Facility and Security Management the

Facility and Security Management The roles of Facility Manager and Security Manager differ but are complementary. In the odern organization, they must have must an appreciation of each others roles and responsibilities and an understanding of their differing areas of concern. They must also appreciate how security technologies interact, technologies which are improved all the time, which gain functionality, and which may interact and so bring the two functions even closer together.

The facility manager is responsible for the management of buildings and services, with the latter encompassing such actions as keeping the air conditioning working, keeping the buildings clean, monitoring the actions of outside services, and so on. The facility manager can make good use of various computer programs to keep track of these functions and to schedule services. The facility manager keeps the physical site in operation so that others can do their work at that site.

The size of the job depends on the size of the facility and the types of work performed there. Security management relates specifically to keeping the facility secure. The facility manager keeps the facility in good shape and in operation, and the security manager makes certain the facility is protected and safe. The security manager is in charge of protective services such as alarms and guards, security such as keeping track of those who enter and leave, and similar activities.

Borchers (1996) notes the relationship between the two and the fact that such a relationship is assumed on the part of tenants and other affected parties as a matter of course, stating, "In a tenant's eyes, an officer's actions and property management's image are directly connected" (p. 103). Security is one of the services provided by building management and so provided by the facility manager, though the security manager is the one directly in charge of the function.

Borchers discuses the situation that prevails when security is contracted to an outside party and states, The first step in building a relationship that serves all parties is to set clear goals up front through good communication and specific contract agreements that delineate expected services, training, and performance standards. The next step is to establish positive public opinion by educating tenants and catering to their needs (p. 103).

In terms of the latter issue, both managers have a role in addressing tenant needs, though it would be the facility manager who sets policy and the security manager who shapes the security system to reflect that policy. In some cases, the facility manager and the security manager may be the same person, as can happen when an organization is small. As the organization expands, though, this may become an untenable position and lead to a change, a division of responsibilities between the facility manager and the security manager.

Surette (1993) reports on one such company and states, The facility manager is chosen to be the security manager by default, and doing his best to accommodate the employees, he determines that each entry point into the facility should be staffed with a security officer. Each of the four facilities has seven entry points, is similarly staffed, and is given a local alarm system. Since all doors are egress points, all employees have twenty-four-hour unrestricted access, and no property controls are in place. Consequently, the alarm system is useless (p. 40).

This can cause the company to decide that it needs a security professional to address the failures of the existing system, to create a more effective and efficient system, and perhaps to help reduce costs over time.

The security manager would be responsible for assuring that the security system is effective, which can be achieved with the institution of a safety audit program, noting the specific points of danger for the facility: While employees are a company's greatest asset, they are also its biggest risk because of the constant exposure to danger at the site. The second biggest concern is the company's customer base. The third set of vulnerabilities relates to the company's property, product, and equipment (Phelps, 1994, p. 75).

Each of these areas is the purview of the facility manager, but the security manager will also monitor these three elements and assure that they do not constitute a threat to the organization. A f (2000) notes that the facility manager has a particular role in safety, of which security might be considered a subset, though the role of the facility manager is seen first as setting the proper tone for safety, health, and environmental performance.

Topf says to the facilyt manager, Whether the process you choose is behavioral, traditional or employee-led, take steps to ensure the intimate involvement of your key leader. How to best achieve this important end result will depend on the personality and leadership style of this person. This individual may be somewhat hesitant to get involved or prefers to defer responsibility to the on-site safety professional or steering committee.

Reasons may range from too many other priorities, to focusing on production results and profits, to not believing fully in its importance (p. 31). The facility manager must recognize his or her role and follow up on it to set policy, as noted, and to see to it that others in the organization accept and follow that policy. Topf says to those other members of the organization, Most facility managers are Jacks or Jills of many trades, experts in the art of keeping multiple plates spinning in the air.

But that fact should not prevent you from encouraging -- in fact, demanding -- their active and sincere participation as front-line advocates for safety, health and environmental excellence. That decision, and the actions that follow, will do a great deal to communicate the safety-first message to your key constituent groups -- from board members to stockholders to line employees to the local media (p. 31).

The security manager is one of those who has to carry out the policy, specifically addressing the need for security and the areas where security is most important. For organizations large enough to have both a facility manager and a security manager, the security manager has to decide issues such as whether to monitor the company's security alarms from in-house or through a third-party monitoring station, and this is often an economic decision.

Zwirn (1997) notes that the alarm monitoring industry is highly competitive so that good prices can be found and that the security manager should keep this in mind when surveying potential services (p. 60). Some of the tasks common for the security manager include inspecting cable terminations, checking door hardware, and cleaning card-reader heads, which means inspecting security hardware. The software used in security also needs inspection and monitoring, and the security manager has to fine tune system performance by addressing such elements as data integrity, resource management, data backup, and upgrades.

Keeping the hardware and software up-to-date and working together is an important security consideration. The facility manager may have a role in this as well, though the security manager will generally be the one to assure that the system works and that it works as intended: Good data management procedures are needed to minimize the risks associated with inaccurate or untimely data entry. Programmed operation and system responses should be checked manually.

For example, a security manager should open a door and then monitor system response, including proper alarm activation and other outputs like cameras (Truncer & Field, 1997, p. 95). The technology used for security has become more sophisticated and also more complicated, and the involvement of the it department in the process is also essential, again under the auspices of the security manager for security, but usually funded and governed by the facility manager in the broader sense.

The first phase of the process for implementing such a system is to assess the various uses the system would have, who and how many people would be using it, what sorts of information they would need to access, what sort of information they would have to input, and what other processes would need to be included in any system. Based on this data, a proposal for system design is made and studied, and the system is then designed and priced.

Once the decision is made to use a particular design, the process of gathering the components and putting them in place is undertaken. The step of testing before implementation is important. A more complex system might require testing at several stages because this would be more cost-effective.

The security manager may be in charge of implementing security measures, but given the wide range of possible security systems available today, the facility manager will have a major role in deciding what degree of security is necessary, how much it will cost, and what personnel will be needed to service the system as well as how to pay for them. In a way, this is part of setting policy, for it indicates what the company is willing and able to fund as well as what is wanted.

The security manager will have to find the specific technology that provides what is needed for the price the company can pay or will have to indicate what cannot be done under current circumstances to get approval to provide less or to get funds to provide more. There are barriers to developing systems security that are both financial and philosophical: Systems security is often viewed in a manner similar to physical security: Buy it once and use it forever.

Unfortunately, like physical security, obsolete policies, procedures, and technologies leave systems extremely vulnerable to external and internal attacks. Most stakeholders find it difficult to accept the need for constant spending on systems security when it is difficult to quantify the benefits. Even when benefits can be quantified, unenlightened stakeholders may still question the need for continuous spending in the systems security area. In many cases, education can overcome this philosophical barrier. Unfortunately, often only severe losses from a security breakdown will prompt appropriate, albeit late, action (Luehlfing et al., 2000, p. 62).

More and more organizations reco0gnize that part of security is data security. In choosing the technology solution for a given data need, certain features should be considered. This means making a careful study of needs, the complexity.