The investigative systems expert we spoke to has seen how the theft case with a drone gets executive buzz while the database fix that stops a million dollars in policy-exploiting returns barely gets a nod or a blink.
Both examples tell important stories about protection, but the way they translate doesn’t always land. Finance leaders don't speak fraud and abuse metrics. Their world is margin impact. And the person who understands and can explain what the systems detect usually isn't in the room when the budget conversation happens.
When their team does win approval though, they lead with numbers: "This unmanaged risk is costing us $X annually." Not: "We need this tool to stop return fraud and abuse."
They explain the margin leak before pitching the fix. They make sure someone who can speak both languages is actually in the meeting.
Four shifts for reframing include:
- Lead with the business risk
- Know the outcome of each loss
- Identify who actually makes the pitch
- Build cross-functional relationships before the crisis
On top of that, their teams build relationships with Product Management and IT before a crisis hits, so when RFID gets deployed or AI governance gets scoped, AP has a seat at the table instead of finding out after decisions are made.
As retailers are moving more of their budgets toward AI, AP teams using tools that flag abuse patterns and protect margin need to position that work as AI investment. If they don’t, it’ll be seen as legacy software that gets cut to fund someone else's technology roadmap.
You don’t have to win in every room, just the ones where the check gets signed.
Read the playbook here.
