Can we almost always find ways to do a little more with a
little less? Certainly, as we have all experienced. But here’s the downside: The reality is that we really don’t do a
“little more” – we may do a “little more” in quantity, but actually do a
“little less” in quality. And every “little less” that we do results in
decreased service and increased liability (the old and true “you can pay me now
or pay me later” adage).
When we talk about “working smarter” or better utilizing
technology, we usually mean the replacement of people with machines and
systems. Automation is not a
significant part of this problem (smaller budgets for security), contrary to
what many “new school” practitioners and security product vendors would have
you believe. Surely automation can make security somewhat easier, but it
doesn’t necessarily make it better, because people will always be part of the
equation and people will always be a significant and costly and on-going budget
line item. Virtually all of the types
of services routinely provided by security personnel – preventive patrol,
evicting trespassers, opening doors, providing escorts, conducting
investigations, problem intervention, etc. – could not be accomplished without
people. Can technology help? Sure. But successful conclusions to security
incidents and problems rarely can occur without security personnel.
Other business operations don’t have the same problems as
Security: When sales are down, marketing and advertising costs go up; when
customer service complaints rise, personnel hiring costs go up; when floors get
too dirty and equipment breaks down, housekeeping and maintenance costs rise.
But even when security is at stake and problems and/or liability increase, the
budget for security gets cut.
The panacea is not all the latest technologies and bells and
whistles or even more operational security personnel. What we need is better
security executives who can credibly sell security service based on accurate
data collection and analysis, and who have the fortitude to strongly support
and defend their positions even when such may not be politically- or
career-correct (or wise).
Posts
