There are several points to remember as a company tries to reduce the damages it experiences due to fraud. The thorough analysis of how any fraud identification and prevention approach can fit into the day-to-day operating workflow of the company is among those points. In other words, it needs to be conveniently incorporated into defence and fraud activities for any fraud approach to be realistic.

Although there are a variety of common technologies on the market for fraud detection and prevention, they each vary in their own way from one another. A argument that is frequently given much too little weight during the assessment and acquisition process is incorporation into current organisational workflows. In this post, I would like to reflect on that issue.

The three “R’s” can, at a minimum, include some fraud detecting and prevention approach that purports to fit seamlessly into current operations:

  • Recommendation: A successful fraud detection and prevention approach needs to have a straightforward and succinct recommendation, no matter what form of data modelling, AI, machine learning, or research happens behind the scenes. After all, if an organisation does not quickly ingest a suggestion, the best technology and the greatest resources in the world are of no benefit.
  • Reason: I don’t know that many individuals who like black box operational technology. If you want me to use your idea, you should be able to explain to me why you made the suggestion in a simple way. I don’t need to explain your intellectual property intricacies, so you should be able to give me a logical, easy-to-understand explanation of why you have made a particular recommendation.
  • Review: As decisions are made and explanations are given to justify those recommendations, the organisation would certainly want to review the facts and situations behind those recommendations. A successful fraud identification and prevention solution, along with logical summaries and evaluations of the advantages the organisation is receiving from the solution, would provide easy-to-use access to that data.

Given that the above three “R’s” are given by a fraud detecting and prevention approach, there will also be quite a bit of variation between different deals on the market. It is necessary to note a few different criteria that make it worth incorporating into the operating workflow of the organisation for a successful fraud solution:

  • Simple to deploy: Sadly, there are quite a few tools out there for fraud detection and prevention that are quite challenging to deploy. A solution involving a long and complicated rollout would not satisfy the needs of an organisation trying to incorporate the solution into its operating process seamlessly.
  • Simple to consume: If they are not easy to consume, the best data and the greatest advice in the world don’t do a business any good. It is important to provide the data and guidance for a successful fraud detection and prevention approach in a manner that an organisation can easily reach. In addition, the incorporation of the production into the organisational workflow does not require several months of intensive technical service assistance.
  • Simple to operate: Operations and repair expenses are something that is often ignored when looking at the expense of a fraud solution. There is also the functional factor, in addition to the cost – a solution that requires several FTEs to run and manage rapidly becomes a drag on efficiency. Valuable personnel that can spend time detecting, investigating and responding to cases of security and theft end up wasting more of their time babysitting badly built solutions that are poorly architected. It’s an understatement to say that this doesn’t bode well for incorporating certain solutions into the regular workflow.
  • Strong fidelity: Not only does a decent fraud approach make recommendations – it should make good recommendations. Enterprises should have faith in the consistency and authenticity of the data they collect from their approach to fraud. Furthermore, the false negative rate should be negligible – a response to fraud is not especially successful if a large amount of the fraud that exists is absent.
  • Low noise: I don’t understand that many teams with a lot of spare time or money for defence and fraud. There should be an exceedingly limited false positive rate for a worthwhile fraud solution. If their fraud approach contaminates their workflow with a massive amount of inactionable noise, it does not benefit a company. Quite the contrary, in reality. In fact, a high false positive rate works against the protection and fraud teams by distracting them from actual events and causing them to waste time and money on false positives.
  • Actionable: All warnings from a response to fraud must be actionable. If there is something I don’t need to take action on, why are you asking me about it? If it’s just to convince me that there’s a solution to your scam, spare me trouble. I just get to know about things because I need to be made conscious of something.
  • ROI: By measuring the return on investment, the most easy measure to explain the effectiveness of a fraud remedy is (ROI). Y can be a large multiple of X if the remedy costs $X and prevents $Y in fraud damages. Otherwise, the approach to track and deter fraud has not lived up to standards.

Categorized in:

Tagged in: