CVS StoreLab location, as well as evaluating in larger field RCTs with multiple retailers. In this list I have described how we believe the treatments work in the real world to discourage or disrupt offenders. ePVM Treatment. Enhanced public view monitors have visual and aural enhancements added to increase the likelihood offenders will detect, recognize, and be seriously concerned about the deterrent measure. The mode of action in this case is centered on increasing the perceived risk of detection, rapid response, and detainment with serious formal and informal sanctions. The specific risk mechanism follows this scenario—if the ePVM is seen and recognized, offenders might believe they’re being currently monitored, and their face will be recognized and directly tied to a specific crime event (what, where, when). Protective Fixture Treatment. The first mode of action here is focused on increasing the effort required to access or remove an asset. Protective fixtures increase needed tasks, require special knowledge or tools that increase the required time, force or strength, and danger to steal merchandise.
Today, led by a growing number of LP executives, the Loss Prevention Foundation, LP Magazine, FMI, NRF, RILA, and others are coordinating in different ways with the LPRC to use research to eventually provide LP managers the critical process and impact data they deserve. Consider this. In medicine a nurse or physician’s assistant carries out a doctor’s orders. But it is the doctor who has had extensive training in understanding in great detail how a problem occurs and the mechanisms of action of prescribed solutions. That level of training leads to much more precise and cost-effective solutions and helps avoid dangerous and costly side effects. As we collectively raise the bar in this industry from relatively imprecise decisions to highly informed ones, we are in part talking about decision-makers moving up to the physician level. LP executives will increasingly have a much greater and deeper understanding of problem dynamics and how well LP solutions actually work. Today, led by a growing number of LP executives, the Loss Prevention Foundation, LP Magazine, FMI, NRF, RILA, and others are coordinating in different ways with the LPRC to use research to eventually provide LP managers the critical process and impact data they deserve.
38
may - june 2013
|
LPportal.com
