Risk Management

The Security Industry, just as many things in your life, is based on Risk
Management. How well you personally, or professionally assess those risks is
key to a successful plan. I've stated previously that it's much more
expensive to recover from a disaster, than to plan for one. Also, that for
every action, there is one, or several, equal or opposite reactions.
Unfortunately, most American's suffer more from being under-insured, and
under protected, rather than over protected. There are Risks that are often
overlooked, especially when it comes human life. We tend more to remember
the what not's, than preparing for the when if's, and forever debating the
what if's. I have spent a great deal of time learning about the trends in
the Security Industry, and from all angles. But, it always leads back to
Risk Management, in one form or another. Either people fail to recognize,
implement, or analyze the threats associated with the risks. I like to think
that Industry Professionals can only add to the awareness of these risks,
but often, like people, some tend to stray. It really makes no difference
when you determine the risks, and implement an action towards it, what the
costs are, as long as it, or they benefits the risks. There are limitations
sure, money is certainly one, but the lack of guidance can be just as
expensive. Here's an example; look at a simple Door Contact. You can put a 2
dollar contact on a 1,200 dollar door, or put a 20 dollar contact on a 100
dollar door; what's the difference? Factor in the risk. What's more likely
to be tampered with; the two dollar door which maybe is a surface mounted
door contact, with the supervision resistor in the panel, or maybe the fact
that the contact is recessed in the door frame, where it would be less
likely to be tampered with, along with the resistor in the correct location.
The same plays out for the 1,200 dollar door, but with one thing in common,
the level of risk your willing to except, or are even aware of. There's
always going to be debates here, the what if's will always out weigh the
when if's.

When if you decide to assess your Risks, and implement the actions to limit
the risks, the proper methods may out weigh the costs. Whether you pay 2
dollars or even twenty dollars, the Risk, or the level of Risk your willing
to accept, really determines the outcome.

Jack

 

Jim, you missed my point, mainly because you thought only about the money.
My point was people, alarm dealers, homeowners, and business owners don't
think about the risks. That 100 dollar door was located on sports equipment
retailers front door. A person cased the place to determine weaknesses in
the alarm system, saw the 2 dollar surface mounted contact on the front
door, with the wires exposed, and pulled the wire away opening the loop. The
sad thing was a 10 PM, when the Alarm system didn't set up, and the owner
tired from working since 8:30 AM, and assuming he wasn't in a high crime
area anyway, decided to just leave the alarm off, and call the alarm company
in the morning. Later that night (Morning) the perp returned, kicked in the
100 dollar door, and robbed him of $80,000 in inventory. Luckily he only had
a $10,000 deductible on his insurance. But your saying he should have had
the $1,200 door? Criminals don't often commit crimes because of values, they
commit them because they think they can get away with it. It's the Risk they
take, and the Risk you should work more on to counter.

Jack

 

In your particular example, whether the alarm company or the system owner
opted to go for the more expensive contact has nothing to do with that
owners decision to leave his store unguarded for the night. In my opinion
that was recklessly irresponsible. He may just as well have hung a sign up
"help yourself" and left the front door open. I'm sure his insurance
adjuster was equally "impressed" with the fact that he knew there was a
problem with the system but decided not to bother having it fixed because
"he was tired after a long day"...

 

I hear ya. My attempts where based on giving some in-site to the costs of
what is involved. Whether a system costs nothing, $99, or $9,000, the key
part is determining the risk factors. Whether monitoring is $4.00 or $40.00
a month, is not necessarily related to those risk factors. Just as those
doors.

Jack
I'm not telling "you" anything you don't already know. I realize that.

 

Your right, the cost of Door contact means nothing. The cost of the monthly
monitoring means nothing. The risk? The store owner? Yes. The alarm
installer? Yes. Did the alarm installer provide a means to minimize the
Risk? Oh, it's not his problem, that's what he bought? So what would be your
response when the Owner asks you what was the problem with the system? Lie?
When he asks "can't you put a contact on the door that wasn't so exposed, so
this won't happen again"? Sure he's primarily at fault for leaving his
business un-protected, and obviously "overlooked" the risks. But the leading
factors where the risk, not the cost. Although, for him a painful one.

Jack

 

A *responsible* alarm company could have used any number of more expensive
surface contacts (with an appropriate embedded end-of-line resistor) for
this job with the same end result (snip or short the wires and you have a
"fault" at the keypad that would prevent the owner from arming the system).
Whether-or-not the company he used advocated the "higher security" of a
fully supervised system doesn't abrogate the owner's responsibility when it
comes to arming the system before he leaves. He could easily have contacted
the alarm company, advised them that he wasn't going to fix the contact at
the (then) overtime rate they charge, and asked them how to bypass the door
for the evening so he could still arm the system. I'm assuming an on
premise motion detector that should have been sold with the system would
have provided him with "some" protection, rather than "none".

 

Your missing the point. The cost of any door contact, or even the door
itself, has no bearing on the risk. The method, in this case, maximized the
risk, coupled by the owners decision to further increase the risk. I agree
this is an example of *responsible* vs.poor risk management assessments.
And, when I took the account over, after the break-in, a recessed contact
was installed without exposing any wires, and it was done for free. But
that's not my point....at all.

Jack

 

I haven't missed your point, Jack. When something "bad" like this happens,
the finger of blame gets directed everywhere. The bottom line is the
*owner* chose to take the ultimate "risk" in *not* arming his security
system. One has to be extremely careful about assessing blame in a
situation like this. It's very easy for someone like you (as a competitor
of the installing company) to come in and start criticizing the
short-comings you (as a professional) perceive in the system. Don't lose
sight of what *the owner* decided to do in your general comments about
"managing risk" though. The perp could disable the concealed contact you
provided quite easily. Granted it would take a little more effort on his
part but if no one noticed him reaching up to remove a wire (on the surface
contact), do you think they'd be liable to notice him drive the point of his
clasp knife (or other sharp instrument) into the concealed one? I mean
we're obviously talking about a perp with a little more "on the ball" than
the average junkie here, aren't we?

 

I'm finding your need, or desire, to have the last word on every
conversation in this news group amusing. It's not that as a competitor I
criticize other companies failures to minimize risks, I'd be better off
finding a correctly installed one. You absolutely missed the point. Your
obviously offended that a dealer added to the risk of this particular
situation, which leads me to believe, that this hits closer to home.

Jack

 

I'm glad I "amuse" you. Since when is "discussion" or "clarifying a point"
"having the last word"? What I find interesting is the need for "one
upmanship" that seems to prevail in an open newsgroup like this, don't you?
I've fallen into that on more than one occasion (and regretted it).

I never said you did in this particular instance. Do you not somehow
*imply* that what the competing company installed was not up to your
"standard" when you point out that you installed a concealed contact (to
replace the surface one supplied by the competitor) free of charge? I can't
imagine you *not* taking advantage of the situation and bringing this "extra
service" to the attention of your customer (and possibly help to "transfer"
a little of the "guilt" he's feeling over what happened to the "other" alarm
company).

If you say so...

What the dealer did (or didn't do) in this situation is *not* germane to the
discussion (and wouldn't have made one iota's difference to the outcome).
What I and my company (or you and yours) would (or would not) do in this
situation isn't either. Your customer "accepted" the consequences of not
arming his security system (actually his insurance company did, less the
applicable deductible). He "risked" $10,000.00 of his own money (and even
more of his insurer's), and lost because he was "too tired after a hard days
work" to make one simple phone call. I can't help but wonder what's going
to happen when it comes time for him to renew that policy.

 

My *intention* was to make people (people) think outside the underlying
costs of security, security systems, system monitoring fees, and services.
Often here, we have a few who discredit monitoring services, focus on the
cheapest (cost) system, and question why one charges $4.00 a month
monitoring, while another charges $30.00. I used an example, that was my
fault, the principle issue of my statement regards the level of risk one is
willing to take, is notified of, or even that they even fully understand the
risks. More often than not, and probably human by nature, we are stubborn to
learn from our mistakes. In this business, these mistakes can cause loss of
property, property damage, and worst of all loss of life. From homes, to
businesses, to Night Clubs, Apartment Buildings, etc. This is just one
simple example of the steps we as professionals, businesses, and homeowners
need to be more in tune with, because it simply helps all parties involved.
Some associate security only by the cost of it, not the value. It had no
significance that this owner failed to protect his investment other than he
too added 3 fold to the risk of the situation. The flip side of the question
is does this example, or did it have anything to do with the costs of the
system, or the monitoring? Or more so a failure in the Management of the
Risk? Is the higher risk possibly worth less than the $10,000 loss. Some
businesses, and homeowners fail to remember the costs of their deductible's.
I won't use any examples for that...I'll leave it up to you.

Jack

 

I think you accomplished that. Where you "lost me" was when you changed a
"general discussion" to a "specific one" (involving one of your new
customers).

Check... Again, you "shifted" the topic to specifically address what you
perceived to be an "unacceptable" level of risk when a rival company used a
$2.00 surface contact instead of the $1.50 concealed one. In your example,
what the company used made no difference. The *customer* was the "sole
arbiter of his risk level".

Most property managers I deal with associate security with the cost to their
clients. They see no "value" in hiring one guard over another. They're
both paid the same, yet one may will spend his time sitting on his duff
reading Tom's new book (How to Improve Your Love Life in New York) while the
other takes the time to do what he's paid for (patrol). They also see no
"value" in using contacts with embedded end-of-line resistors until you can
actually *demonstrate* the difference and *then* give them a "break" on the
cost.

"3 fold"?? I would go so far as to say that he completely "screwed the
pooch", then turned it around and "choked" it...

I couldn't answer that. I wasn't there when the sale was first made. I'm
*assuming* your customer, as an astute businessman (albeit a tad stupid when
he's tired) would have obtained at least three quotations and picked the
best of them. What he based his choice on I wouldn't even know. That's
where web pages like:

http://www.canasa.org/newwebsite/content_pages/intro_alarms/intro_alarms_general.html
http://www.alarm.org/pressreleases/10tips.html
http://www.yoursecuritysource.com/buyingonline.htm

can help in the decision making process. It also helps if you can ask
questions, but *not* from a sales person who's only going to spout the
"company line"... I think organizations like CANASA and NBFAA are there to
educate consumers on the "managing of risk", and promote standards to their
members.

You've lost me on that one...

That's easy... They'll "remember" right around "renewal time"... ;-)

 

OK, let's just pretend this never happen. It was 10 years ago. And forget
that I tried to even make a point here. EOD

Jack

 

Actually I'm glad you made the point (it was certainly a valid one). I
enjoy lively discussions... sort of helps offset all the late night Strata
meetings I have to attend where most of the members are asleep by the time I
get to talk about their security upgrades. I've been thinking about taking
a page from "Patch" Adams and wearing the red nose and big shoes. I hear
"humour" sells!! Do you think they'd still take me seriously??

 

I have a high school and University Diploma. Also have a Private Pilot's
License, and a Starbucks Card... Does that count?

That's "bonafide", and I am... "Amurican"... Yup...

If you really *must* know... no

No... I figure I do that to the competition every day...

Last week... don't go up again until next week...

It's gettin' a bit "shaggy"...

Every day... three times a day... and I gargle too (sometimes with a good
"single malt" at the end of the day)

"Freshly washed" this morning... blue ones... not "new" though...



How about you??

Are you licensed, bonded, insured, certified, bonifide, circumcised,
crucified,
made holy communion, have a fresh hair cut, teeth brushed and have new socks
on?