News
SecurityInfoWatch




Home » Magazine Archives » June 2008

Security Technology Executive

Updated: June 24th, 2008 11:44 AM GMT-05:00

Guest Commentary: The Blame Game

When disasters happen, will you be ready to take the heat?

The Latest from SIW

Mace to launch dealer program, acquire central station CEO says company also refocusing product line with plans to add access control and burglar alarms products Basics of establishing an employee ID badging system From photos to badge design and ensuring HR buy-in, here's what you need to know The security week that was: 1/02/09 The top 40 security stories of 2008 Homemade bombs force evacuations in Aspen, Colo. Toronto wraps up municipal surveillance pilot project

By Timothy Giles, CPP, PSP

Disaster Planning is a subject that most of us undertake on a routine basis. I suspect that every Chief Security Officer, Director of Security and every Security service provider has a crisis management plan on their shelf — ready to use at a moment’s notice. I would hope that these plans cover all of the possible contingencies that might occur and have a well thought out plan for how to minimize the impact of the particular event that might be happening, as well as how to recover from that event to get the operation back to normal as soon as possible.

If you don’t feel that you have an adequate Disaster Plan I would recommend that you download a copy of the ASIS Disaster Preparation Guide (www.asisonline.org), which will give you an excellent checklist to see if you have covered all the aspects of the plan. Additionally, you should review the “Business Continuity Guideline: A Practical Approach for Emergency Preparedness, Crisis Management, and Disaster Recovery,” downloadable at www.asisonline.org/guidelines/inprogress_published.htm.

I believe there is an aspect of Crisis Management that many of us have not considered or planned for. It happens once the situation is already contained —management, politicians, or the media begin to assess the damage and immediately look to point their finger at the person or entity that is at fault for allowing the disaster to happen in the first place — especially if it is a man-made disaster. It seems to me that when a major disaster happens, if it can not be easily and quickly determined who is to blame, then there seems to be an immediate frenzy to pin the blame somewhere — whether justified or not.

A case in point would be the Sept. 11 attacks. As an aftermath of those horrific events, directors of security lost their jobs, security companies lost work, and even worse, there were individuals and companies that were publicly blamed for allowing the attacks to occur. The most notable of these were Frank Argenbright Jr., and the company he previously owned, Argenbright Security. That’s correct, previously owned. Argenbright may have had sold his company almost a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, and at the time of the attacks he was no longer involved in its management — yet he was still “fired” on national TV from the position of CEO.

Since Argenbright Security had passenger screening contracts for many airports around the world, and specifically at Boston’s Logan Airport, they were ceremoniously removed from those contracts in very short order.
I wonder how the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks would have changed if the companies involved had a fully developed plan for dealing with the issue of being blamed for a disaster. Of course, most of us have included in our plans that someone in the organization — typically the communications department — is responsible for communicating with employees, clients, the media, etc., following a disaster, but have these professional communicators actually developed the proper plan for this scenario?

We all know that it can be a losing battle when you are put into the position of having to defend yourself when things go wrong — even when it wasn’t a failure on your part. So what if Argenbright Security had had a prepared plan of what to say to the press immediately following such an event. After all, if you are responsible for passenger screening at an airport or multiple airports, you should assume that at some point there will be an incident that occurs which would suggest that your screeners did not do an adequate job. So, before everyone else started pointing fingers and putting them on the defensive, what if they released a statement demonstrating that they would immediately begin working with authorities in an attempt to determine if the weapons had been brought on through the screening process or whether they had been placed on the planes in some other way — which would have introduced the concept that they might not have been at fault?

1 2 next







SIW eNews

FrontLine

Markets & Sys

PracticeReport

AppReport

ProductWatch

EventWatch

Weekly Recap

EndUser Blasts

Dealer Blasts