Capital investments in the business world play a crucial role in determining the success of an institution in the future. The funds allocated for procurement processes must be carefully allocated and result in a return on investment. This also applies to investments in security functions. Physical protection systems are now built and run on funding, and it’s crucial that the capital invested in security be managed effectively. With the increase in demand for security in the modern world, the industry has shifted from being labour-intensive to capital-intensive, requiring security professionals to effectively manage the capital spent during the life cycle of the system and retrofit projects.
Despite the significant capital being invested in the security industry, there is still a lack of industry benchmarks and lessons learned to guide stakeholders towards sound security investments. This is due to various security management mentalities, including the Cookie Cutter Mentality, Pieced Mentality, Maximum Security Mentality, and Sheep Herd Mentality. These mentalities divert capital away from addressing true risks and often require institutions to invest more capital to correct newly created security vulnerabilities.
Two main issues contribute to these pitfalls: a lack of understanding of the stakeholder’s security needs and a potential contractor not having the stakeholder’s best interest in mind. Institutions often rely on the experience listed on a contractor’s resume, neglecting the need for security training for their staff. This lack of training leads to a misunderstanding of security requirements and the development of an unclear Statement of Work during the tender process, resulting in scope creep and further investments in a system that does not fully address the institutional needs.
Another problem in the security industry is the lack of proper training for security personnel. If security personnel are not trained to benchmark security practices and identify manufacturer requirements, they cannot effectively accept the functionality of a system and provide assurance to top-level management. The tendency to rely on cost comparisons during the tender process and select the lowest bid also results in a potential pitfall, as security systems that are underpriced and do not meet technical requirements should be thoroughly evaluated.
Lastly, system life cycle management is also a crucial aspect of security management. Stakeholders often fear change and do not recognize the need for upgrades to their security systems. Allowing contractors to dictate the systems implemented can also lead to proprietary systems that are difficult to upgrade in the future.
In conclusion, it is essential to address these pitfalls in the security industry to ensure that the capital invested results in a return on investment and effectively protects against loss, shrinkage, and pilferage. Institutions should prioritize security training for their staff, clearly identify their security requirements, and carefully manage the life cycle of their security systems to ensure their long-term success.
If you are interested in any of the topics covered in this post, please consider enrolling in one of our numerous courses covering all aspects of security and CI by following the link below.
