These functions must have some purpose (reduce risk) and be able to be justified through cost benefit analysis. With this, the security industry has shifted from a labor intensive market to a money intensive market; meaning that Physical Protection Systems are built and run on funding. You would feel that the capital invested in security is managed effectively. After all, isn’t the capital that is being invested used to protect against loss, prevent shrinkage and prevent pilferage?
Considering that 9/11 the security industry has witnessed a surge sought after. With this demand has come the advantages of security professionals to effectively handle the capital spent through the system life cycle and through retrofit projects. Through the acquisitions process organizations request and procure different services which have lasting effects on the safety posture. These services contain guidance on security management practices, technical security evaluations and guidance on forensic security (expert witnesses) issues.
Statistical data within the security industry describe that the various market segments have undergone extreme development. Around the national level the United States has invested $451 billion (as of August 2014) on national defense and has invested over $767 billion on Homeland Security since 9/11. Consumer reports have also outlined that Americans jointly spend $20 Billion each year on home security. Technical trends have outlined that organizations spend $46 Billion (combined) annually on Cyber Security. The resource protection market outlines that the contract guard pressure industry has witnessed considerable growth to the melody of $18 Billion a year. In an effort to prevent shrinkage merchants also invest $720. 3 Million annually on loss prevention methods.
You should also feel that with the quantity of funds being spent within the personal alarm loudest industry that more industry benchmarks (to include lessons learned) would can be found to help guide stakeholders toward sound security purchases. This is often incorrect. Most security project conclusion products are the results of different security management mentalities. These security attitude pitfalls are therefore of the: Cookie Cutter Mindset – if a security measure works well somewhere it will reduce the risk at multiple facilities; Pieced Mentality – as funds is available some risk(s) are mitigated; Maximum Safety Mentality – there is never too much security; and the Sheep Küchenherd Mentality – everyone is doing it and we better follow suit. All these issues has the same effect on the organizations bottom collection. They each potentially divert funds far from addressing true risk(s) and incredibly often require organizations to invest more capital into the security program in an effort to correct newly created security weaknesses.
Two main issues add to these pitfalls: Typically the stakeholder will not really know what security measures are essential and depends on a vendor for guidance; or the possible vendor does not have the stakeholders’ welfare in mind and recommends that the stakeholder implements measures that are out of scope from the client’s needs. Now don’t get this author wrong, there are some vendors in today’s security markets which meet or surpass stakeholder requirements. From a security management stand point the question needs to be asked “Does the vendor understand the stakeholder’s security needs and/or really does the vendor really proper care? ”
Stakeholders very often have not determined their specific security requirements (industry or local). Many stakeholders identify different symptoms that they think are root problems within their security pose; never realizing that these symptoms often hide the underlying problems. One of the biggest contributions to this misunderstanding is lack of security industry training. Positive there are security employees personnel that are positioned in the organization that bring many years of experience to the table.