Security Management - Essay Example

Security Management Name Institution Security Management Introduction A total systems approach to security management is argued to be embodied within a prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery management model. The main objective of crisis management is to enable an organization to return to its normal activities as soon as possible thus the close relationship between crisis management and business continuity. The main aim of this essay is to examine the notion of prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery management model in relation to risk mitigation. In addition, the essay will evaluate the implementation of the prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery management model in managing security related across security’s broad domain. Prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery management model offers the perfect opportunities for the identification and examination of the security related across security’s broad domain. Question 1: What is meant by a prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery management model of risk mitigation? There are natural and artificial principal causes of disasters requiring the need for adoption and implementation of an extensive planning approach with the aim of achieving the most effective approach in the modern society. Some of the natural disasters include rain, windstorms, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and biological agents. On the other hand, some of the artificial disasters include fires, acts of war, terrorism, explosions, liquid chemical spills, power failures, and water issues (Ashfield & Ashfield, 2009). It is essential to not that prevention of the natural disasters is impossible. Nevertheless, various measures are essential towards elimination or reduction of the possibility of trouble. Implementation of a prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery management model is one of the most effective approaches in handling diverse risks from the natural and artificial disasters in the modern society (Tracy, 2007). This model focuses on implementation of four critical phases in mitigating risks that might affect the conditions of living within the modern interactions: prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. In order to understand the concept of the model, it is essential to evaluate the essence of each phase with the aim of illustrating critical issues concerning the approach. Phase 1: Prevention The main objective of this phase is to focus on identification and minimization of the essential risks from natural and artificial elements within the region or context of interest. In this phase, it is essential to execute an extensive inspection in relation to the area or context of interest with the aim of determining as well as altering factors constituting potential hazards. In addition, the phase focuses on establishment of a routine inspection and maintenance measures to facilitate withstanding of disasters within the area or context of interest and surrounding environment (Rohmeyer, 2006). During this phase, entities also focus on the installation of automatic fire detection as well as extinguishing systems and water-sensing alarms within relevant buildings and halls to facilitate monitoring and management of potential disasters. It is also essential for the security to focus on taking special precautions during the unusual periods of increased risks such as renovation of the property of office (Ortmeier, 2005). Moreover, the phase focuses on making special arrangements with the aim of ensuring the safety of archival materials in relation to exhibition or the safety of the library. This is vital towards protection of the information with the aim of facilitating execution of the following phases in the achievement of effective and efficient risk mitigation. Furthermore, business entities would focus on provision of security copies of vital records in the form of collection inventories and store these off-site with the aim of facilitating the recovery process from the disaster (Ashfield & Ashfield, 2009). The main objective of crisis management is to ensure that the organization gets back to its normal functions in the shortest time possible. Similarly, it is essential to protect computers as well as data through provision of uninterrupted power supply with the aim of ensuring that the documents are available for the organizations and other relevant stakeholders (Tracy, 2007). In the modern society, various entities also have comprehensive insurance for the library or archives, its contents, the cost of salvage operations, and potential replacement, and restoration of damaged materials, and re-binding. These prevention techniques will be vital in the preparation towards risk mitigation in diverse contexts or areas of interests (Fay, 2011). Phase 2: Preparedness The main objective of the second phase of this model is to develop an effective approach with the aim of coping with the natural or artificial disaster. In the course of this phase, it is essential for the organization or government to focus on the development of a written preparedness, response, and recovery plan with the aim of coping with the natural and artificial disasters (Rohmeyer, 2006). In addition, it is vital for the entity to focus on keeping the plan up-to-date as well as testing it with the current or existing conditions and strategies for effectiveness and efficiency in coping with the disasters. The third element in this phase of the model focuses on keeping the supplies as well as equipment together during a disaster for appropriate maintenance (Ortmeier, 2005). It is also essential to establish as well as train the in-house disaster response team to facilitate effective reaction in the course of natural or artificial disasters. This is through training the response team about the disaster response techniques and mechanisms with the aim of enhancing their skills and expertise in risk mitigation (Siaw, 2006). Furthermore, it is essential to train the response team about identification as well as marking on floor plans and enclosures of irreplaceable and important material for priority salvage. Another critical element of this phase in the risk mitigation is the tendency of preparing and keeping an up-to-date set of documentation with the ability to include diverse elements in the modern society to facilitate quality coping during the disaster. One of the essential inclusions in the documentation is the inventory of the holdings concentrating on the priorities for salvage marked on the floor plans. Moreover, it is essential for the documentation to list the names, addresses, and home telephone numbers of the in-house disaster response team for effective reaction in the course of the tragedy (Ziskin, 2007). The company or entity should also focus on keeping the list of names, home telephone numbers, and addresses of the trained conservators with experience in salvaging water-damaged materials as well as other resources and facilities with the aim of offering substantial support in the event of a disaster (Fay, 2011). It is also ideal to keep or document contacts for the personnel with emergency responsibilities to enable effective and efficient reaction towards management of the crisis or risk mitigation in diverse conditions in the modern society and contexts (Wei, 2011). The approach should also consider the essence of distributing the plans as well as documentation to appropriate locations in the contexts of on-and off-site. Additionally, it is critical to install and institute diverse procedures with the aim of notifying appropriate people of the disaster thus an opportunity to assembly essential property and individuals in coping with the natural and artificial disasters (Fischer, & Green, 2004). Phase 3: Response The third critical stage or phase of the model concentrates on responding to the diverse natural or artificial disasters. This phase comes into action whenever the disaster strikes thus the need to focus on adoption and implementation of a critical approach to minimize the influence or impact of the tragedy on the organization, individuals, property, and environment (Fitzgerald, 2005). During this phase, it is essential for the response team to follow the established emergency procedures in relation to raising the alarm, evacuating personnel, and making disaster sites safe for the relevant stakeholders. In addition, it is essential to contact the leader of the disaster response team to direct as well as brief the trained salvage personnel on the facets of the disaster with the aim of adopting and implementing an essential approach towards limitation of the impact of the tragedy to the organization, persons, environment, and property (Sennewald, 2011). In case of any permission to re-enter the site, it is essential for the crisis management team to make a preliminary assessment of the extent of the destruction or damage as well as the equipment, supplies, and services required for the management or mitigation of the risks and potential hazards in the relevant context. The phase also focuses on stabilization of the environment with the aim of preventing any further impact of the disaster on the individuals (Ching, 2013). The response phase also considers photographing of the damaged materials to facilitate insurance claims. Furthermore, it is critical to set-up the area for recording as well as packing materials for realization of effective and efficient response to the disaster affecting the stakeholders. It is also ideal for the crisis management to focus on transportation of the damaged items from the tragedy site with the aim of limiting any negative impact to the environment while endangering lives of the response team members and experts in the course of responding to the natural and artificial principal disasters (Enescu, & Sperdea, 2011). Phase 4: Recovery The final phase of this model of risk mitigation focuses on recovery from the occurrence of the risks or disasters from natural or artificial principal sources. The main objective of this phase is to ensure that the conditions return to normal for the delivery of services and products to the relevant stakeholders. In order to facilitate this approach, the phase focuses on establishing a critical program with the aim of restoring the disaster site and damaged materials to a stable and usable condition (Ortmeier, 2005). It is also vital for the phase to focus on the determination of the priorities for the restoration work while seeking the advice of the conservators for the best techniques, options, and methods in relation to cost estimations. Furthermore, the phase of the model in risk mitigation concentrates on developing a phased conservation programme requiring the involvement of large quantities of materials, discarding of items not worth retaining, and replacing or re-binding items lacking critical justification for the special conservation treatment (Fay, 2011). The phase also concentrates on contacting insurers to ensure that the conditions return to normalcy within the shortest time possible. Another critical element of the phase is the tendency of analysing the disasters with the intention of improving the plans in the light of experience. This is through taking critical advantage of the educational sessions in relation to disaster planning workshops and vital preparedness exercises (Kwo-Shing Hong, 2013). These elements ensure that the organization or crisis management team adheres to the diverse mechanisms and procedures with the aim of limiting the effects of the disasters while achieving the normalcy within the shortest time possible under the influence of minimum costs and resources for the purposes of effectiveness and efficiency. Question 2: How is, or could this model be applicable to manage security related across security’s broad domain? It is essential to focus on the adoption and implementation of this model of risk mitigation towards the management of the security related across the security’s broad domain. This is through utilization of the phases of the model to enhance the safety and security of the citizens in diverse contexts with reference to the case of Australia (Gibson et al, 2012). In the first phase, the model would ensure prevention of the security related issues within the security broad domain. This is through identification of risks and potential security hazards with the aim of monitoring their probability of occurring and causing harm to the target audiences and stakeholders. It is also essential for the first phase to concentrate on the prevention of the security related issues with the aim of limiting the impacts of the issues on the relevant stakeholders. The second element of the model would focus on eliminating any vulnerability of the security systems to potential security hazards in the modern society. The third phase is vital is responding to the security issues with the aim of containing the impact of their occurrences against the stakeholders (Belsis, 2005). The final phase would be ideal towards ensuring that the economy and other facets return to normalcy within the shortest time possible (Starnes, 1998). The main aspect of this research in this stage is to illustrate the implementation of the model to manage security related across security’s broad domain. Security has diverse roles in the crisis management. One of the essential roles of security in the crisis management relates to safety and security of life. In addition, security in crisis management focuses on communication with authorities in the course of managing the disaster or tragedy resulting into insecure environment for the society members and relevant property (Nnolim, 2007). Security also focuses in the provision of substantive guards in the course of crisis management. This relates to the tendency of the approach in offering control of the movement in the course of disaster management. Other elements of security in the crisis management include evacuation of the stakeholders, facilitating the management process, and effective control to the classified products and services in the course of crisis management. This is vital towards the achievement of the goals and objectives of crisis management. Implementation of the prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery model of risk mitigation in the security’s broad domain is vital towards improvement of the security of the nation with reference to the case of Australia. The implementation of the model in this context will focus on utilization of critical phases towards the achievement of the goals and objectives of crisis management across the security’s broad domain. This is through focusing on context, identification of risks, analysis of risks, assessment of risks, and treatment of the security risks or potential hazards. From this perspective, the main objective of the PPRR model of risk mitigation focuses on the monitoring, evaluation, and treatment of risks in the diverse contexts especially in the case of Australia (Truman et al, 2009). Establishment of Context The model is vital in the establishment of context with reference to the security’s broad domain. This is vital towards prioritisation of the events and activities in the course of any breach of the security system thus affecting the safety of the citizens and other organizational operations in the modern society. It is also essential to note that the approach or model is vital in this context because of the need to lay substantial grounds in the development of critical foundations for identification and analysis of risks. Furthermore, the approach will ensure that the processes are ideal in managing crisis concerning the security and safety of the modern society with reference to the case of Australia. This is the most essential element of the implementation of model because of the opportunity to determine the elements to include in the protection or enhancement of the security of the essential stakeholders (Ortmeier, 2005). The effectiveness and efficiency of this phase will determine the success of the implementation of the consequential phases. Identification of Risks The PPRR model of risk mitigation is also essential in the identification of vulnerabilities as well as potential hazards that might affect the security’s broad domain in diverse facets. In this context, it is essential for the crisis management and response team to focus on examination of the potential elements of risks as well as hazards that might contribute to security disasters constituting artificial principal disasters such as acts of terrorism and hostages (Hemond, 2012). The approach would be ideal towards development of effective and efficient procedures for the response and recovery strategies in the modern society. Alternatively, the technique will enable policymakers to adopt and implement critical techniques and mechanisms upon understanding essential vulnerabilities and potential hazards in accordance with the security’s broad domain. The approach is also essential towards realization of the goals and objectives of the security management in critical contexts while reducing the cost of identification of the risks as well as potential vulnerabilities. Analysis of Risks The main objective of this phase of the implementation of the PPRR is to ensure that the response team has substantial information on the potential hazards that might affect the achievement of secure and safe environment as well as societies in the modern context. In this context, the security management focuses on analysing the potential facets of the risks in the second phase with the intention of understanding their impact towards the environment and individuals (Crandall, 2010). In addition, analysis of risks in the security management is essential in adopting and integrating diverse techniques with the aim of curbing emerging or evolving security issues and vulnerabilities. It is also ideal for the society to focus on the evaluation of the risks under the influence of the PPRR model of risk mitigation to facilitate diverse understanding of the need to enhance security of the environment and the society members in relation to the case of Australia. Assessment of Risks PPRR model of risk mitigation is also vital towards organization and execution of an extensive risk assessment with the aim of prioritising the elements for safety and security of the environment and persons. The fourth phase will relate to the findings of the third phase concentrating on the identification of the risks within the context of the security’s broad domain. The main objective of this approach is to denote the likelihood or potentiality of the risk occurring as well as estimating its effects or implications on the society and other property elements (Ortmeier, 2005). The outcome of this phase will enable relevant authorities to know appropriate techniques in different contexts thus an opportunity to maximize crisis management under the influence of minimal resources. The fourth phase will focus on exploitation of diverse techniques in the assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the security systems. This is critical in aiding the adoption and implementation of quality techniques with the aim of enhancing safety and security of the persons and the environment from artificial disasters. Treatment of Risks The final stage of the implementation of the PPRR is the potentiality of adopting and integrating diverse elements and procedures towards effective and efficient management of the risks. The main objective of the final phase is to ensure that the security management incorporates elements of evaluation and monitoring of the risks management with the aim of addressing the needs and preferences of the diverse stakeholders. This will be vital towards ensuring quick recovery and return to normalcy by the relevant institutions seeking to enhance the security management in the modern contexts (Ortmeier, 2005). Conclusion From the above issue, prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery model of risk mitigation (PPRR) is one of the essential techniques aiding the preparation of an organization, nation, and entity in relation to natural or artificial disasters. This is through identification of the risks with the aim of developing critical techniques and mechanisms aiding the management of the risks in cost-effective approaches. Similarly, the prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery model (PPRR) would be effective in the improvement of the essence of security management with reference to the security’s broad domain. The approach is valuable in the establishment of the context, identification of the risks, analysis of the risks, assessment of the risks, and eventual treatment of the risks with the aim of improving the facets of security management in the modern society. References Ashfield, J. M., & Ashfield David Shroyer, J.,M. (2009). Effective security management: An ongoing challenge. Bank Systems & Technology, 46(2) Belsis, P., Kokolakis, S., & Kiountouzis, E. (2005). Information systems security from a knowledge management perspective. Information Management & Computer Security, 13(2), 189-202. Ching-Chiao, Y., & Hsiao-Hsuan, W. (2013). The effect of supply chain security management on security performance in container shipping operations. Supply Chain Management, 18(1), 74-85. Crandall, C. (2010). Why aren't we using that intel stuff? reconnaissance satellite imagery in domestic disaster prevention and response. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2010(5), 1831-1868. Dictionary. (1992). Dictionary and thesaurus. Angus and Robertson. Sydney: Harper Collins. Disaster preparedness at UP level in sorry state. (2013, Mar 15). The Financial Express. Eburn, M. (2005). Emergency law (2nd ed.). Annandale. The Federation Press Enescu, M., Enescu, M., & Sperdea, N. M. (2011). The Specifics Of Security Management: The Functions Of Information Security Required By Organizations. Economics, Management and Financial Markets, 6(2), 200-205. Fischer, R.J., & Green, G. (2004). Introduction to security (7th ed.). Boston: Butterworth Heinemann Fitzgerald, T. (2005). Building management commitment through security councils. Information Systems Security, 14(2), 27-36. Gibson, P. J., Theadore, F., M.S., & Jellison, J. B., M.P.H. (2012). The common ground preparedness framework: A comprehensive description of public health emergency preparedness. American Journal of Public Health, 102(4), 633-42. Hémond, Y., & Benoît, R. (2012). Preparedness: The state of the art and future prospects. Disaster Prevention and Management, 21(4), 404-417. Investing in disaster prevention and preparedness can reduce worldwide economic losses by $280 billion. (2007, Jul 02). Al Bawaba. Kwo-Shing Hong, Yen-Ping, C., Chao, L. R., & Tang, J. (2003). An integrated system theory of information security management. Information Management & Computer Security, 11(5), 243-248. Langston, C., & Lauge-Kristensen, R. (2002). Strategic management of build facilities. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Nnolim, A. L. (2007). A framework and methodology for information security management. (Order No. 3296872, Lawrence Technological University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 353 Rohmeyer, P. (2006). An evaluation of information security management effectiveness. (Order No. 3223518, Stevens Institute of Technology). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 258-258 SCY4108 Study Guide. (2005). Module 1: What is facility management? Perth: Edith Cowan University. Siaw, K. T., & Loosemore, M. (2006). Terrorism prevention, preparedness, and response in built facilities. Facilities, 24(5), 157-176. Standards Australia. (2004). AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk management. Sydney: Standards Australia. Standards Australia. (2004). HB 221 Business continuity management. Sydney: Standards Australia Standards Australia. (2004). HB436 risk management guidelines: Companion to AS/NZS 4360:2004. Sydney: Standards Australia. Starnes, N. V. (1998). Workplace violence: A study of dallas-area business' awareness and preparedness. (Order No. 1392984, Texas Woman's University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 82-82 Tracy, R. P. (2007). IT security management and business process automation: Challenges, approaches, and rewards. Information Systems Security, 16(2), 114-122. Truman, Benedict I,M.D., M.P.H., Tinker, Timothy,DrP.H., M.P.H., Vaughan, E., PhD., Kapella, B. K., M.D., Brenden, M., M.S.W., Woznica, C. V., DrP.H., . . . Lichtveld, Maureen,M.D., M.P.H. (2009). Pandemic influenza preparedness and response among immigrants and refugees. American Journal of Public Health, 99, S278-86. Veneman announces $1.8 million in state grants for emergency animal disease preparedness activities. (2001, Oct 11). PR Newswire. Wei, N. (2011). 10 steps for emergency preparedness. Pollution Engineering, 43(6), 14. Ziskin, Leah Z,M.D., M.S., & Harris, Drew A,D.P.M., M.P.H. (2007). State health policy for terrorism preparedness. American Journal of Public Health, 97(9), 1583-8. Ortmeier, P. J. (2005). Security management: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Sennewald, C. A. (2011). Effective security management. Burlington, MA: Butterworth- Heinemann. Fay, J. (2011). Contemporary security management. Burlington, MA: Butterworth- Heinemann. Read More