In a previous post, Training + Technology = Success, I noted the following:

“Far too many fraud departments are forced to create a labyrinth of procedures to compensate for inadequate technology. The amount of time and effort spent to compensate for “bad” technology is largely a hidden cost, but certainly is a cost nonetheless.”

I have often heard bank fraud investigators tell me that they preferred to conduct an investigation using a particular system(s) or approach.  From my experience, the more systems that an investigator has to access to decision an item, the higher the probability will be that the investigator will develop their own, “preferred” approach to the investigation process.

However, take note, if your bank has a fully documented investigations process, as soon as an investigator deviates from that agreed upon approach it becomes exceptionally difficult to convince anyone that any resulting losses were unavoidable. When a loss results, no one, especially senior management wants to hear that an investigator had developed their own investigation process based on “personal preference”. 

Let’s take On-Us Fraud for example, the process is fairly straightforward. In addition to the image, account history etc, there should also be a risk adjusted score for each item that provides quantitative data for the investigator to consider during their review. Such scoring can include numerous elements including whether the account has experienced fraud in the past, where payments are normally sent etc. Certainly, investigators “gut” can play a role in the decision, but a minor role that does not take over and become the process over time. Investigators need not create their own, preferred approach to acquire data to make a decision if the right data is presented to them in one view or system.

Let’s make it simple for the investigator to stop fraud! Asking them to access multiple systems and piece the data together to decision an item is a recipe for disaster. In order to investigate an item, an investigator must follow a process. Technology should help facilitate the process but technology should not dictate the process. There is a right way and a wrong way to investigate a fraud suspect. Technology may help improve the process. Over time it may even replace certain elements of the process. However, technology should support and enhance the investigation process.  “Bad technology” results in the tail wagging the dog!

Are your bank’s fraud investigators held hostage by “bad” technology? Are they spending too much time jumping from system to system to gather data to review suspect items?

Interested in On-Us Fraud? Sign up today for Memento’s webinar on March 25th!