Easier to manage may not mean better protection
As facility managers and C-Suite executives, it's important to consider the overall cost-benefit analysis when implementing minimum standards in physical security. While it may seem like a logical step to standardize security at all company properties - easier to manage, deals/discounts from vendors, integration with other multi-site buildings, etc., there are a number of reasons why mandatory minimum standards may not be the best approach.
First and foremost, mandatory minimum standards can be costly to implement. This includes the cost of equipment, installation, and ongoing maintenance. For smaller facilities or businesses with tight budgets, these costs can be prohibitive and may divert resources from other important initiatives.
Additionally, mandatory minimum standards may not take into account the specific needs and risks of a particular facility. For example, a high-rise office building in a busy urban area may have different security needs than a rural warehouse. A one-size-fits-all approach may not address the unique challenges of each facility.
Furthermore, mandatory minimum standards may lead to a false sense of security. Just because a facility meets a certain standard does not mean that it is completely secure. There may still be vulnerabilities that are not addressed by the standard. Facility managers and C-Suite executives need to be aware that meeting minimum standards does not guarantee the safety and security of their facility.
Lastly, mandating minimum standards can create a culture of compliance rather than one of continuous improvement. Instead of constantly reviewing and updating security measures to better protect the facility, the focus becomes solely on meeting the minimum standard.
In conclusion, while mandatory minimum standards may seem like an easy solution for ensuring physical security, they are not without their drawbacks.
Facility managers and C-Suite executives should carefully consider the costs, specific needs, and potential limitations before implementing mandatory minimum standards in physical security. It is more important to have a comprehensive security plan that adapts to changing risks and threats.
Comments