All Access For Security

As a security adviser I have often found myself in debates regarding the role of security within an organisation. During my early formative years as a junior officer forced into discussions with senior officials; and more recently; as a security professional converting from a larger force to the private sector.  The context may have changed dramatically but one finds that the same general pattern of thought exists regarding the role of security within an organisation.

We often talk about the security starter pack: Guarding, CCTV/Alarms and armed response, however this has become the consensus and in many spheres this type of thinking drives the approach to security (whether intentional or not), one step up from this will be an addition of investigation services. Through the fallacy of appeal to authority, the general public has reached a consensus that security consists out of those elements and anything further than that may be nothing more than an invasion of privacy.

In my early days I reached some form of understanding, whether to justify my extensive travels to my generals or not, that there is not one part of an organisation that can be removed from security or ignored by security elements, I wanted access to everything. I often bombarded units using my organisation as a backing and claimed that I needed access to everything. Although my approach may have been arrogant while i was learning; the motives were pure and in hindsight I would stand by that view again. However, today I can explain the Why behind it more clearly. 

A friend and client once described security to me: “Security is the ability to operate in a specific environment free of fear and able to perform your functions correctly”

To put it clearly, anything that can negatively impact the effectiveness of an operation which you are conducting is a security concern. 

There are always the obvious ones: access control, key control, cctv, alarms, if an organisation is really advanced in their thinking they will include OHS and facilities management into their security, and this is about as far as it goes. When I start asking about their procurement processes and filing systems then people start getting nervous and I find myself being required to justify why security has a role in procurement or HR. 

I will provide a few examples for illustration (this list is not exhaustive):

Procurement- If fraud is committed inferior items may be procured including safety items, this can affect the safety of workers leading to injuries and downtime, thereby affecting the finances of the organisation, or this can lead to organisation overspending on items and thereby affecting profits and sustainability of the organisation, the organisation may then fail to reach its operational objectives

Facilities- If an organisation does not maintain its facilities and workers report this on social media or workers are injured this can lead to bad publicity for the business and thereby affect the ability of the organisation to function effectively i.e. reach its operational objectives

Human resources: if security elements do not monitor recruiting of employees and also conduct vetting on these employees then criminal elements may be employed into an organisation, this is further evident when viewing controversies regarding senior officials with falsified academic records. This controversy and resulting legal action/bad publicity may affect the ability of the organisation to function effectively.

In conclusion I will state that if the function of security is to ensure that an organisation can continue to achieve its operational objectives, then any matter that affects the operational effectiveness of an organisation is a security concern and should be treated as such.