Do you take the time to review your RAFM strategy from time to time? Stop to take a look at what is working and what is not, and make smart adjustments? Due to the ever-evolving nature of their jobs, RAFM teams have to continuously evaluate and evolve their strategies to ensure success. This practice of ongoing review can help them avoid, or identify and correct, three common mistakes we often see as we work with RAFM teams.

1. UNDERSTANDING AND ADJUSTING YOUR KPIs

One of the biggest mistakes that LATRO sees across Operators’ RAFM team is tracking the wrong KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). Many RAFM teams in the industry are under the impression they need to report a minimum number of suspected fraudulent identifiers per month to show that a solution is working. Often, this line of thinking leads to being satisfied with a certain level of fraud always existing on the network. This breeds less innovation and a status quo attitude.  

Another underlying effect of consistently reporting a defined number of detections is the misconception that the solution is in fact working. Yes, the solution may help decrease fraud, but with the decrease in fraud also comes the inability to meet the minimum threshold of detections. Eventually, the solution will likely be wrongly deemed ineffective, a new vendor (typically with the same solution) will be brought in, and the cycle will continue.

If the fraud solution is working, the fraud level should decrease and RAFM teams need to understand this crucial concept. The goal of any fraud solution is to mitigate fraud as much as possible. While having a consistent level of detections per month may indicate that the solution is working in that it is able to detect fraud, in reality, it is not good at eliminating or mitigating fraud on a network – thus keeping the fraudster (and the vendor) in business.  

At LATRO, we understand this and focus on the only KPI we believe really matters – a net gain in revenue. X number of detections per month is great, but X dollars in increased revenue is better. That is why LATRO encourages RAFM teams to look at their increasing international termination revenues as a more accurate measure of success. Through LATRO’s proactive solutions, operators should no longer have to endure loss to meet a KPI. 

2. PROACTIVE VS. REACTIVE SOLUTIONS 

Building on the concepts above, RAFM teams must also avoid going wrong by understanding the difference between proactive and reactive solutions. Being proactive is acting in anticipation of an event, whereas being reactive is acting in response to an event that has already occurred In most cases, it is best to be proactive, so why would we accept anything less in our fraud solutions? 

Most fraud solutions such as TCG (Test Call Generation) and CDR (Call Detail Record) Analytics are reactive in nature. For these solutions to effectively combat fraud, they depend on already existing cases of fraud. CDR Analytics relies on metrics to detect fraudulent identifiers, and a fraudulent identifier must make X number of calls before it is flagged for suspicious behavior. While the CDR Analytics solution waits for identifiers to meet these usage metrics, the Operator incurs losses on the calls made before the number is flagged. TCG also requires fraud to be occurring when a test call is made towards the tested network. Test Calls also do not allow for much customization or innovation. Both solutions can be good tools to detect fraud, but they are not the best tools to mitigate fraud. 

LATRO’s Signaling Analytics solution is a proactive solution that focuses on mitigating fraud on the network. LATRO’s signaling probes are installed on an Operator’s network and work to identify fraud before it happens. LATRO utilizes Protocol Signature™ technology to detect SIMs as soon as they are inserted into a SIM Box device. This allows the Operator to block the fraudulent numbers before any calls are made, thus acting proactively against the fraud. Barring the SIMs before any calls are made allows the Operator to detect fraud but not incur losses, unlike the other solutions discussed above. Not only does LATRO’s Signaling Analytics solution proactively act to stop the fraudulent calls before they occur, but it also makes committing fraud more costly for the fraudster.

By constantly barring SIMs before any calls can be made, LATRO’s Signaling Analytics solution forces fraudsters to invest in additional SIMs while at the same time receiving no return on investment from the SIMs they previously purchased. This is how LATRO’s solution helps to mitigate fraud – making it more costly for the fraudster to operate leads to fraudsters reconsidering committing fraud. Add in LATRO’s Versaradio™ solution, which enables operators to Geo-locate and confiscate fraudsters’ devices, and now you are making a significant impact on fraud. 

3. RELYING ON CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS TO UNBLOCK SIMS 

The last mistake LATRO often sees across the industry is Operators relying on customer complaints raised by Customer Service (CS) teams to unblock previously suspected fraudulent identifiers. I am sure we have all heard the expression, “the customer is always right,” and while it may in fact hold true most of the time, it is okay to question this when it comes to fraud. 

Throughout LATRO’s many ventures, we have noticed a tendency by RAFM teams to release/unbar the previously suspected fraudulent identifiers when a customer complaint has been raised. This could unfortunately lead to fraudsters taking advantage of the Customer Service team. LATRO has seen fraudsters get their fraudulent numbers released because they have complained about their numbers being blocked. It is always best to perform multiple checks on the number in question first before releasing it. Typically, the customer will provide the IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) of the device associated with the SIM that has been blocked.  

LATRO can cross-check the IMEI provided at the time of the complaint against the IMEI at the time of detection. If the IMEIs do not match, then it is likely one can suspect some fraudulent activity. Going one step further, LATRO’s Signaling Analytics solution allows LATRO to use Protocol Signature™ technology to counter the fraudster’s claim that the SIM is legitimate. In many cases, if the Protocol Signature™ belongs to a fraudulent device and the IMEIs do not match, we can determine that the SIM must remain blocked. LATRO’s solution gives operators the tools and methods to always stay ahead of fraudsters’ emerging techniques. 

If you are interested in learning more about our SIM Box Bypass Fraud Solutions, please reach out to our team of technical experts