How can you measure and report the impact and value of your P2P fraud detection and prevention efforts?

Measure and report the impact of P2P fraud detection and prevention efforts through key performance indicators (KPIs) such as reduced fraudulent transactions, increased detection rates, and minimized financial losses, supported by comprehensive reporting and analytics.

Before initiating measurement and reporting on P2P fraud detection and prevention, defining objectives and scope is crucial. Clearly outline specific goals aligned with organizational strategy and values. Identify key fraud risks and scenarios to address. Define the scope of the P2P process and data sources involved. This clarity sets direction and boundaries for subsequent measurement and reporting endeavours.

An example I have seen for any individual CRF in excess of a high value, i.e. $250K, should insist on a fair bidding process inviting up to 5 bidders. This helps preventing potential employee/vendor collusion and as well help increasing price competitiveness.

To measure and report the impact of P2P fraud detection and prevention, define clear objectives such as reducing fraud incidents and minimizing financial losses. Scope your measurement by focusing on detection accuracy, response times, and cost savings. Collect and analyze data on fraud incidents and prevention costs, then report on performance improvements and financial benefits. Regularly update your objectives and scope to adapt to new risks and system changes.

When choosing metrics and indicators for monitoring P2P fraud detection and prevention efforts, balance quantitative measures reflecting performance with qualitative insights. Key metrics include fraud losses, savings, rate, detection, and prevention rates. Indicators cover types, sources, impacts, trends, and risks. This comprehensive approach provides insights into fraud consequences and variations over time, aiding in better understanding and management.

In my experience if planning is implemented, any material requisition which is manually generated could be as a result of incorrect planning or fraud. Usually a high value material purchase or a continuous string of small purchase should be flagged in the dashboard. For expense procurements any thing which is a high value transaction which is not routed through a open bidding process could be flagged. Again any 3rd party contract work, where material is moving out from factory, getting worked outside and returned or shipped to customer should have quality checks which should be automated and directly linked to a dashboard to flag for any potential discrepancy between work done and invoice sent.

Establishing metrics for P2P fraud detection requires a dual approach—quantitative measures like fraud losses, savings, and detection/prevention rates offer a numerical overview, while qualitative indicators like fraud types, sources, impacts, trends, and risks provide nuanced insights. In addition to tracking outcomes, evaluating preventive measures and process controls is crucial. Metrics should encompass the effectiveness of implemented controls, the frequency of security assessments, and the responsiveness of preventive actions. This dual perspective enables organizations to gauge financial impact, understand fraud dynamics, and assess the robustness of proactive measures, fostering continuous improvement in P2P transaction security.

Define specific KPIs that align with the goals of your fraud detection and prevention program. These KPIs could include metrics such as the number of fraudulent transactions detected, the percentage of prevented fraud attempts, the time taken to resolve fraud cases, and the cost savings achieved through fraud prevention.

After choosing metrics and indicators, proceed to data collection and analysis for meaningful insights. Collect data from diverse sources, including P2P systems, reports, audits, and investigations. Validate and consolidate this data. Analyze it to identify patterns, trends, anomalies, and opportunities. Use methods like descriptive statistics, ratio analysis, and predictive analytics to interpret the data effectively.

System can only detect so much about any fraud. In addition to this, Procurement and Payables team should have a clearly identified whistle blower policy, which can reward the employee a particular % or a threshold value of reward if they identify and report the same.

A coleta de dados deve ocorrer sempre de fontes seguras e confiáveis, de preferencia de plataformas que deem visibilidade a fornecedores, clientes e funcionários. Com dados coletados 360o graus é mais fácil encontrar desvios e mitigar a possibilidade de fraude.

Once you've analysed your data, it's crucial to communicate your findings effectively. Tailor your reports to your audience, using clear, concise language and relevant visuals like charts or graphs. Present your results in formats like dashboards, scorecards, or presentations. Provide context and comparisons to help stakeholders understand the significance of your findings. Emphasize key takeaways and recommendations, and invite feedback and questions to ensure clarity and engagement.

Develop clear and concise reports that summarize the impact of your P2P fraud detection and prevention efforts for stakeholders within the organization. Communicate key findings, successes, challenges, and recommendations for improvement regularly to ensure alignment with strategic objectives.

Measuring and reporting the impact of P2P fraud detection and prevention efforts requires going beyond numbers to tell a compelling story of resilience and vigilance. Highlight not just the incidents thwarted or losses prevented, but also the broader implications for organizational trust and financial stability. Share insights on how these efforts strengthen your company's reputation and safeguard its future, fostering a culture where proactive security measures are valued and understood as essential to long-term success.

Continuously monitoring and improving your P2P fraud detection and prevention efforts ensures effectiveness and sustainability. Establish a systematic cycle for measurement and reporting, track KPIs, and conduct regular audits and reviews. Identify and address issues or gaps with corrective and preventive actions. Seek out best practices and innovations to enhance capabilities and celebrate successes to maintain motivation and engagement.

O acompanhando por KPIs deve ser obrigatório nesse caso e os dados preferencialmente extraídos por um time imparcial de auditoria. Porem também deve instituir um plano de a??o para quando os indicadores apresentarem desvios. Como empregar a metodologia Lean para buscar a causa raiz, resolver o problema e voltar os KPIs a normalidade.

Digitizing all the elements of procurement to pay process along with communication associated with it is the best way to detect fraud. Many Cloud ERPs also allow communication over the ERP channels associated with particular invoice to be sent between different department and procurement or payables department to be documented. So that even if the employee leaves the job, the communication / clarification associated with the particular transaction stays in the ERP system. So if an auditor has to investigate a particular transaction, need not pull records from email and other different messaging system. They can directly access it from ERP.

Customer Feedback and Satisfaction: Gather feedback from customers regarding their experience with the fraud detection process. Understanding customer satisfaction levels can provide insights into how effectively your prevention measures are being implemented without causing unnecessary friction in legitimate transactions.

Um ponto importante para se considerar na jornada de preven??o a fraudes é realizar um estudo dos acessos necessários em sistema e conflitos que podem gerar fraude, a revis?o dos acessos dos colaboradores também deve ser realizada de forma continua e periódica. Na minha experiência muitos desvios s?o mitigados se o colaborador tiver o acesso adequado e sem conflito em sistemas. Quando falamos em fraude, o acesso estava lá por engano dado que n?o era necessário para que o colaborador executasse sua atividade.