At Northrop Grumman,Ed Halibozek keeps security consistent but flexible

Sep 1, 1998 12:00 PM, GEORGE PARTINGTON

           

For the past four years, Ed Halibozek has been the top security professional at Northrop Grumman Corp., a leading defense contractor and commercial aerostructure manufacturer with $9.2 billion in sales in 1997. As the director of corporate security for the Los Angeles-based company, his job is to ensure consistent security policy and procedure at all sites. Conversely, Halibozek also guarantees that the security policies and procedures handed down from the top do not inhibit the ability of a site to deal with the individual aspects of its particular operation. It is a juggling act that Halibozek has down to an art. "Although we want a common approach to security, we have to recognize that everything is not the same," explains Halibozek. "So we try to establish policy that sets the parameters for common approaches to doing things like protecting information and dealing with contingency planning, but offers the flexibility to the sites to deal with their individual, unique circumstances. " Northrop Grumman is a sprawling organization that employs about 54,000. The company designs, manufactures and integrates military surveillance and combat aircraft, defense electronics and systems, airspace management systems, information systems, marine systems, precision weapons, space systems, and commercial and military aerostructures. The company is organized into four divisions and one subsidiary: the Commercial Aircraft division, Dallas; the Electronic Sensors and Systems Division, Baltimore; the Electronics and Systems Integration Division, Melbourne, Fla.; the Military Aircraft Systems Division, El Segundo, Calif.; and Logicon, a subsidiary specializing in defense information technology, based in Herndon, Va.

Leading the way There is no direct reporting relationship between corporate headquarters and the divisions, says Halibozek, but there is oversight through the Northrop Grumman Security Council, which Halibozek chairs. The council, which consists of 15 senior security managers for the company, convenes at various sites three to four times a year. "We ensure that the programs are in place and are consistent through influence, not direction," says Halibozek. He explains: "We address security issues, and we try to shape the company's security program to ensure that we have a sound program that is efficient and that allows us to comply with company policy and government regulation. It is truly a deliberative approach because we work together, talk about the issues and try to come to a consensus on how to approach security as a company. Yet there is a high degree of autonomy between us." Northrop Grumman security is not a centralized type of operation, says Halibozek, but "it works because it is very collaborative." The company's ID badge illustrates the approach. All Northrop Grumman employees use the same photo ID badge, which allows them access to any site; it "provides ease of access and recognition and presents us all as one company," notes Halibozek. However, each site can customize the badge to perform specific functions such as bar coding and magnetic stripe for access and time and attendance tracking.

An industry representative Halibozek is also a member of the National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC), which reports to the Information Security Oversight Office on issues related to industrial security. As one of eight from industry on this committee, which also includes government security representatives, Halibozek helps represent industry's position in dealing with government counterparts. The committee has been working to try to change the approach to automated information systems security from a prescriptive method to a performance-based method, which allows for greater flexibility, given the rapidity of change in technology in automated information systems, says Halibozek. Halibozek has been focusing on how problems are addressed versus their content. Because some issues seem to linger on and do not get solved, he and his NISPPAC colleagues have developed some process models that consider: how an issue should be identified; how it should be examined; and once examined, what process to use to bring it forward to the committee. Further steps include: how the issue gets managed and how closure comes to fruition. "We attempt to ensure issues don't become stagnant," says Halibozek.

Pursuing a career Halibozek was introduced to the world of security and law enforcement as a young military policeman. The military also provided the opportunity to travel, another interest. Halibozek was stationed in Germany, and has since returned to central Europe for vacations with his wife, Phillis. After a few years in the military, Halibozek returned in 1979 to civilian life and took a job in security at Sony. He also began to educate himself in his chosen profession. By going to school nights, he earned a bachelor's and a master's in criminal justice from California State University, Long Beach. In 1994, while working for Northrop Grumman, he received a master's of business administration from Pepperdine. He says the business degree has been valuable because he views his job as "more of a management activity than anything else. My focus is to try to provide security services and products to the company I work for efficiently." "There is no better position to be in than to have a major problem and be able to throw unlimited amounts of money at it," he says. "You have nothing to do but win. Anybody can do that. What is difficult is to do more with less."

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

SUBSCRIBE

Select an Issue April 1, 2008 March 1, 2008 February 1, 2008 January 1, 2008 December 1, 2007 November 1, 2007 October 1, 2007 September 1, 2007 August 1, 2007 July 1, 2007 June 1, 2007 IP Security Supplement May 1, 2007 April 1, 2007 March 1, 2007 February 1, 2007 January 1, 2007 School Security December 1, 2006 November 1, 2006 October 1, 2006 September 1, 2006 August 1, 2006 July 1, 2006 June 1, 2006 May 1, 2006 April 1, 2006 March 1, 2006 February 1, 2006 January 1, 2006 December 1, 2005 November 1, 2005 October 1, 2005 September 1, 2005 August 1, 2005 July 1, 2005 June 1, 2005 May 1, 2005 April 1, 2005 March 1, 2005 February 1, 2005 January 1, 2005 December 1, 2004 November 1, 2004 October 1, 2004 September 1, 2004 August 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 June 1, 2004 May 1, 2004 April 1, 2004 March 1, 2004 February 1, 2004 January 1, 2004 December 1, 2003 November 1, 2003 October 1, 2003 September 1, 2003 August 1, 2003 July 1, 2003 June 1, 2003 May 1, 2003 April 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 February 1, 2003 January 1, 2003 December 1, 2002 November 1, 2002 October 1, 2002 September 1, 2002 August 1, 2002 July 1, 2002 June 1, 2002 May 1, 2002 April 1, 2002 March 1, 2002 February 1, 2002 January 1, 2002 December 1, 2001 November 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 September 1, 2001 August 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 June 1, 2001 May 1, 2001 April 1, 2001 March 1, 2001 February 1, 2001 January 1, 2001 December 1, 2000 November 1, 2000 October 1, 2000 September 1, 2000 August 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 June 1, 2000 May 1, 2000 April 1, 2000 March 1, 2000 February 1, 2000 January 1, 2000 December 1, 1999 November 1, 1999 October 1, 1999 September 1, 1999 August 1, 1999 July 1, 1999 June 1, 1999 May 1, 1999 April 1, 1999 March 1, 1999 February 1, 1999 January 1, 1999 December 1, 1998 November 1, 1998 October 1, 1998 September 1, 1998 August 1, 1998 July 1, 1998 June 1, 1998 May 1, 1998 April 1, 1998 March 1, 1998 February 1, 1998 January 1, 1998 December 1, 1997 November 1, 1997 October 1, 1997 September 1, 1997 August 1, 1997 July 1, 1997 June 1, 1997 May 1, 1997 April 1, 1997 March 1, 1997 February 1, 1997 January 1, 1997

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