Physical Security Policy in Government Departments and Agencies in the UK - Research Paper Example

Physical Security Policy in Government Departments and Agencies in the UK Physical Security Policy in Government Departments and Agencies in the UK: Assessment of Physical Security Policy Framework in Government Departments and Agencies in the United Kingdom Summary Globally, security challenges facing countries continue to escalate immensely putting at risk the lives of people and property. The technological advancement over the last few decades has escalated the challenges. In particular, United Kingdom being one of the foremost countries experiencing greater development and provides vast economic opportunities for her people constantly updates her security to ensure wellbeing of people, their livelihoods, and property. But of even greater concern is the level of physical security that United Kingdom government departments and agencies require to keep employees, property, and premises safe. Therefore, physical security instruments aim to thwart a direct attack on premises or minimize the prospective damage and harm that can be meted out in the event of an incident taking place (Maunta, 1998). The United Kingdom government has recognised security challenges that its departments and agencies face in their everyday operations thus developing a Physical Security Policy Framework. The framework entails standards, best practice directives, and systems required for the protection of government assets including employees, information, and premises (Cabinet Office, 2011). The framework is also concerned with outcomes necessary for impartial threat management systems for security in order to facilitate smooth functioning of the departments and agencies. This research proposal attempts to assess the physical security policy framework in government departments and agencies in the United Kingdom. Aims I. ­­­­To investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of security program model for sensitive government buildings. II. To highlight the possible implications of poor security in government buildings. Objectives I. To review all relevant existing literature on the subject and identify possible gaps in knowledge. II. To review all related theories and standards associated with security management (Political, economic, legal enforcement, risk management, and technology ) III. To highlight the significance of the debate related to contemporary threats and risk management. IV. To critically discuss and evaluate the concepts, procedures and methods needed to plan and implement the security program for sensitive government buildings. V. To discuss the operational aspects and factors that should be taken into consideration within the security program model. VI. To compare current security standards and evaluate their efficiency. Research Question I. How can security be best handled in sensitive government buildings? Why is this Research worth Doing? This is an enquiry that can best be answered with full appreciation of real and imagined security issues the country might be facing. It is notable that on a daily basis the United Kingdom government assesses security threats in the country. Security threats normally originate from both internally and externally (Wood & Shearing, 2007). But in a global arena where varying and intricate security risks are a daily phenomenon, delivering effective and efficient physical security must be an enormous challenge for governments (Molotch, 2012). Particularly, the United Kingdom government undertakes diverse measures to ensure that the challenges associated with security threats are contained. This is a very exciting area of investigation because overall it contributes to an understanding of the government’s level of preparedness in handling security threats (Sennewald, 2011). This research proposal will assess existing physical security measures for government buildings that are already in place through reviewing diverse documentations. The significance of this research is also to generate information regarding diverse strategies employed by the government to provide an integrated security management program (Sennewald, 2011). Furthermore, assessing the government’s initiatives in protecting sensitive buildings will enable an understanding of the existence and interaction of different security frameworks, elements and standards (Rob, 2008). It is also important to recognize that a country’s security have political, social, economic dimensions and other popular concerns affecting every citizen. Therefore, it will be of great significance to understand the contributions that political decisions have made in the expansion of security management (Fay, 2011). Preliminary thoughts suggest that politicians make contributions through legislations and policy changes in order to ensure maximum safety of government assets (Fay, 2011). A thorough review of literature will prove their real contributions. Furthermore, this aspect of assessment will be critical to the overall outcome of the research because it focuses on policy frameworks, which are normally developed through political decision making. Review of Literature: Physical Security Policy Framework and Theories Ensuring security to the public and their property is a government function. In countries where insecurity thrives the government has always failed to deliver on other economic development and public services. The public must always have confidence in the way the regime is handling security in government buildings accessed by the citizenry. It is notable that adequate and guaranteed physical security is critical to the efficiency and effectiveness with which government services to the public are delivered (Sennewald, 2011). This literature review aims at exploring previous studies on physical security policy frameworks and management approaches employed by stakeholders in the United Kingdom government in safeguarding their assets. The literature review process begins by definition of diverse concepts, contextualizes the concept of security, and highlights government assets that are protected against security threats. Secondly, in reviewing literature the researcher will attempt to demonstrate whether there are gaps in studies concerning physical security policy frameworks and approaches in relation to safeguarding government departments and agencies assets (Sennewald, 2011). Indeed, the researcher will attempt to explain the corporate organizations have handled physical security over the years. Upon demonstrating the level of existence of policy frameworks and approaches for the management of the security of government assets, the researcher will assess whether there are existing gaps in the implementation of the regulations and whether government department leadership adopt the policies and approaches. Finally, the review will focus on best practices and key learning points from some the successful security program management strategies in order to recommend to the non compliant department and agencies the appropriate policies and systems to adopt. The Concept of Security Several authors have assigned varying meaning to the term security. Brooks (2009b) categorised security under thirteen sub topics detailing his thoughts on how to understand its associated knowledge. But it is not only Brooks who employs categorisation to expand the meaning of security. Zedner (2009, pg. 1) concurs that the term security has been applied in the fields such as social security, safety and health sector, financial security, community policing, national security, public security, environmental security, global relations, and peacekeeping. According to Post and Kingsbury (1991, pg. 34) security can be categorised into eight sub themes including historical, psychological, sociological, functional, management, normative, structure, and descriptive. The author has explained that under these themes, security has a connotation that is different from others. But as Zedner (2009, pg. 1) also suggests, security is an all inclusive term that facilitates the concealment of significant governing, budgetary, political, and legal practices as well as social and community values. Defining security is also seen as a people based approach in which every community can assign meaning to security as it suits them under their society (Golsby 1992, pg. 53). I think that Talbot & Jakeman (2009), provided a much easier to comprehend the meaning of security to include the protection of people and their assets against theft, fire, and disasters while also stopping criminal and social disturbances that are potentially dangerous to assets. Furthermore, Martin (2006, pg. 13) sees security as an initiative involving the protection of people, infrastructure, and sensitive information from imagined or real threats. It is notable that for Martin (2006, pg. 13) eliminating threats to assets is a core issue in security management. The reasoning of Burstein (1994) that the presence of security risks and threats necessitates the provision of security appears to be the real context why security forces exist in diverse parts of a city. Yates (2007) also concurs with Martin (2006, pg. 13) arguing that the emergence of private security emerged as a result of imminent threats in the corporate sector creating the need for several private security guards in business buildings. For purposes of this research, I propose to define security as suggested by Talbot & Jakeman (2009), Martin (2006), and Yates (2007). Organizational Context to Security Management It is notable that every organization including government department and agencies recognise the need for effective security services in their premises (Boin, 2006). In government buildings the sensitivity of information and assets contained within such premises has always forced the government to rebuff any attempts for security lapses. The success of any physical protection policy frameworks and systems is normally demonstrated by the degree of security. Therefore, as Zedner (2006) points out successful security has to do with ensuring minimal losses to the organization while also building employees confidence and morale on the safety of their work environment. The suggestions by Zedner (2006) are also echoed by challenger (2006) who is of the opinion that effective security is critical for improving an organizations performance due to minimised incidence of losses and prevention of unnecessary expenditures. The success of an organizations security is also associated with the responsibility of individual people handling diverse assets that are under protection. As suggested by Briggs and Edwards (2006), personal initiative in promoting security cannot be overemphasised. The authors think that aside from superior security instruments, updated security policies and guidelines, and employing security experts and managers, individuals must also take personal responsibility to adhere to promote physical security (Briggs & Edwards, 2006). The opinions also bolster other authors who have suggested that the accomplishment of security issues in a government agency is associated with the ability of the security agents to inspire change management. It is also significant to understand the invariability of security management successes in diverse organizational contexts. Button (2008) suggests that organizations adoption of particular security measures is influenced by the nature of threats. Martin (2006) appears to agree with Button (2008) because he suggests that retail sectors employ security measures that can stop petty theft and burglary. It is also notable that while the risks may not be enormous on the side of the retail outlets, a level of harassment directed to the staff might lead to certain dangers (Ghosh et al, 2004). The cost of security management has emerged as a critical factor in the government buildings. The security management systems for government buildings require the provision of premises monitoring strategies (Kovacich & Halibozek, 2006). Different authors agree that security management for government assets should be efficient but must conform to the prevalent threats and optimum costs (Chow 2009, pg. 222). Fischer, Halibozek & Walters (2013) also suggest that managers think security management is associated with additional financial loads on agencies. Gill (2007, pg. 34) and Challinger (2006) concurs with Fischer, Halibozek & Walters (2013) and asserts that most organizations would rather concentrate on profit making than become obsessed with security risks. The viability of security management costs is not a universal for many organizations. This case has been pointed out by (Martin, 2007) who thinks that security costs for high commissions, offices and government official residences cannot be compromised even if the costs are prohibitive. Terrorism targeting government buildings must be stopped at any cost (Arnold & Lasch, 2007). This is a commitment the government has assured the public in order to protect any loss of lives. Categorization of Security Management Infrastructure There are divergent views on what should exactly be the objectives of safety management tasks. The objectives for providing security management measures are thought to include systems categorisation, definition of threats and risks, and asset classification and protection prioritization (Rogers, 2006). A simplified version of Rogers (2006), suggestion is that it is necessary to classify security constraints in any sector, the assets that require protection and identifying the potential individuals or organizations that must be barred from threatening security. The significance of assets owned by the government is associated with the value they possess. An understanding of the departments and agencies is critical to the evaluation of which assets are important and that require protection. Therefore, a proper characterisation of the assets informs the development of constraints under which security systems may operate (Garcia, 2008). The characterisation process takes into account the vision of the departments or agencies, assets required for the attainment of the vision, the regulatory environment, safety requirements, and security challenges in the organization. There are various authors who have enumerated the notable tasks that physical security frameworks and approaches must consider. There are operational tasks, condition and design of the physical security required by an organization. There are also issues of policies and processes and regulatory issues concerned with an effective physical security framework (Rogers, 2006). Conforming safety considerations to the organizations long term security measures is also critical in the sector. The understanding of the legal environment in which security operations and measures are conducted must ensure that the right of the public to security is guaranteed (Borodzicz, 2005). Furthermore, every security framework must indicate the security challenges and risks the organization operates in and the potential of such inadequacies affecting the vision for security. Government Buildings: What are the Security needs and Gaps in Previous Work? The United Kingdom government processes massive volumes of susceptible information and handles assets and public services, which are crucial for the country’s development. The need to ensure continued operations within government buildings requires the concerned parties to provide protection services to the assets and services. This is crucial because it ensures that the security provided is proportionate to security threats while facilitating the service provision and business activities (Borodzicz, 2005). The government must therefore, guard against various risks such as criminal behaviours, terrorism, political espionage, and natural environmental challenges such as floods (Arnold & Lasch, 2007). The notable reason for protecting government buildings is to ensure that the country is free from any intimidation of war, be able to undertake national activities while preserving the national values and being safe from internal and external aggressors. The United Kingdom’s Centre for Protection of Critical Infrastructure (CPNI) provides significant insights about security for the country. CPNI (2012) suggests that the government’s infrastructure includes facilities, systems, sites, and networks that facilitate national functioning while also ensuring the delivery of services. The agency has categorised these as communications, disaster management services, energy infrastructure, financial services, livelihood services, and health, transport, and water provision systems. There is a greater concern that government buildings must be protected professionally. The critical ways of responding to security needs must originate from conducting assessments in order to determine the needs. Button (2008) suggests that security surveys, protective security threat checks, audits, and reassessments are necessary for understanding continued security needs. The unfortunate terrorist attack in government buildings for example the bombing of the United States Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya was an issue of a lack of physical security checks on site. After sucking similar attacks in other countries, there has been augmented push to have physical security considered necessary for the protection of critical government assets (Arnold & Lasch, 2007). The Government’s Initiative for Physical Security Policy and Frameworks The United Kingdom government recognizes the value of transparency and accountability in securing its resources. The government has taken the lead in ensuring the protection of its according to the available security (Cabinet Office, 2011). The government has structured the security policy framework into four tiers with every level representing a significant issue in the government’s protective security approaches. The government considers its policies under four areas including security policy number one, which is concerned with governance and security approaches (Cabinet Office, 2011). Security policy number two entails securing information, security policy number three entails personal security, and lastly physical security and counter terrorism (Cabinet Office, 2011). The government is responsible for developing and maintaining the security policy and framework. Best Practices Approach to Physical Security Policy Frameworks Security management in the United Kingdom follows a top down approach as a best practice because government leaders must ensure the safety of the citizenry. (Sennewald, 2003) argue that best practices in physical security start with threats analysis thus ensuring that the provision of security is determined by the level of threat. Thereafter, managing such threats and risks helps in determining essential systems and strategies to be employed (Cabinet Office, 2011). This ensures that security management designs follow threats and risks. Another best practice entails zoning of protected sites and assets. The government ensures security protection through considering designs, ordinary access control, surveillance, and boundary security. Security protection also entails integrated response strategies, threats identification measures, and proper backup measures (register & Larkin, 1997). These are meant to assist other systems, deal with every strategy weakness, and reduce the challenges associated with component failures (Doughty, 2000). Creating an elaborate threat management also ensures that individuals interested in penetrating the security system are delayed at every stage of breaking the protection components. Design and Methods The methodology employed in this research literature is based. The researcher examines all relevant literature and undertakes a review to analyse the other previous researchers to examine their findings (Collins, 2010). This is significant for expanding knowledge base. The researcher will also undertake an empirical study and analysis of all existing physical security programs. This will be done through case studies; interviews with key respondents to enable the research appreciate and demonstrate diverse issues regarding security management of sensitive government assets. Ethics This research study does not have any ethical concerns. Social science research follows key principles including involvement, absence of harm, privacy, dishonesty, and political considerations. It is notable that this research eliminates issues of harm to people involved in the study as well as deception and confidentiality concerns. It is also significant to point out that all secondary data are available freely including those to be used for case studies. The research also lacks any political agenda that might compromise exposing key security concerns in the country. Conclusion Security management has continued to escalate as threats become more complex. Many researchers have debated and provided a divergent opinion about security and its associated challenges. It is also notable that different organizations have varying security management systems and apaches in lined with the challenges in their contexts. The government of United Kingdom appreciates the level of security challenges thus developing a policy framework for managing security of its infrastructure. Security investment and costs are normally proportional to the level of threat and value of the infrastructure to the government. The research proposal has also presented a literature review on the best practices for security protection. List of References Arnold, C., & Lasch, M. A. (2007). Site and urban design for security: Guidance against potential terrorist attacks: Providing protection to people and buildings. Washington, D.C: FEMA. Boin, A. (2006). Organisations and Crisis: The Emergence of a Research Paradigm. In Smith,D. & Elliott,D(Eds), Key Readings in Crisis Management:Systemes and structures for prevention and recovery (pp.84-96). New York: Routledge. Borodzicz, E. P. (2005). Risk, crisis and security management. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Briggs, R. & Edwards, C. (2006). The business of resilience corporate security for the 21st century. London. Demos. Brooks, D. J. (2009b). What is security: Definition through knowledge categorisation. Security Journal, DOI 101057/sj.2008.18, 1-15. Burstein H. (1996). Security a Management Perspective, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Button, M. (2008). Doing security: Critical reflections and an agenda for change. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Cabinet Office. (2011). HMG Security Policy Framework. Viewed at https://update.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/HMG-Security-Policy-Framework-v7-Oct11.pdf on 13th March 2013. Challinger, D. (2006).Corporate security: A cost or contributor to the bottom line. In Gill , M. (Ed).The handbook of security (pp. 586–607). London: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Chow, Tin T. Development Trends in Building Services Engineering. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press, 2009. Print. Collins, A. (2010). Contemporary security studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CPNI. (2012). Terrorism. Retrieved january10 ,2013, from http://www.cpni.gov.uk/threats/ Doughty, K. (2000). Best Practices, volume 15: business Continuity Planning. Fay, J. (2011). Contemporary security management. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Fischer, R. J., Halibozek, E. P., & Walters, D. C. (2013). Introduction to security. Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Garcia, M. L. (2008). The design and evaluation of physical protection systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann. Ghosh, S. et al (2004). Guarding Your Business: A Management Approach to Security. New York: Kluwer Publishers. Golsby, M. (1992), Four Steps to Success, in Security Management. August P.53. Kovacich, G. L., Halibozek, E. P. (2006). Security management: How to manage the costs of an assets protection program. Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann. Martin, G. L. (2006). The handbook of security. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Maunta, G. (1998). An introduction to security. Cranfield: Cranfield University. Molotch, H. L. (2012). Against security: How we go wrong at airports, subways, and other sites of ambiguous danger. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Regester, M. & Larkin, J. (1997). Risk Issues and Crisis Management: A Casebook of Best Practice. London: Kogan Page Limited. Rob, M. (2008). Leading the Transformation of a Security Organization as a New Security Manager. SANS Institute, viewed at http://www.sans.org/security on 13th March 2013. Rogers, B. B.(2006).Engineering Principles for Security Manager. In Gil, M(Ed).The Handbook of Security (pp.66-89).London: Palgrave Mcmillan Ltd. Sennewald, C. (2011). Effective Security Management. Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann. Sennewald, C. A. (2003). Effective security management (4th e.d.). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Talbot, J & Jakeman, M, (2009). Security Risk Management: Body of Knowledge. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Wood, J. & Shearing, C., D. (2007). Imagining Security. Cullompton: Willan. Yates, A. (2007). The future of private security. Canberra: Australian Homeland Security Research Centre. Zedner, L. (2009). Security: Keys ideas in criminology. London: Routledge. Read More