Capital Investments within today’s world of business influence how successful organizations are in the future. Funding utilized during any procurement process must respectfully be assigned and produce some form of return. Money that organizations invest on security functions is no different. These functions must have some purpose (reduce risk) and then be justified through 먹튀검증 cost benefit analysis. With this, the security industry has moved from a labor intensive market to a capital intensive market; which means that Physical Protection Systems are built and run on funding. You would think that money committed to security is managed effectively. After all, isn’t money that is being invested used to drive back loss, prevent shrinkage and forestall pilferage?
Since 9/11 the security industry has witnessed a joblessness in demand. With this demand has come the requirement for security professionals to effectively manage money spent during the system life cycle and during retrofit projects. Through the acquisitions process organizations request and purchase different services that have lasting effects on the security position. These services consist of assistance with security management practices, technical security evaluations and assistance with forensic security (expert witnesses) issues.
Statistical data within the security industry outline that the various markets have underwent extreme growth. On the national level the united states has spent $451 thousand (as of May 2014) on national defense and has spent over $767 thousand on Homeland Security since 9/11. Consumer reports have likewise outlined that Americans collectively spend $20 Thousand each year on security alarm. Technical trends have outlined that organizations spend $46 Thousand (combined) annually on Cyber Security. The asset protection market outlines that the contract guard force industry has witnessed substantial growth to the tune of $18 Thousand a year. So that you can prevent shrinkage retailers also invest $720. 3 Million annually on loss prevention methods.
You would also think that with the amount of capital being spent within the security industry that more industry standards (to include lessons learned) would exist to help guide stakeholders toward sound security investments. This is often false. Most security project end products are the link between different security management mentalities. These security thinking pitfalls are as a result of the: Candy bar Cutter machine Thinking — if a security measure successful somewhere it will reduce the risk at multiple facilities; Pieced Thinking — as capital is available some risk(s) are mitigated; Maximum Security Thinking — there is never too much security; and the Lambs Herd Thinking — everyone is doing it so we better follow suit. Each of these pitfalls has the same influence on the organizations bottom line. They each potentially divert capital away from addressing true risk(s) and extremely often require organizations to invest more capital into the security program so that you can correct freshly created security vulnerabilities.
Two main issues contribute to these pitfalls: The stakeholder does not know what security measures are essential and relies on a vendor for guidance; or the potential vendor does not have the stakeholders’ best interest in mind and recommends that the stakeholder accessories measures that are out of scope from the consumer’s needs. Now do not get this author wrong, there are some vendors in our security markets whom meet or exceed stakeholder requirements. From a security management stand point the question has to be asked “Does the seller understand the stakeholder’s security needs and/or does the seller really care? inch
Stakeholders very often haven’t identified their specific security requirements (industry or local). Many stakeholders identify different symptoms that they think are root problems in their security position; never realizing that these symptoms often hide the main problems. One of the biggest contributions to this unawareness is lack of security industry training. Sure there are security staff personnel that are located in the business that bring many years of experience to the table. The question that has to be asked “is the business providing training opportunities to its staff so that you can identify industry guidelines and expose them to new ideas? inch In most cases this author has seen that organizations rely on the experience that has been listed on a resume to negate the requirement for an investment made on security training. When internal personnel do not change with a changing security industry the business normally pays for this by freelancing research work and can be rooked by bad vendors during the acquisitions process.
Another mistake related to not clearly identifying security requirements is the development of an unclear Statement of Work during the invitation for bid or ask proposal process. When the planning area of a project is neglected little changes in scope can cost the business additional resources. In many cases the seller does not understand the Statement of Work that has been created by the stakeholder. When this lack of understanding occurs, there is no true definition of what the end product should be and the vendor may rely on gut instincts to get a security system in place to meet some requirements. Not having a knowledge can lead to scope find their way, weather by choice or by oversight, which will require a corporation to make even more investments in a system which does not address all of the organizational needs.
This author in addition has witnessed many issues related to the installation area of security components. You would wonder why the functional area of a system is overlooked and often the acceptance tests are raced. This problem can be from the need for security personnel to be properly trained. If security personnel haven’t been trained to benchmark security practices and identify manufacturer requirements, how can they effectively accept the functionality of a system and with good faith tell top level management an effective Physical Protection System is in place?
Service pricing is another mistake. During the invitation for bid and ask proposal process stakeholders often rely on cost comparisons in order to purchase a vendor. Limited amounts of capital may influence a stakeholder into selecting the lowest bid on a project so that you can meet budget requirements. Buyer Beware! Any security system it does not fulfill the technical requirements and that is under priced should be thoroughly assessed. At least 50% of the cost associated with security projects are generated by labor. A vendor may be inclined to recommend security measures that aren’t needed and that may guarantee future work.
The opposite mistake that falls under security management is related to the machine life cycle management process. The writer understands that stakeholders are often afraid of change , nor appear to observe that the security systems that have just been installed, by design, must be upgraded within 10 years (if not sooner). Some stakeholders also allow vendors to determine what systems are implemented, not realizing that these systems are exclusive in nature and leave the stakeholder with very limited upgrade options. During any retro-fit/new security construction project the stakeholder should take on the saying of the need to “Design to Upgrade. inch This means that if a lot of capital is invested into a security system, organizations should be looking towards an easy solution for expansion or upgrade as the system ages through its life cycle. Far too often is this overlooked during the security planning process.
In an industry that is forever changing security administrators need to be aware of the various pitfalls and their effects on organizational capital. During the decision making process of a security project and during the life cycle management process of a security system the following can be used as a benchmark to reduce the effects of these associated pitfalls:
1) Ensure that internal security employees receive industry related training annually.
2) Identify the Assets and how they should be protected.
3) Identify any requirement that may be industry driven (to include insurance).
4) Identify the dangers that may exist within ‘one mile’ radius of the site/asset.
5) Plan for the security system to be upgraded at some point.
6) Implement sound security management practices so that you can utilize resources effectively.
7) Identify a qualified vendor base on technical reactions and past performance.
8) Never base vendor selection on cost.
9) Inspect vendor output as a project on.
10) Conduct inclusive functional tests (to include inclement weather and low light) on system components.
In our security industry there are many pitfalls associated with system upkeep and system design. These pitfalls very often require stakeholders to invest additional amounts of capital into existing or new systems. Some of the pitfalls associated with inadequate security systems are lack of employee training; lack of knowledge on actual security needs; misidentifying root problem(s); selecting the wrong vendor who may not be competent enough to understand the stakeholder’s needs; and inadequate functional testing.