How do you measure up to the Fortune 1000?

Dec 1, 2000 12:00 PM, JAN RABINOWITZ

With technology changing so quickly, sometimes it's hard to judge if you are behind the learning curve, or whether it just feels that way. Security trends at the nation's largest companies - those listed among the Fortune 1000 - can provide a benchmark, in effect setting a standard for security practices throughout the industry. Access Control & Security Systems Integration recently surveyed the magazine's readers, including security personnel at Fortune 1000 companies, to provide information on industry trends. Comparisons of survey responses from the Fortune 1000 to other responses can provide valuable insights.

For example, roles have changed for security personnel at the Fortune 1000 and for other respondents to our survey in different ways. While non-Fortune 1000 respondents are most likely to report expanded responsibilities (15 percent), Fortune 1000 respondents are most likely to say that their role is more technology-based than it used to be (14 percent). Furthermore, Fortune 1000 respondents are significantly more likely than others to report that the focus of their role has shifted (10 percent vs. 2 percent), and less likely to say that their role has expanded (8 percent vs. 15 percent).

The magazine's Fortune 1000 subscribers are involved in financial, industrial, manufacturing, retail, wholesale, transportation and utility companies. Non- Fortune 1000 subscribers work for educational institutions, government, hos-pitals/healthcare, hotel, hospitality and service companies. While access control is the top area of responsibility for all respondents to the survey, a greater number of Fortune 1000 respondents (90 percent) indicate access control as an area of responsibility, compared to 78 percent of other respondents. Similarly, a finding that Fortune 1000 respondents are significantly more likely to be responsible for loss/shrinkage reflects that they are more likely to work for retail establishments than other respondents.

Job responsibilities also influence which security-related systems or components respondents find the most valuable to them. Since 90 percent of the Fortune 1000 respondents have access control as a job responsibility, it isn't surprising that they were significantly more likely than other respondents to mention access control as their most valuable component. Other respondents were more likely to name alarm systems as their most valuable component.

Electronic access control is the technology most useful to both the Fortune 1000 and other survey respondents, and CCTV/surveillance is the easiest technology to integrate. However, Fortune 1000 respondents rate electronic access control as providing the most value for the money and the fastest return on investment. Other respondents say CCTV/surveillance fulfills those roles.

Are these differences due to variation in equipment choices? It appears not. CCTV/surveillance is the most likely component choice for 67 percent of both Fortune 1000 and other respondents. Electronic access control is the third most common component for both groups: 64 percent of Fortune 1000 respondents have this component, compared to 63 percent of other respondents.

In fact, while there are few significant differences between the two groups in terms of components, there are many differences when it comes to integration. And as might be expected, Fortune 1000 respondents are significantly more likely to have integrated components. For instance, electronic access control is most often integrated in both groups of respondents' systems, 42 percent for Fortune 1000 and 31 percent of other respondents. Other large differences are as follows:

- intrusion/burglar alarms are integrated components for 36 percent of Fortune 1000 respondents, versus 23 percent of other respondents.

- photo/ID badging - 34 percent of Fortune 1000, 19 percent of others.

- electronic locks - 33 percent of Fortune 1000, 23 percent of others.

- building automation - 17 percent of Fortune 1000, 9 percent of others.

Perhaps in keeping with their views on CCTV/surveillance, other respondents are more likely to plan to integrate these components into their systems than Fortune 1000 respondents, 16 percent compared to 9 percent. Reasons for integrating security with other systems most commonly include centralized management and centralized monitoring for both groups. However, Fortune 1000 respondents are more likely than other respondents to list a single user interface as a reason, 24 percent and 16 percent, respectively.

Who makes the decisions about security systems? Fortune 1000 respondents most often report that it's the security manager/director (58 percent). Other respondents indicate that the facilities manager is most often involved (47 percent). In fact, Fortune 1000 respondents are significantly more likely than other respondents to indicate that the security manager/director is involved (58 percent vs. 43 percent), and that the human resources manager is also involved (22 percent vs. 15 percent). Less than 10 percent of each group is likely to allow outside installers, dealer/distributors, systems integrators, design engineers or outside consultants to be involved in the decision-making process.

The top five issues facing respondents themselves are similar for the two groups, although Fortune 1000 respondents indicate more concern. For instance, Fortune 1000 respondents are more concerned than others about:

- reduced capital and operating costs (50 percent vs. 37 percent)

- employee theft (63 percent vs. 51 percent)

- white collar crime (37 percent vs. 25 percent)

- corporate downsizing (20 percent vs. 9 percent)

- corporate espionage (17 percent vs. 10 percent)

- corporate re-engineering (14 percent vs. 7 percent)

- executive protection (30 percent vs. 18 percent) and

- workplace violence (58 percent vs. 42 percent).

Similar differences occur when asked which issues drive the organization's concern for security, where again, Fortune 1000 respondents indicate a higher level of concern:

- white collar crime (45 percent vs. 25 percent)

- asset protection (66 percent vs. 52 percent)

- corporate downsizing (27 percent vs. 14 percent)

- corporate espionage (32 percent vs. 18 percent)

- corporate re-engineering (31 percent vs. 18 percent)

- executive protection (37 percent vs. 18 percent) and

- open architecture (23 percent vs. 15 percent).

When rating equipment issues facing the industry today, Fortune 1000 respondents rate the vulnerability of information systems to security breaches as significantly more important than other respondents, 5.41 compared to 5.15 on a 6-point scale, where 6 is extremely important. They also rate training employees in the use of equipment as significantly more important, 5.21 versus 4.97.

Considering the many issues and challenges faced by security personnel today and the differences between Fortune 1000 security subscribers and others, it is surprising each group was most likely to indicate that cost/budget/funding issues are their biggest challenge in trying to provide security for their organizations. In fact, this question required respondents to write in an answer, and 23 percent of both groups wrote an issue related to costs, budgets or funding.

For more information gleaned from our exclusive research, look for our special end-of-the-year Best of the Best Issue, which will be mailed later this month.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2008 Penton Media Inc.

This month in Access Control

• Opening Up About Door Closers
• An Enterprise Approach
• The Framework For Open Systems
• On A Higher Plane
• More from April's issue