The idea of security management being viewed as a stand-alone, systematic approach to crime control and prevention has many supporters. However, of late certain organisations have begun to view security as one element of a wider range of tasks that may or may not be associated with criminal activity, but which are most certainly related to losses being suffered ('Dilute to waste', pp16-18).
This approach necessarily assumes that losses can be readily measured and security functions implemented to manage the risk. Forfeitures resulting from fires and accidents as well as crime would fall under this umbrella. Thus a situation prevails wherein security management as a discipline is attached to – or merged with – others including facilities and Health and Safety management. When times are tight, businesses look for savings on the bottom line. It's often difficult for in-house managers to justify themselves and their security team in terms of any 'Return on Investment'. To the uninitiated, security adds to overheads rather than lessens them, but in the longer term a robust protection regime could save a company millions.
That being the case, aren't we in grave danger of diluting the security function by asking already overworked managers to wear three or four hats rather than one?
Any blurring of the management and accountability of security will inevitably lessen its scope and impact. It's a blurring driven by the desire to reduce costs. That will increase the risks, which in turn will result in rising costs to further reduce those risks. This is short-termism. A false and dangerous economy. We must all fight against it.
Source
SMT
Postscript
Brian Sims, Editor
No comments yet