Herbert Mattord, M. He was formerly the Manager of Corporate Information Technology Security at Georgia-Pacific Corporation, where much of the practical knowledge found in this text book was acquired. Download Book. I appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions.
Those relationships continue to foster greater acceptance and recognition of the Security Department. Innovation means experimentation and risk. Time was when security tasks tended to become entrenched, routine and safe, tried and true, with a tendency to discover a successful formula for solving a problem and then sticking with it.
However, with the advent of September 11, , those old wraps are off! Each day every agent dialed the appropriate number at his or her appointed time to receive the Security Message of the Day; for example, the Salt Lake City agent called each day at A. Rocky Mountain Time. Formerly, especially if the information was urgent, headquarters personnel would undertake the long and tedious task of trying to reach all members of the department by telephone.
When agents were not in, messages left for them tended to become garbled and misunderstood. The innovative program not only transmitted the message to everyone each day but also ensured that all received the same message. Today, e-mail and the fax can similarly be used to reach security employees who are dispersed geographically or otherwise difficult to communicate with.
Another creative approach to a security problem in one retail organization was the shift away from total reliance on theft detection to a rigorous loss prevention program. This shift was in answer to the staggering problem of an unacceptable inventory shrinkage figure.
More arrests simply were not the answer to reducing losses. There had to be a better way than the traditional store detective and investigator approach. Highly visible security personnel, dressed conspicuously in bright red blazers with gold emblems, have the job of discouraging, deterring, and preventing theft.
This program has balanced out to a remarkably successful preventionto-apprehension ratio of It took courage to launch such a radically different approach to retail security in the face of long-standing tradition, but there was a better way!
Indeed, in the last decade, which saw a plethora of downsizing and corporate mergers, there has been a gradual transition in which many Security Directors ended up with either no or minimal staffs. This is good, as long as the Director does not succumb to the temptation of grabbing the reins and requiring management to include him or her in the problem solving and decision making.
The role is to give advice, suggest alternatives, and help solve problems. He or she gives the benefit of experience and judgment to the Security Manager and staff. In this kind of situation, the Director did not force his or her will on the subordinates; the climate was one of mutual and open exchange. Of course, the Director can decide to make all the decisions and solve all the problems. Some do or at least approve each and every decision. However, once the Director does this, he or she steps down into the role of the subordinate the Security Manager under the Director in a large department.
The Security Director is no longer directing but is now actively involved in operations. On the other hand, the Director sometimes will be called on to solve a problem.
In these circumstances he or she will interject himself or herself into the decision-making process and force his or her will if necessary. However, these situations, especially the latter, should be rare. If he or she is supportive of an aggressive, structured training program 1 www. If the Director is lukewarm about training and feels that it takes away time that is necessary to get the job done, he or she will end up with a fragmented, ineffective program.
It is certainly the one role that has an impact down through every level of the Security Department, with the obvious end result of improved performance. With respect to the staff, particularly the Security Manager or Assistant Director, however, his or her role is very functional.
The Director must personally train, guide, and develop his or her immediate subordinate, with the objective of preparing that manager to take over the directorship at the earliest possible date. One reason is that there is no one else who can do it. Second, there is a moral responsibility to the subordinate to help him or her grow vertically.
Finally, effective management dictates that a replacement be ready so that the Director can move vertically to assume more responsibility — for example, Corporate Security Director or Vice President of Loss Prevention, a position that has the same rank but with a larger division within the corporation, or a more advanced position with another company.
The training of the manager does not terminate at some fixed point in time. It is ongoing in nature and more often than not it lasts for several years. However, just as the Security Director must develop and train his or her own staff, so too must the Director contribute to the training and education of all company employees in matters relating to security and loss prevention. The input of the Security Director with the Training Department on induction programs for new employees, general security or loss prevention awareness programs, and special campaigns or promotions can make the difference between a very credible production and a program that is flat and ineffective.
To accomplish this the Director must subscribe to and read trade journals; participate in local, regional, or national security associations; attend seminars to hear peers and see new products; and freely communicate and exchange 50 General Security Management ideas with contemporaries on a regular basis. With the passage of time comes change, and the Director must be aware of and respond to that change, irrespective of his or her personal likes and dislikes about such change.
He or she must overcome the tendency of resisting change and make it a professional goal to be contemporary. The importance of this professional role is better understood when one recognizes that the subordinate Security Manager and Security Technician are normally absorbed in the operating demands of their jobs and may be less free than the Director to stay abreast of the vast array of information and data pertinent to our ever-changing world.
The contemporary professional is constantly involved in developmental and educational programs. How can one be considered professional unless he or she is growing in his or her selected profession?
This growth comes from broadened experiences coupled with new concepts, strategies, and tactics made known through some form of institutionalized educational process. Education in the security industry is not limited to the novice. Many security training and educational programs are specifically designed for experienced practitioners, supervisors, and managers. This comparison could cover every conceivable facet of operation, from orientation programs for new employees to handling trespassers.
Put another way, has Company A discovered, invented, or adopted a new or better way to do the job, and if so, should we consider doing that? Have we become too set in our ways or should we change too? Can we build on what they are doing and do it better? No one company or executive knows it all, all the time. Benchmarking is simply a structured way of comparing programs or operations systematically, that is, comparing apples to apples.
Who else could do it? If senior management sets security goals, then there is no need for a Director. A subordinate cannot establish departmental objectives and tell the Director the strategy to achieve those objectives.
Goals too easily achieved are not real goals. It is simply one of many things to be done on an ongoing basis. A goal must be an objective — an accomplishment that requires stretch — that you must work at constantly to achieve. Goals, which must be quantitative or qualitative in nature, could include replacing personnel with hardware to reduce payroll dollars, converting a predetermined number of units to a new access control program within a specified time frame, reducing specific losses by a set percentage, improving a certain measurable skill of security personnel such as firing range scores, or designing and implementing a new Programmed Learning program for major disasters.
One method of identifying and achieving goals is called strategic planning. Simply stated, there are three parts to such planning: 1. A detailed description of the most important issues the department anticipates facing.
A set of action plans that should enable the department to move forward. The ultimate goal of good strategic planning is to lay out specific long-range plan objectives and then devise short-term action plans to meet each major objective or goal. In addition to the major roles described previously, the Director should wear a number of other hats that can be significant. THE NEW SECURITY DIRECTOR To be appointed the new head of security in a long-established organization, even if coming up through the ranks; to come into an established organization from outside the company; to be transferred from another area of the business to head up a newly created security organization; or to arrive on the company scene from outside for the purpose of setting up a program are difficult situations indeed.
The new head of security is unknown and unproved in that position , and most people are suspicious of the unknown. The answer is for the new Security Director to come in with the lowest possible profile. He or she should look and listen and speak when spoken to, except when asking necessary questions. He or she should have a pleasant manner and be concerned initially with the people in his or her pyramid. Such concern must be sincere and warm.
In private chats with each subordinate, he or she will learn much without going out to seek it. The new Security Director should be very conservative in terms of making changes, unless such change is badly and conspicuously needed. In that case, he or she should allow the change to be made but not in his or her own name.
The Security Director should allow the credit to go to a subordinate. People will suspect that the new manager is behind the change anyhow and quietly admire his or her style. It is never wise for the new director to criticize his or her predecessor, if there was one.
If criticism is due, it will naturally come from below. The new person should listen to the criticism and be prudent in his or her responses. A neutral response is best; then the Director should move the conversation on to positive statements about the future. If a problem or question arises to which the new Security Director does not know the solution or answer, he or she should say so. Just because he or she is the chief does not mean he or she knows everything.
Changes will occur, of course, because the new Director is there to ensure protection for the company, and that means his or her style, philosophy, and strategy will come into play with the passage of time.
The Manager of a smaller department will inevitably have more direct involvement in operations. In the leadership role, the mark of a good Director or Manager is the ability to delegate responsibility and commensurate authority.
Outside of his or her own department, the effective Security Director should be a highly visible company executive, a part of the management team with interests that go beyond security. In his or her relationship with security staff the Director will be an innovator, counselor, trainer, and goal setter and strategic planner. The Security Director moving into a new company or position will advisedly seek a lower profile initially than the one just described previously.
He or she will seek not to force events and people but to lead with patience and example. What is the distinction between a Security Director and a Security Manager? Give an example of how the Security Director may be involved in other areas of the company beyond security.
What are the reasons why the Security Director should prepare his or her subordinate to take over the responsibilities of the Security Director? List three ways the Security Director can keep abreast of developments in the security industry.
Each of these factors is a specific skill unto itself. This chapter deals with the supervisor and his or her relationship with those higher and lower in the organizational structure, his or her responsibilities, and the general principles of supervision. Subsequent chapters are concerned more specifically with those factors intrinsic to supervision.
One popular definition of supervision is the task of getting others subordinates to get the job done, the way management wants it done, when management wants it done — willingly. Willingness, of course, is the key aspect of this definition. Historically, such autocratic methods, by and large, do get the job done — but not always at the time or in the manner desired. Performance is the ultimate responsibility and goal of supervision. Everything revolves around job performance — execution at the line level.
That same element of human failure is not limited to 55 56 General Security Management line employees; it can be traced to every level of every organizational structure right to the top. The Director inspects the Security Manager, the Manager inspects the middle managers, the middle managers inspect their supervisors, and the supervisors inspect their subordinates.
When that inspection process breaks down, for whatever reason, tasks break down, deadlines are missed, and other tasks are temporarily neglected and eventually forgotten. On the other side of the coin, inadequate inspection frequently surfaces when a change in supervision reveals tasks or reports that are religiously accomplished but that no longer serve their original purpose. Often, no one seems to know who started the tasks or what they were intended to accomplish.
The inspection need not, and should not, be a negative process wherein the supervisor tries to find errors or omissions and then criticizes. That managerial style creates a climate of resentment, defensiveness, and hostility. One can always find fault. The most effective managerial style in the inspection process is to find those tasks that are done properly, acknowledge and give credit for good performance in such areas, and then point out deficiencies in an objective fashion.
Most employees want to do a good job. Most failures, as already indicated, are the result of human frailties and not of malicious design. Consequently, when performance deficiencies are pointed out objectively, they are usually received with some embarrassment on one hand and an expression of genuine desire to improve on the other. To be effective, this critical process of performance inspection must be consistent, continuous, constructive, and tailored to the individual employee.
Every human being on the face of the earth is different. The differences are manifested not only in observable physical features, fingerprints, and DNA but also in how each individual responds to external stimuli; how the individual perceives things; and his or her beliefs, fears, aspirations, and needs. Such human differences mean that different people require different handling. Some may require more supervision than others may.
Some respond to persuasion and some to command. Some are uncomfortable around authority figures and some are at ease. Sensitivity to employee differences is one characteristic of a good supervisor. If a supervisor is told he or she has the responsibility of 10 security officers to protect the facility between P. The supervisor represents management and must be given the necessary authority to make that representation meaningful.
The supervisor — with his or her officers, agents, investigators, or whatever their titles — should have not only the necessary authority to discipline but should also have some input in the selection of assignment to his or her unit.
Here is a typical case: The supervisor is obliged to evaluate the performance of his subordinates on an annual or semiannual basis. He follows directions in terms of completing the personnel form prepared for each employee. What should I have done, or what should I do next time? If, after sufficient discussion, the supervisor is still asked to change that rating, he or she may have no alternative but to make the change as requested. In such circumstances, the supervisor should indicate on the evaluation form that the rating is not his or her own.
If a supervisor is not capable of disciplining, then he or she should not be a supervisor. By the same token, if the supervisor is incompetent to evaluate the performance of subordinates, he or she should not be a supervisor.
If it is a question of skills in disciplining or evaluating performance, then it is incumbent on management to provide the necessary supervisorial training to develop such skills — not to take that authority away. Failure to discharge this function objectively and faithfully, in a timely manner, can have disastrous results.
The supervisor who, being closest to the scene, is aware of sentiments, grievances, or problems but who does not inform management fails twofold. First, such a supervisor fails his or her subordinates by not carrying the message to management.
Second, this supervisor fails management by withholding information that could provide them with answers, explanations, or decisions to resolve the issue. This intermediary status is usually well understood by line personnel. It makes sense. Fortunately, that kind of supervisory weakness cannot be concealed for too long. One important factor is the individual supervisor — his or her skill level in handling people and ability to delegate responsibility. Another factor is the job description of his or her subordinates.
Field investigators with relatively sophisticated assignments require more attention from the supervisor than a uniformed staff assigned to one location on one shift. In the former case, the proper span of control might be 6 and in the latter, Long-standing and widely accepted span of control standards suggest the following ratios of supervisor to employees: Ideal 1 : 3 Good 1 : 6 Acceptable 1 : 12 These numbers represent spans of control under normal operating conditions on an ongoing basis.
However, under certain circumstances for a relatively short period of time and with a homogenous group one leader could handle up to two dozen employees. ONE BOSS The principle of unity of command is the classic or traditional way of saying that every employee must report to only one superior.
Find a situation in which a person is being directed by more than one superior and you will find that subordinate coping with conflicting instructions and confusion, resulting in diluted performance.
Consider the frustrations experienced in one actual situation by the Chief of Campus Police for a group of adjacent private colleges in Southern California. In that position the Chief was responsible to five college presidents, each of whom had his own particular point of view. At the scene the Campus Chief discussed the matter with the officer in charge and convinced him the interests of justice would be best served if he would release the students to the Chief, who in turn would process them through their respective college student court systems.
The Chief of Campus Police escorted all the students back to his office and had them line up for identification purposes. He then submitted lists to three different college student courts.
The courts, as expected, levied substantial fines and built up the coffers of the student body fund and justice prevailed — at least the Chief thought so initially.
His position was that the students sooner or later had to assume responsibility for their conduct. The point is that this Security Director could have lived with either position had he worked for either president, but he worked for both. His job was to serve both, and obviously he could not please both. The employee, then, who has more than one supervisor can find himself or herself in an unworkable situation.
The organization must follow the principle of unity of command to avoid such counterproductive conditions. Two situations that require another supervisor are: 1. The investigator instructs the security officer to run to the side of the building and cut off the gas supply. The officer cannot refuse this shifting in supervision, in view of the circumstances. For an example of number two, imagine that a uniformed security officer on a parking control assignment for a major event has been instructed by his supervisor to deny access to one reserved parking lot.
The supervisor, knowing he or she is accountable for the decision, can command the security officer to let the cars in. Such direct orders out of the normal chain of command are invariably given under a time pressure, that is, a decision and action must be immediate. The consequences of delaying action to locate the proper supervisor could be serious if not grave. Such automatic shifting in the line of command, always of a short duration, requires full understanding on the part of all department members at all levels.
Such shifting does not violate the principle of unity of command; rather, it enhances and supports the principle by having a rule and understanding of the exception. Exceptions add credence to rules. An example would be an alarm operator and alarm serviceperson working the graveyard shift.
Their supervisor works the day shift. Please share with your friends, let's read it!! Search Ebook here:. Whitman and Herbert J.
They are based on well-known techniques: Agile, Lean, DevOps, etc. That is, the guiding principles help to integrate best practices into a unified managing approach to IT services. Value is what the customer receives as a result of using the service. The value of a car-sharing service or a taxi-booking application is that the client can get to his destination on time and with convenience. Apart from that, they are spared the drawbacks of using their own car - such as breakdowns or running out of fuel.
The principle is primarily concerned with creating value for the service customers. However, any service also affects the company's values which are manifested in different forms: profit, user loyalty, business growth, cost reduction. Everything an organization does, directly or indirectly, must be related to value which ultimately concerns all stakeholders. Therefore, the service provider needs to determine who his direct customers are, and who the other stakeholders are: partners, investors, contractors, etc.
The second point is determining what the consumer value is. To be able to do this, the company must know why the consumer is interested in its service, how this service helps the consumer to achieve their goals, and what their risks are. Another component of value is the experience that consumers gets when interacting with a product and a supplier: User Experience UX or Customer Experience CX. The experience can be objective the client got what he wanted for the promised price and subjective the client does not like the design of the application interface.
The customer experience needs to be managed. Headquartered in London, a car rental service enters the Asia Pacific market. Preliminary research shows that Western customers traveling to Asia are primarily concerned about the safety of driving in unfamiliar conditions and lack of knowledge of local traffic rules. The company develops special software - an intelligent driver assistant that monitors the situation on the road, evaluates the condition of the car and knows the specifics of the rules in a particular country.
After the introduction of the assistant, the number of accidents and serious injuries decreases significantly. In this case, the main value for the consumer is safety. The main values for the company are increasing customer loyalty, reducing repair costs and insurance premiums.
Sometimes the owner proposes to abandon all previous developments and create a completely new product in an effort to optimize their product. For example, they may completely rewrite a mobile application instead of modifying it. This approach often leads to unplanned time, financial, and labor losses. You can disrupt working processes, lose tools and employees who could improve the product.
If the existing developments can be used, use them. Dozens of new real-world examples are presented in each chapter. Instructors of online courses frequently use these as the basis for discussion forums that allow online students to share a variety of perspectives and experiences and to create a learning community.
Such discussions provide students the opportunity to more deeply understand the material while challenging their critical thinking skills. We think you will like these changes and additions.
0コメント