Today, corporate security must be aligned with the business objectives to ensure an effective service. And the role of the modern corporate security officer now includes risk management, emergency planning and an understanding of the technology that supports security.

Corporate security has long played a role both as a deterrent and in incident response, and the security officer role has traditionally been distanced from employees in a client’s organisation. For many years, corporate security was seen as an officer at the door, sometimes more of a hindrance than help.

Now, the face of corporate security is changing. Officers are becoming an enabler to an organisation’s day-to-day work and business goals. Roles are evolving and the ‘face at the door’ is becoming a more approachable one and one that aids the everyday life of those it impacts.

The change in the role of the security officer is, in part, driven by the falling cost of technology and the ever-present squeezing of the bottom line in the facilities management sector, but it also a cultural change where the awareness of risk and threat is more prevalent in all of our minds. Where an officer is in post the expectation is that they do act as a deterrent, but in a smarter way; this requires greater investment in more advanced security skills such as hostile reconnaissance, understanding intelligence updates and being abreast of all Government-led initiatives – all whilst instilling confidence and peace of mind that workers are in a safe environment. No longer is a security solution seen as a necessary hindrance to the working day.

A first point of contact

A central part of staying safe is being as prepared as possible. This means much more than simply deploying an officer to secure an entrance – full risk assessments and the implementation of the most appropriate security system are vital. Risk management will involve ongoing risk assessments and adjustments to an ever-changing environment and plans must be in place in case of emergencies. However, the breadth of the security officer’s role is rapidly expanding beyond this.

As organisations look for ways to reduce overheads, the utilisation of an officer as a first point of contact becomes more important. Security officers are taking on roles which include many of the same tasks as front- end staff, requiring them to have a broader skillset including being approachable, friendly and knowledgeable about the business. Where the officer works determines the skills required. Bank or warehouse floor officers will have a different role from those in a shopping centre or theatre. In each case, the officers are also brand representatives for their clients, requiring all the skills of front-of-house staff.

Man and machine

Today, solutions are a combination of technology and guarding. This blended solution enhances efficiency for both security officers and clients. Security cameras and biometric controls can replace a number of officers having to check staff access to and egress from an office. This leaves officers free to attend to other situations, from giving directions to dealing with conflict, without staff being disrupted.

It is also this use of technology which allows the quality of security to improve while keeping costs to a minimum. There is a war for talent in the security sector and by diversifying roles it will become even more challenging to find and  retain the best employees.

This means that security firms truly value their staff, often investing more into wellbeing,

work perks, and training and development.   In order to do so, while meeting clients’ demands for better value, fewer officers are deployed. A few highly trained officers working alongside smart sensors and cameras, and informed by intelligence analytics, creates a security solution which is reliable and cost-effective.

In alignment

The best security providers tailor their work to align with the business objectives of their clients. And this goes beyond saving their clients’ money. With analytics, security providers can adapt according to the company and to each department when necessary.

Threats continuously change and adapt and it is the job of a security provider to stay ahead of this. Providers should also adapt as the client evolves, growing with the company and altering the security solution according to need. A security solution should facilitate the day-to-day workings of the client’s organisation, just as the implementation of cameras eases movement to and from the office.

Modern security is a highly adaptable sector which oils the cogs in the daily functioning of any client’s business. A well-designed security solution will go beyond a single approach. It will be as multifaceted as the threats it protects against. A blend of intelligence, technology, and years of personal experience should be tailored to create a unique solution aligned with the client’s business.

Darren Read

Managing Director, Amulet

www.amulet.co.uk 

The post Corporate security is changing appeared first on City Security Magazine.

Security is a serious issue; getting it right can protect a business from commercial damage and its employees from harm

It’s understandable why those appointed to sign off on security decisions can feel a huge weight of responsibility on their shoulders. The role of a decision-maker can be likened to that of a goalkeeper.

No matter how many great saves you make, people will only remember your worst mistakes.

When security works perfectly it’s unlikely that those responsible will be congratulated or even acknowledged. It’s only when a breach occurs that discussion is raised as people look to place blame. So what exactly are the challenges faced by security decision makers and what role does responsibility and blame take?

Barriers to accountability

Security is often seen as a “black art” by businesses. Clients who do not fully understand security or perhaps don’t even value it can be influenced into making misinformed decisions based on price.

This can be counter-intuitive as initial cost and lifetime cost are often disparate. Carefully selecting a security measure based on effectiveness, quality and lifetime will be more cost-efficient, reduce maintenance fees and offer a better standard of security in the long term. Making these decisions intelligently requires proactive research and an understanding of regulatory bodies and their recommendations.

For example, the Loss Prevention Certification Board (LPCB) makes assessments and provides guidance on security specification which is available to designers and specifiers.

Another challenge is making sure that business owners realise and appreciate the threats they face. It can be difficult to convince CEOs to spend money on something they can’t see. Too many take a passive approach, avoiding considering potentially catastrophic consequences until there is an attack close to home.

Fear and blame culture

Worry invariably plays a part in decision-making, whether it’s a concern about being blamed for security failures or the risk of incident as a result of cutting corners to avoid going over budget. Unfortunately, when it comes to security, fear, impatience and the desire to be seen to be taking action often lead to uninformed or rash decisions.

Security decision-making needs to be founded on evidence, risk analysis and modelling. According to research we conducted amongst UK security decision makers, 81% said the consequences of their company’s physical security being compromised are significant. However, 41% had a reactive, passive or indifferent approach to security. This suggests that while they understand the risks, many are not acting on them.

Framing security within the context of risk and vulnerability can help business owners quantify security decisions as commercial ones. All companies have risk registers. Business people understand that if their service is vulnerable, it has an impact on the bottom line, although they don’t always consider security in this way.

Our findings highlight the reason for this contradictory approach is largely due to costs and resourcing, cited as a challenge for over 75% of those commissioning security projects.

Who is responsible for physical security?

Everyone within a business has some responsibility for maintaining the safety and security of a site. Poor staff training and ineffective processes can undermine even best-in-class security investment and design, leaving a company vulnerable.

We asked those working in security specification who they thought was responsible for physical security at their workplaces. While a large percentage said their employer (70%), one in five (18%) said building management and 5% suggested it was those who designed and constructed the building, suggesting a lack of clarity over who is responsible.

In some cases where national security is concerned, even the public plays a significant role and should be kept informed about major issues. Here, the media can have a big influence. Heightening fears of perceived, and sometimes inaccurate threats directly impacts the security measures being specified and implemented.

Businesses, regulatory bodies, designers, architects, contractors, property managers and even tenants all have a role to play in assessing and managing risks, physical security and ensuring safety. Security is serious and as such, those making decisions feel the weight of responsibility. However, this should not distract them from making choices based on assessment, research and expertise without worrying about blame.

Peter Jackson

Managing Director, Jacksons Fencing

www.jacksons-security.co.uk

The post Security accountability appeared first on City Security Magazine.

By 2050 it’s expected that 70% of the world’s inhabitants will occupy a megacity, as population densities surge and city boundaries continue to expand. But as they swell so does the complexity of managing them. It’s vital that best practices and new technologies protect the inhabitants of these urban spaces.

A megacity has a number of different definitions and can be categorised due to its size or population density; although it seems to be most commonly defined as a city with more than 10 million inhabitants. Currently, it’s thought that there are 47 megacities in the world, which is a staggering statistic when you consider that in 1950 there were just two – Tokyo and New York. Furthermore, the realisation that London, which many consider to be one of the great cities of the world, doesn’t qualify for the classification is truly surprising.

Although there is a litany of challenges that come with city management, it’s vital that city administrators adopt best practices and harness new technologies to protect the inhabitants of these urban spaces. In 2019, Tokyo was named the safest city in the world for the third year in a row, but how can a city be both the largest and the safest?

Communication

It may seem simple, especially in the context of megacity management, but a key principle of security is communication. It’s vital that when an incident occurs there are sufficient communication channels to support incident assessment, response and management.

Information needs to be distributed to the relevant parties in a timely manner so measures can be taken to resolve any incident as quickly as possible. This becomes even more essential as the size, and consequently the complexity, of cities increase. Information sharing in these environments is also made more challenging as there’s a large array of organisations attempting to work within them –  like police, fire, paramedics and private security too. When these organisations don’t have effective communication channels set up they can end up working in silos, ultimately leading to duplicated efforts, missed opportunities and lapses in security. This issue becomes more apparent when silos turn into blind-spots that malicious actors could exploit – putting the city’s population at risk. Therefore, increasing communications and sharing data across the private and public sectors should be a priority as it will improve safety for everyone.

For instance, in 2016, the city of Detroit managed to curb its violent crime rate by 50% with ‘Project Greenlight’. The opt-in initiative enabled registered local businesses to share real-time footage from their security cameras with the Detroit Police Department, giving law enforcement better coverage of the area and local businesses the peace of mind that police could quickly be on the scene should an incident occur.

This ground-breaking collaboration improved crime rates by shortening response times, expediting the evidence-gathering process and acting as a deterrent to any would-be criminals. Security aside, it also had the added benefit of allowing the local businesses that signed up to the programme to thrive, as staff and customers could work and shop in peace. At its inception, the project was only active in a few locations that were identified as crime hotspots, most of which were at petrol stations. However, there are now hundreds of different greenlight locations in central Detroit. At this scale, the power of communication between different organisations, and its powerful effect on crime, becomes a far more tangible prospect.

Data

In city security, the challenge doesn’t necessarily come from the volume, but the concentration of people. Managing large crowds in high footfall areas, like public transport hubs or tourist hotspots, presents a complex security challenge. An efficient way of curtailing these issues is analysing data from existing security assets. For example, surveillance systems primarily used to monitor for threats can provide an enormous amount of operational value from existing security systems through video analytics.

A unified platform provides a single place for the large amounts of data to be consolidated, and from there organisations are able to make predictive changes, create new best practices, plan for the unexpected, identify weak spots and shore up defences. These types of solutions can also allow public organisations to work closely with law enforcement to develop an emergency response plan where video surveillance streams can be correlated, analysed and shared quickly with relevant parties – giving security teams a wealth of mission-critical information.

Cyber challenges and looking to the future

Aside from improving communications and data utilisation, an element of securing cities of the future that will be fundamental for city administrators is cybersecurity. The advent of IoT devices will provide an array of benefits across modern cities, with each device collecting data that can be shared and analysed to optimise infrastructure and public utilities.

However, these technological advances also come with vulnerabilities, and with each new device connected to a city’s network, it provides a fresh avenue for hackers. Despite the relative lack of adoption of smart devices, we’ve already seen hackers hold major cities like Johannesburg, Baltimore or Atlanta to ransom. As IoT proliferates, it’s vital that city administrators grasp the security implications posed by these powerful, yet vulnerable, connected technologies.

Nick Smith

Regional Sales Manager, Genetec

www.genetec.com

The post Securing a Megacity appeared first on City Security Magazine.

 SSR® Personnel recently carried out research into how technological innovation is transforming security and providing practitioners with powerful new capabilities. We have extracted five key pieces of wisdom from their contributors on how to understand the threats and benefits technology can bring security.

It is clear that the security sector is more technology driven than ever before. As Niall MacGinnis, Director of Group Security at Sky, says: “The future of security can be summed up in one word: technology. Technology will be the biggest asset to securing businesses and organisations and pose the biggest threats. Today’s security professional needs a clear understanding of security technology and how to maximise its benefits.”

So, how can practitioners capitalise on the benefits technology brings security? Here are five pieces of security wisdom:

• One: Support the business
• Two: Understand the expanded nature of the security risk
• Three: Embrace the convergence of physical security and cyber security
• Four: Integrate Systems
• Five: Don’t forget the human touch

One: Support the business

For businesses to survive, they must continually exploit the opportunities that technology brings. Today this is facilitating automation, enabling frictionless business activity, making it easier to demonstrate compliance with policy and regulations, and driving efficiency. Innovation will continue in delivery methodologies, particularly though biometric technologies and the adoption of cloud computing (including the challenges that go with this).

At the same time, businesses must operate securely and have efficient security environments. The best security systems support and sometimes enhance the business. Alistair Enser of Reliance High Tech says: “What benefits can we create for our customers through the smart use of technology, for example using footfall and behaviour analysis to predict events or manage building energy and usage?  If we build smart, connected and highly integrated ecosystems with the many different types of sensors and devices available, we can not only secure a building or a company, but we can add value to their marketing, save them energy, increase their productivity, improve health and safety. The list is endless.”

Michael Barley, Master of the Worshipful Company of Security Professionals, adds: “The security practitioner’s approach internally, now and going forward, needs to be as a business partner rather than a provider of services. Greater integration in the day-to-day business is key. Security should be so embedded in the business that it works to take the risks out in order to help protect the bottom line.”

Two: Understand the expanded nature of the security risk

Cyber threats resulting in breach or data loss and infrastructure failures impacting the business objectives are not new areas of risk to most organisations; however, the impact of these threats to the P&L objectives of the organisation are more severe than ever for both financial and reputational reasons.

The multiplied threat that technology brings cannot be underestimated. Werner Cooreman, Group Security Director, Solvay, says: “Expansion of cloud technologies, in combination with artificial intelligence (unleashed on all that cloud data) and creation of the Internet of Things (once 5G is fully deployed), will multiply the vulnerabilities. And security threats are already taking big advantage of the expanded attack surface of companies as a result.”

He continues: “Taking a holistic enterprise security risk management approach has become the only way to stand a chance of increasing a company’s security resilience. Focusing on mitigation of priority security risks (be they cyber, physical or other in nature), whilst enhancing the capacity to rebound from inevitable incidents, will be essential.”

James Mulheron, technology, cyber and data risk professional says: “Emerging technologies, big data, advanced analytics and a deluge of regulation has changed forever how businesses need to address future cyber and technology risk landscapes. The threat landscape is changing daily and with that comes the need for individuals of strategic mindset and with a broad range of technology and data expertise to take hold of the organisation’s technology risk portfolio and provide the Board with appropriately risk assessed and commercially viable solutions.”

Alistair Enser, CEO, Reliance High Tech, concludes: “Today with the IoT, nearly everything we touch is networked. A lot of business is now less worried about the theft of a laptop or physical device than the data on it or disruption caused. The threats may come in through the network, not the front door, and often the damage can be reputational as well as physical.

Three: Embrace the convergence of physical security and cyber security

The future of security will be dominated by the need to have physical security capabilities integrated with, and protected by, cyber security capabilities. Tony Anderson, G4S Fire & Security Systems, says: “In a world where every device is now IP connected, with online connectivity and remote diagnostics, the clear line that divided the two sectors is becoming blurred.”

Four: Integrate Systems

Integrated security systems can bring multiple layers of security for greater effectiveness, efficiency and ease of use. This can involve integrating security systems such as video surveillance, access control, intrusion alarm, public address systems, automatic number plate recognition and tracking systems, together with corporate databases and systems, such as HR and facilities management.

Andy Ellis from Johnson Controls says: “Integrated systems are becoming more and more important as smart buildings start to dominate our cities’ skylines.  The future of security is knowing who is in your building, where, and when – and having instant access to every piece of data a building holds. This requires the best possible system integration, bringing together access management and cybersecurity with HVAC, lighting, fire safety and energy management in one central place.”

Jamie Allam, Amthal Fire & Security, adds: “In commercial settings, intelligent buildings and corresponding management systems are quickly evolving to create smart workspaces.  These now embrace flexible working and ‘free flow’ spaces to encourage productivity, collaboration and growth in a safe and secure environment.”

Five: Don’t forget the human touch

John Sheeran, Northern Trust Corporation, says: “The days of gates, guards and guns are long gone, replaced with facial recognition, biometrics and other state-of-the-art physical security detection systems; however, what cannot be replaced is the human element. The human will always be required as the start and end user to influence the systems we are using as the security landscape changes on an unprecedented basis.”

Summary

Today’s security professionals need to maintain a clear understanding of the business they are part of and how security and risk management can be of support. The key role of technology, both in terms of business enabler and top threat, must be recognised and prioritised in their approach. However, they must never forget that security is all about the people.

Eduardo Jany, Bloomberg Inc., concludes: “Today’s security practitioners must have a solid understanding of their organisation’s needs, their environment and an ability to look at things holistically, to determine what is available, what can be most reasonable and most practical. AI and automation combined with the IoT can mean improved efficiency and savings. The future of security operations, however, will not be one where machines or robots will be in total control. Machines will never deliver empathy or be capable of making decisions with flexibility based on the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law.”

Peter French MBE oversaw this research for SSR® with this group of professionals and thanks all those that shared their visions of the future. Initial results of this research were originally published on IFSEC Global.

Peter French MBE SSR® Personnel

www.ssr-personnel.com

Read the full range of articles in our Security Technology category.

The post The benefits technology brings security appeared first on City Security Magazine.

“If we walk away the EU will come to us, because they want to export all their products to us,” Sir James Dyson said last year. But the situation is rather more complex for UK manufacturers of fire protection equipment.

Industry insiders have war-gamed likely outcomes, particularly on the role of notified bodies in CPR (Construction Products Regulation) certification and how Brexit could adversely affect acceptance of UK products. Recertification of products to accord with future EU regulatory criteria suggests high costs and distribution disruption. And maintaining CE-marking post-Brexit supported by its Declaration of Performance (DoP) applicable to the single market is a conundrum.

In the recent Fire Protection Association (FPA) Fire Sector Summit, Fire Industry Association (FIA) director Paul Pope said: “There are 189 UK EU notified bodies, employing 4,500 people, with 20,000 customers and generating approximately £2bn per annum.” Their futures are at stake.

He continued: “Products that meet EU regulations and directives can continue to be placed on the UK market providing that they have demonstrated compliance with EU requirements after exit day. This will apply for a time-limited period and sufficient notice will be given. UK-based notified bodies will become UK-approved bodies after 29 March 2019 and will be listed on a new UK database.” Manufacturers can then affix a new UK conformity mark before placing a product on the UK market.

But in the absence of any transitional agreement, nominally negated, EU-originated certification means products cannot be placed on the EU market after 29 March 2019. Products tested by a UK-based notified body may then need to be retested and/or recertified by an EU notified body.

If Brexit is triggered, however, a ‘transition’ period will be effective until 31 December 2020, after which UK products would need to be re-marked for CE with a new surrogate, the EU-notified body’s four-digit-number certification marks.

When UK notified bodies lose their EU status, therefore, the costs could be prohibitively costly and protracted. For example, Switzerland has a hybrid MRA (mutual recognition agreement) for some product groups. Where conformity assessment is deemed equivalent, EU type approvals can be recognised as proving conformity with Swiss regulation (and vice versa).

But such agreements are only achievable via EU equivalence assessments by EU regulators. Efforts to re-domicile notified bodies to EU countries have thus begun. For example, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) has established operations in Dublin and the British Standards Institute (BSI) in the Netherlands.

At the recent FPA seminar, FPA principal consultant Howard Passey urged a thorough review of retained legislation to clarify the post-Brexit UK-EU relationship and facilitate the appointment and oversight of new regulators.

Anthony Burd, head of built environment at the BSI, said EU membership benefits at stake include: recognised means of legal compliance; supply chain confidence; common interoperability; support for consumer protection; and lower production costs. “Ninety-five percent of British Standards, year on year, are European and international, while over half of the national catalogue has been through CEN and CENELEC processes,” he said.

Meanwhile, the UK government maintains that “regulatory cooperation” means “an upfront choice to maintain a common rulebook with the EU” and “a recognition that some rules are equivalent.” But ‘equivalence’ could jeopardise access to the single market”.

One solution is to certify products with one set of approvals and authorisations applicable to either market before being sold in both. One exporter has speculated that importers in the EU could conduct ‘self-certification’ in arrangements between a UK consignor and EU consignee that recognises EU compliance (from a foothold within the EU).

On mutual recognition policies, the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) said the “political declaration outlined the EU and the UK’s commitment to a free trade area for goods, with no tariffs and no quotas, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation and underpinned by provisions ensuring open and fair competition”.

But here’s the rub. The ‘declaration’ leaves clear wriggle room for the EU to reject the transitional regulatory harmonisation proposed and regard MRAs as aspirational rather than fully implementable. The declaration states that goods placed on the EU or UK markets “before the end of the transition period may circulate within the two markets [with the proviso] that such a circulation shall be without prejudice to the possibility for the United Kingdom, a Member State or the Union to take measures to prohibit or restrict the making available on its market”. It’s quite easy to see how this could turn out to be a one-way street.

However, a solution has been proposed for continued engagement with EU policymakers from a foothold within the single market. Thankfully, the European Standardization Committes CEN and CENELEC have approved BSI’s full membership post-Brexit. The UK thus retains influence over, and benefits from, voluntary standards supporting trade across 34 member countries. Consensus positions from British stakeholders are fed into European and international committees, allowing reciprocal market access that underpins over 28% of annual UK GDP growth. Existing harmonised standards will become UK ‘designated standards’.

The Manufacturing Technologies Association has said: “We were pleased that the UK retained, through BSI, its place in CEN and therefore in the most important international body that sets standards for our sector. Any Brexit deal needs to take into account the realities of international trade – that major markets define needs – and the realities of the UK’s economy: that it is bound up in the EU’s market.”

Hunter Seymour

Find out more about the ramifications of Brexit for the fire sector at FIREX International 2019, between 18-20 June 2019, ExCeL London. firex.co.uk

Book your ticket for both IFSEC and Firex International here.

See also:

Security co-operation after Brexit by Alison Wakefield

Brexit and its implications on UK Manguarding

Brexit and its implications

The post Brexit & UK fire exports: Hazards on the roadmap ahead appeared first on City Security Magazine.

Like anything trying to look at dealing with how best to support the security sector with evolving risks and threats, we need to understand what they are.

Understanding the threats

The ‘traditional’ threats from criminal behaviour will likely continue the downward trend Joe Traynor from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) described in the latest Crime Survey for England and Wales, when he wrote:

“Over recent decades, we’ve seen continued falls in overall levels of crime but in the last year the trend has been more stable. The latest figures show no change in the total level of crime but variation by crime types.”

Evolving Threats

Then we get the more complex threats including cyber and terrorism; there is an inevitability that these will continue to evolve in the way we have seen them do so over the past few years. Several factors will influence this through 2019.

The first factor is the dreaded BREXIT and the effect this may have on the ability for security organisations to share and get information and intelligence to and from the rest of Europe. However, the UK is more of a net contributor to the overall European threat picture as opposed to net user, so there is a real urgency for European agencies to maintain the UK’s access.

Slightly more worrying is the impact BREXIT may have on Irish Republican terrorism. In 2016/17 Northern Ireland saw 8 murders, 55 bombs, 113 shootings, 80 guns recovered, 53kg of explosives recovered and 244 terror- related arrests. The trend over the 20 years since the Good Friday Agreement was signed is similar and averages out as approximately one terror-related event every four days. This is almost wholly Northern Ireland focused, with the threat level to Great Britain set as Moderate. However, any increase in terror activity in Northern Ireland because of post- BREXIT border issues carries the potential for that to spill across the Irish Sea.

2018 has highlighted three ‘new’ risk areas that are likely to continue through 2019. These are information and data as a weapon, the ‘return’ of hostile intelligence agencies as a recognised threat, and the potential for further use of chemical, biological or radiological weapons.

What can event providers do to support the security sector?

All event providers can do is provide a platform that allows all of the issues the security industry is facing to be discussed, so that best practice can be outlined, and shared, new and existing technologies introduced so end users can assess the most appropriate solution for the risks they need to mitigate, the latest regulations outlined and as important as all of that, people can put names to faces and meet. Security is a people process and built on personal relationships as much as technology and processes.

Peter Jones, CEO of Nineteen Events who deliver the International Security Expo, describes his approach: “As an event organiser I am not and can never be a security expert, but my team and I take the view we want to make a difference and add value so we can help make the world a little safer for our families. It is that philosophy that drives us to deliver the best event we can, and an integral part of my team is my 40+ strong advisory council of high-level security experts and practitioners.

“We focus on the latest relevant content, getting senior officials and decision makers to the event and providing the platform for best practice and ideas to be shared. It’s adding value that lets me sleep more secure but also encourages the exhibitors and visitor we need to have a successful event.”

The Nineteen Events approach sums up the best way event providers can support the security industry. People, platform and content all working together, but it’s getting the right people, the right content and a progressive platform all together at the right time. The focus must be on adding value to all attendees.

Philip Ingram MBE BSc MA. Journalist

The post What can event providers do to support the security sector? appeared first on City Security Magazine.

While that is accurate, the jury is still out on whether these changes are positive. It turns out not everyone believes the next best things yield the best results. As a result, in 2019 security search firms may find themselves at the forefront of the next step in recruitment evolution. Which may be a somewhat backwards one.

Many organisations around the world have restructured to separate their former HR departments into human resources and talent acquisition teams. Regardless of moniker, these internal departments spend massive amounts of money on technologies designed to better manage their candidate management processes.

Externally, companies aggressively fund their organisation’s social media presence and spread themselves across multiple platforms for perceived better visibility and access. The now-usual suspects that dominate the socialisation of internet recruitment roll out wave after wave of enhancements each year. These upgrades and new products are advertised as better messaging and management for a company’s target audience and come with steep price tags for organisations while remaining free to use for candidates.

In large companies, human resources and talent acquisition are often sizeable departments with substantial budget commitments to their infrastructure. As a result, they – rather than hiring managers – can often be the ones driving the train in recruitment.

So: has this evolution of recruitment technology positively affected what recruiters in organisations do? Depending on the level of jobs they recruit for, the candidate sourcing techniques of internal organisational recruiters vary widely. Some still build strong candidate networks in the areas in which they regularly recruit while others limit their search strategy to internet research.

Each method can deliver results; however, when limited to online candidate research alone, the search results will only be as good as the individual conducting it. A recent Harvard Business Review article notes a significant digital skills gap within HR departments. HR are not necessarily skilled at operating in a digital environment. This should strike fear into the heart of any candidate who relies exclusively on social media to secure their next position.

Add in the variable that the search is for a professional level security position, and the odds increase that an internal recruiter may be challenged.

Despite security’s heightened profile, security roles remain in the minority of all roles within organisations. Internal talent acquisition departments often struggle to fill these positions as they recruit for them infrequently so turn to social media as an answer. As a result, many hiring managers see only those candidates who are readily available online.

By its nature, security is a profession whose practitioners are necessarily sceptical and cautious. There is often a reluctance to place large quantities of their personal data online for consumption by unknown individuals. I refer to these tendencies as social monitoring vs. social media when it comes to the security community. Simply said: a large percentage of professional security candidates are not accessible via online sourcing.

In our roles as owners of a global specialist security recruitment company, we have noticed an interesting trend amongst clients in 2018 that we expect to see continue into the New Year, one directly linked to the socialised recruitment dilemma. SMR is frequently told by hiring managers that they are not confident that their internal recruitment teams have found either all or the best candidates for the roles they are seeking to fill.

While SMR generally views our relationship with the clients who hire us as a partnership that extends to all involved stakeholders, we have had hiring managers fund their security search independently of their internal HR function. Some security departments at our client companies are adding an external recruitment line item back into their annual budgets to ensure they can recruit top talent.

Recruitment companies of all sizes have adapted in different ways to the ever-changing face of talent acquisition. Within the security space, some that pre-dated the IT/cyber security frenzy have either been sold, diversified into other recruitment sectors or branched into unrelated businesses such as themed conferences to augment revenue.

Many new firms have formed as a direct result of the rise of high-quantity quick-fill IT-related roles. Additionally, the rollout of GDPR earlier this year is likely the end of transactional recruitment whereby fringe recruiters harvest large quantities of personal data to peddle.

Given these pivots within corporate recruitment practice and external search providers, what is the outlook for security recruitment going forward in 2019?

The best search firm partner for an organisation will remain one that is skilled at working collaboratively with its clients regardless of which internal department initially reaches out. Actively listening to what each stakeholder requires is key, as is the ability to understand and manage client expectations. Agility to adjust to new technologies and practices should be a core competency. Ready access to – and strong relationships with – top security talent are paramount.

Security specialist recruitment will continue to be a valuable partner for hiring organisations both into the New Year and beyond.

Jerry Brennan, Chief Executive and Joanne Pollock, Chief Administrative Officer, Security Management Resources® (SMR)

The post How can recruiters support the security sector in 2019? appeared first on City Security Magazine.

Will 2019 prove be a pivotal year for security and counter-terror forces in the UK?

As Brexit moves into the final planning stage, and we have gained full oversight of what the 2019 budget will look like, decision makers will be working hard for the year ahead.

Philip Hammond MP recently announced that counter-terror police in the UK would receive £160m in additional funding and, whilst perhaps there will never be enough, even in the austere times we live in, our counter-terror forces welcome this funding.

Rightly so, the UK Police have presented the message: We cannot do everything, alone. So, who can? Neil Basu, the Chief of Counter-Terrorism Policing, will look to make very tough decisions about how this money is spent, in a time where grass-roots policing could be more important than ever to build communities, stamp out hate crime and encourage a collective responsibility for our own safety.

This need for a collectivist society will be more pertinent than ever before, because the biggest threat to 2019 is the influx of radicalised UK and European individuals coming back from the now felled ISIS. On a community level, these evils are best defeated through community spirit; we’ve seen how religiously driven hate speech has led to the rise of politically driven hate speech, and vice versa. On an operational level, information is the key to combatting this threat.

Any increase of potential threats crossing the border should put the agenda of information sharing at the forefront of all counter-terror forces, and that’s why any Brexit deal must continue to allow the flow of information between mainland Europe and the UK.

It’s hard to see a world where operations and preparations are not intelligence driven, and while the proliferation of monitoring technologies have made aspects of an officer’s work easier, much of the cross-departmental training and preparedness remains the same, as this is the ‘bread and butter’ work for the people protecting our country.

I believe that industry and our emergency services must share their expert insights and innovations to make sure we are as protected as ever before. My role as an advisor for SCTX 2019 will encourage like-minded experts to come and share their insights across the entire security and counter-terror landscape, on an international stage – developing conversation and helping sculpt the future.

Commander Robert James Broadhurst OBE QPM – Security and Counter Terror Expo 2019 Advisory Board member https://www.counterterrorexpo.com

The post Security and counter-terror in 2019 appeared first on City Security Magazine.

We asked Amanda McCloskey, Marketing Director, CIS Security: How can developments be made with regard to diversity and inclusion in the security sector?

A changing sector

The private security industry is a vigorous and rapidly expanding sector of the British economy. Last year alone, it grew by 17% and in the last five years, its turnover has doubled to £12.2bn. With hundreds of thousands of employees, this business is constantly progressing and growing.

This exponential growth brings new challenges, the most central being the industry’s future leaders. In the wake of new threats, building a robust security capacity and resilience is more and more essential and, to do so, this sector needs to step outside its “comfort zone” and think long-term.

Something is changing

Diversity and inclusion are instrumental for any industry, but even more so in the realm of public safety, security and risk management.

Traditionally, manned services have been a male-dominated business, carrying the intrinsic meanings of strength and courage typically associated with heterosexual male figures, with military or law enforcement backgrounds. The security industry has been associated with such stereotypical imagery since its very beginnings.

However, in the last few years, alternative members of the industry started to offer new and refreshing points of view, thus turning this arena where a wide range of different voices and contributions can be heard from an inclusive workforce representing a variety of backgrounds.

Beyond the stereotype to increase diversity and inclusion in the security sector

Mitigating threats will always involve the power of dialogue with a number of people who possess diverse perspectives and opinions, and the security industry in the UK has been proactive in wanting to eradicate the outdated image of the mission-driven muscular male security officer.

In the last few years, and increasingly after 9/11, awareness was raised throughout the world about the need for knowledgeable security professionals. This has led to increased job opportunities and longer-term career prospects in the varied arena of security services and management.

Security is not a solo profession; it is broad and is based on the synergy of many factors: legislation, current events, trends, and available technology all in synch with each other towards a common goal. It comes as a consequence then, that this diversity provides the right balance to fundamental risk-related processes, be they frontline services or across technology domains.

Diversity and inclusion in the security sector brings benefits

Forward-thinking companies providing security services understand the unlimited and widespread benefits inclusion and diversity bring. Getting different input from diverse groups is enriching on a corporate level and provides social inclusion on a wider scale as well: more and more people will ultimately feel safer if a more heterogenous community is represented within our industry.

The security territory is becoming a space of empowerment for women and any individuals who do not fall within categories classically associated with this sector and its activities.

Amanda McCloskey, Marketing Director, CIS Security

The post Diversity and inclusion in the security sector in 2019 appeared first on City Security Magazine.

The responsibilities of security are of the highest stakes. Operating in a variety of different places, they must protect against multifarious possibilities of threats and attacks. Failure to prepare for the imaginable and even the unimaginable is no longer politically acceptable.

As they protect people, resources, infrastructures and technologies, security professionals also preserve as far as possible the continuation of a way of life: a societal ethos. Yet history is a process of social change and security is part of that changing way of life. In this article, I consider how that societal ethos has changed in less than fifty years and how concepts and ideas about governance have fed, and responded to, those changes.  As security builds resilience to future possibility, how is the very idea of resilience contributing to the need for greater securitisation?

A brief history of resilience and economy

In 1973, amid the rupture of the Oil Crisis, C.S. Holling developed a concept of ecological resilience. His ideas have since spread into the economic, psychological and security sectors. Holling argued that ecological systems were fantastically complex and that the only reason they survived ruptures and shocks was because they were able to rapidly absorb and adapt to change.

In a forest that had only seen long, dry seasons six times in the last 300 years, the biodiversity of different species was maintained by a worm that, during these unusual dry spells, severely depleted one type of fir tree. The dry seasons were effectively random but this instability reduced the chances of extinction in the ecosystem, that is, instability built long term resilience.

Ecology was fluid, ideas of stable homoeostasis as natural and beneficial were wrong; stability, or elasticity, impacted on the system itself, moreover, it could be in tension with the survival of all or parts of the ecosystem. The more an ecological system had sufficient stability and a capacity to change itself rather than rapidly return to the original status quo, the more resilient the system. He showed that planned interventions in the environment to maintain a system countered an ecological system’s own ability to sustain itself. What was needed was “…a qualitative capacity to devise systems that can absorb and accommodate future events in whatever unexpected form they may take”.

The ecological system was too complex to intervene without the possibility of catastrophic damage; the triggers of change were almost limitless and often random. Holling believed that human governance was putting life systems at risk. The solution was to support the existing resilience of an environment to human and natural inputs as opposed to trying to stabilise the existing system.

One year later, Friedrich von Hayek won the Nobel prize for economics, projecting his ideas of self-regulating economic systems to the fore. Hayek’s followers believed that less government intervention and greater political priority to private or individual profit making countered the economic stagnation and decline of freedoms which came with socialist-styled politics. The maintenance of economic stability by central government had failed, the private sector needed the freedom to be fluid.

By 1982, the Reagan and Thatcher administrations were pioneering ways to implement these ideas and within a generation the ideas had been adopted by nations across the globe. The contemporary turn to this neo-liberal global economic governance reflected much of Holling’s analysis – rupture and shock will happen, prepare for it; develop a sufficiently stable system architecture that also allows for fluid changes. The role of governance had changed. Based on debated ideas about ecology and economy, we were moving towards an age of resilience.

This was the latest performance (in a show going back to the works of Adam Smith and John Locke) of the latest ideas about the naturalism of the capitalist market merging with the latest theories about nature. The interpretation, ordering and movements of our material world (i.e. economy) was aligned with the interpretation, ordering and movements of nature and our place in that nature; a powerful synthesis that redefines core understandings of who and what we are in the world. The pursuit of profit as a (naturalised) key to solve the problems of governing complexity has brought with it a new type of governance and a new societal ethos too.

Those that adhered to these new ideas believed that the way to reduce the dangers of government controls was to devolve the responsibility of central governance to the ecology of economy through a private sector pursuing sustainable profits. Private companies, slowly took up functions previously held by the state. The security sector, like health, education and criminal justice sectors, has witnessed this very transformation. For example, private companies support security by doing roles previously done by police and military. National security is no longer secured just by the nation. Moreover, this securing of resources, infrastructures, technologies and people has to conform to an economic competitive sustainability.

Meanwhile, a new morality was developing in the global business sphere. In response to pressures to respect human and environmental rights at a corporate and ethical level, the field of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) opened up. Businesses had to balance what was profitable against what was ethically acceptable for their investors and customers. Models like Fairtrade sought to make the ethical a profitable feature, and big business followed, marketing philanthropy, happy workers and green credentials.

For some, CSR was sugarcoating a toxic pill. A resilient economy meant that, like the fir trees in an ecological system, parts of populations and environment that appeared to be collapsing could be abandoned in order to allow fluid adaptation and a more resilient future.

The success of neo-liberalism to meet its own objectives accelerated the speed of communications and trade in an ever smaller world. The movement of goods, services and people expanded geographically and quantitatively. Our material culture, values

and identities are in rapid flux. Social change appears to be moving faster than ever before. Competitive economic claims to resources and markets mediate with political processes. The competition and abandonment fuel a violent ethos.

Resilience and Competitive Security

The logics of competition that drive the market are remarkably similar to violent conflict. While a business seeks to “take advantage of gaps in the market and exploit competitors’ strength and weaknesses for business advantage”, the security sector “combats terrorists and other criminals always ready to exploit weaknesses in our defences”. (Incidentally, both quotes are from security sector magazines.) Competition or violent competition –  we appear to be engaged in a similar intent to exploit or destroy the “Other” in order to gain. As we become fluid to change and build our own resilience, so too do terrorist and criminal groups. “We” are someone else’s “Other”.

Those that threaten “our” or “their” way of life, sometimes in the most disgusting inhumane ways, are navigating life on the terrain available to them. The seduction to rectify violent injustice through further violent injustice (while marching with banners of righteousness) will inhabit any suitable ideological vehicle that provides meaning. It does not seem to matter which side you are on, violence begets violence and around we all go.

We are all resilient these days, leaving in our wake a less resilient, more disposable, humanity. As the systems of economic, physical and environmental security are hit by the shocks and ruptures from our own complex activities, some people are more disposable than other people.

But no one is responsible for rectifying the injustice. Responsibility to rectify has been theorised out of the resilience equation – it smacks of stabilisation. The best form of governance now is to help people endure their local problems until these systems of security stabilise with a changed architecture. Nor does resilience guarantee greater security, it only offers continuation, including the possibility of perpetual everyday war. As the governance driving this approach to our lives is just a conceptual response to the world, are we caught in a scarier predicament – running round in a circle of resilience, creating further problems for ourselves and fortifying ourselves to the problems, which then creates further problems and so on? It’s quite possible that the social ethos that we are securing takes us on an unpleasant, and possibly dangerous, wild goose chase. Whoever said that resilience would feel good?

When dominant values include the exploitation of the weaknesses of others and security as private service, political violence and criminality will gain traction and impetus. A viable terrain for the growth of violence and organised crime is created when the social ethos of pursuing individual gains is put above the provision of social cohesion. Armed groups and organised crime know too well that their use of security is entangled in an ethos of individual gain. Yet aren’t we following a similar model?

When the provision of security joins the privatised competitive market we move closer to Thomas Hobbes’s 17th century experiences on the mode of governance prior to the sovereign state, that “war of every one against every one”. Now we have the imaginable future of King Lear. The nation state, defined by its very monopoly on the legitimate use of force, is giving away its kingdom – flattered by those who offer partnership but who soon move in on the King’s powerlessness. Curiously, we are not building resilience to this possibility.

The creation of a security market produces highly differentiated experiences of security. Socio-economic inequalities become replicated in our access (or rights) to safety.  Such a scenario is hardly new, the difference now is the justifying market logic that prioritises the security of some over others. Often that security is obtained by delivering insecurity to others.

As we build resilience we make ourselves stronger (and thereby others weaker). Increase in threats is interpreted in the design of targets rather than an ethos of competitive threatening. This move towards securitisation will bring profits to investors in privatised security companies, but will it actually reduce the threat or address the ever increasing complexity that delivers further threats? In the rising waters of threats, the security sector is forced to follow an ethos of sustainable growth through resilience. Security becomes trapped in an endless game, raising the height of the fortifications, or changing the architecture, but never investing in ways to stop the waters rising.

A way forward

Global society is rapidly changing. Ideas about complexity will help us through those changes. But as long as we marginalise our social responsibilities in global and local economies, or conveniently align them to continued accumulation, then the complexities and spread of threats are unlikely to decline. We need a change from securing people and their things in specific places. Once we begin securing global humanity, and the ecological systems that support us, we will discover the social ethos we need.

Human political history is a trail of good ideas that went wrong. If the current social ethos is contributing to our insecurity then the principles of resilience need to be applied there too. Adapt or fundamentally change. It is not sufficient to engage in the logics of the endless battle of a sorcerer’s apprentice. For example, developing drones to defend ourselves that we then need to defend ourselves against. We cannot hold on to a way of life generated from economic thinking that delivers us into ever increasing, and ever profitable, securitisation. That is not security. It is only a response to the ideological sacrifice of ever present insecurity, where some are more insecure than others.

The discussion on security needs opening up to account for underlying ideologies that make ideas appear like common sense or normality. The people best placed to have those discussions are those who work in security. Not only are they well positioned to see some of the problems but they have a profound sense of social responsibility. Safety is a basic human need. Right now, resilience is applied in a narrow vision compatible with ideology and preserving the existing ethos. We need to discover how to extend security – in its fullest, most humane sense – to global humanity. How do we increase the resilience of humanity towards the ideas and actions of humanity itself?

Dr. Jonathan Newman

Department of Global Studies, Sussex University

www.sussex.ac.uk

The post Increasing the resilience of society appeared first on City Security Magazine.