November 25, 2009
What is the Backbone of a Successful Mall Security Program? - Is Your Security Planning Predicated on Outcome Based Decision Making?
After having reviewed hundreds of security and loss prevention programs, I find a great deal of disparity in the effectiveness of those programs from marginal to excellent. As a security professional, I am often puzzled as to how each security program evolved to the point it is at when I find it. In some cases it is apparent that the evolution has been the result of a logical linear reasoning process. In other cases the process seems less clear and it often appears that the program has been generally derived by reactive and crisis management responses. It is not unusual to find that many of the assumptions on which security programs are premised, are not rooted in reality. When this happens ROI is deminished.
When one begins the process of determining how the security program has evolved to the point that it has, the picture is not always clear. However it can be said that in a majority of the cases, we find that security programs are front-end driven.
What do we mean by “front-end driven?”
Let me give some examples of front-end driven decisions. Consider the use of CCTV. As we undertake the security assessment of a Shopping Mall for example, we note the use of closed circuit television cameras throughout the facility. When we try to determine the decision process behind the placement of each camera, we are told, “we want to watch exterior doors” or we want to watch the loading dock & parking structures” or “we want to watch fire exits.” First, we often find that these CCTV images are not actually being watched by anyone on a live basis. Consider this; Cameras providing surveillance of common areas such as hallways, parking lots and walkways that are not being watched by a security officer may potentially increase liability.
The rhetorical question I would like to pose, for consideration, is prior to deciding where to place a camera, a card reader, a cipher lock, a floodlight or a barrier is: What is the outcome this action is likely to produce? The best way to avoid the pitfalls of the “law of unintended consequences” is to consider the outcome you wish produce before you make the decision to go forward. When applying security technology, It is all too easy to get caught up in making decisions regarding the assumed benefits of applying a particular technology or procedure. How often have we all heard the utterance, in the wake of a theft, “we need a camera.” This comment implicitly assumes that a CCTV camera, in of itself, would have prevented the theft. Cameras that are not monitored have diminished deterrent value and may actually encourage theft.
It is important to remember big picture. Security programs are all about behavior modification. The use of security technology and/or the use of security officers are all intended to modify behavior by way of deterrence. Security cameras and card access systems are intended to modify behaviors with ultimate intended result of protecting people and property. The role of security is to anticipate and deter. The success or failure of any security program can be measured, in part, by how well that program changes behaviors. The effectiveness of security devices to positively affect behavior can be greatly enhanced by strong security management, workplace violence prevention programs and robust security awareness programs. Whether considering security technology or security officers, the decision making process should remain constant.
Effective mall security programs must reinforce Security Awareness as a positive value system. This program must foster a partnership between mall employees, security officers, tenant and the local police jurisdiction. These actions will increase the benefits to be derived from the application of security technology several times over.
So next time you have a security problem to solve, ask yourself: What will be the intended outcome of my proposed solution? What are the metrics that will support your decision?
William Nesbitt, CPP is also a member of ICSC.
Leave a comment