Integrated physical security is the way to go

GLOBALLY, an increase in the use of integrated physical security has been reported partly because of its ability to consolidate stand-alone security systems such as guard services, perimeter walls or fences, burglar alarms, physical barriers or closed circuit monitoring for the benefit of business owners.

The first line of defence against intrusion or attack comes in the form of physical security measures and this is the most visible form of deterrence against unauthorised taking of assets or information from an organisation. Thus, an integrated physical security system provides countermeasures to threats and offer tangible business outcomes to the organisation. These tangible business outcomes include improved labour efficiency of security personnel, reduced labour costs, better communication for security purposes and increased overall operational efficiency and productivity.

An integrated security system is defined by Kruegle (2006) as one that allows different security functions to operate as a single security function. It can actually be a combination of different standalone facets into what is termed a “defence in depth” approach to reinforce control measures.

Defence in depth is a concept that is used to secure assets and protect life through multiple layers of security. If an attacker breaches one layer, he or she will not be able to gain access to an asset unless and until they also breach the other layers. Multiple layers make it difficult for an intruder or attacker to get access to valuables.

A very practical example is the way how cash is secured in most businesses. It is locked in a cash box, placed in a safe which is in a locked strongroom. The strongroom is only accessed by authorised personnel through the use of an access card. The strongroom is in turn inside a locked room within a building which also has a perimeter wall to it and is manned by security guards. It therefore entails that in the event that an adversary manages to circumvent the security at the gate to get into the premises, he or she still has the locked room to deal with, followed by the strongroom which can only be opened using a password or access card, then the locked safe and finally the locked cash box. In some cases the area will also be under surveillance and this would make it much more difficult for a culprit trying to steal the cash and go away unnoticed.

These security measures, working together, provide multiple levels of security which, in the long run, contribute to productivity through safeguarding assets and people. Harris (2014) could not have said it better when he posited that “good practices in place allow employees to feel safe so they can focus on their tasks, and force attackers to prey on easier targets”.

Applying an appropriate level of protection requires a specific understanding of the environment in which the business is operating in and the threats to which it is exposed to. An effective security design has, thus, to be carried out. Hence an effective design is composed of multiple layers of stand-alone systems which are interdependent and they should be able to cover all the demands of technology for both internal and external protection.

The nature of business and geographic spread of services offered by business organisations has made security needs complex. Several studies, as alluded to by Westenkirchner (2007), have shown that companies are opting for integrated security solutions to meet their complex security needs.

Integration security systems can also be designed to protect data and information from intruders and hackers. However, in this article I have given emphasis to the physical security aspect because it is one of the most fundamental instruments of protection.

Physical security threats can be both internal and external. Internal threats are more dangerous and are mostly posed by employees of the organisation. Employees are considered an internal threat due to their knowledge of the premises layout and where assets are kept, which knowledge they can utilise to steal from the company or vandalise its assets. Employees also have the added advantage of gaining access to some areas unobserved because of their daily mandates.

It would then not be ideal, in such situations, to have a single defined system of control in place. Once that one system of control is breached then the organisation will experience some losses. I have always talked about the “one size does not fit all” concept. This simply implies that one form of measure always creates problems for the organisation. What certainly works for monitoring activities in the factories may not work in monitoring motor vehicle movements.

It is the advent of integrated security measures that, in today’s business environment, play a key role in enabling the organisation to achieve its targeted benchmarks as well as growth initiatives. Where it was enough to place a guard at the entrance or exit point, it may now be necessary to add a mantrap, for example. A mantrap is a small room that prevents individuals from tailgating. We have seen most of these in banks and they are designed in such a way that they trap an unwelcome person by locking him or her inside until security or the police are called to take action.

Protection of assets of an organisation demands a holistic approach and it should provide safeguards that are more than just placing a security guard on entry and, or exit points. An integrated approach is able to provide protection from the control room right out to the perimeter of the building. It should include such components as video surveillance, access control, perimeter intrusion detection and asset tracking that work together to provide an extensive method of protection. If these measures are applied as independent stand-alones, then they may have a negative ripple effect on the organisation’s operational efficiency and business objective.

Feedback on patbhunu@yahoo.co.uk

Sms on 0716532802