Terrorist Alerts: How To Respond

Jun 1, 2004 12:00 PM, By Sal Lifrieri

Remember when building security meant doing what the tenant asked for? Recent events have caused building security to take a more pro-active approach.

When seeking to be pro-active, questions arise: What threats do we need to protect against? How much will it cost? What standards need to be met?

The first step is to look at the information, or intelligence, that building owners and managers have access to.

A building manager or owner can feel frustrated when asked by the government to “become hyper-vigilant” or to be in “an increased state of awareness” during a national alert — especially if there is no supporting information or even an idea of what to look for. Building managers, owners and security directors are then asked to spend millions of dollars to be better prepared.

But be prepared for what? Should every building owner expect that a Bin Laden-funded group could attack their building? The simple answer is no, unless the facility has been identified as a potential target.

The real problem is understanding the threat and knowing what needs to be done to prevent it. In the event that the threat cannot be prevented — and unfortunately this does happen — the facility needs to implement a plan to handle the aftermath.

So what to do? First, one must truly understand the threats that he is faced with. The fact that most press stories today center around terrorism is no reason to focus solely on that aspect of security. Workplace violence issues, disgruntled employees, natural hazards and other topics should also be examined. And remember that not all terrorism is international.

Second, building managers and owners should know how their building or facility operates and design a plan to allow the facility to function, yet remain secure. Too often, security consultants are called in to provide an assessment and develop plans, but they never take into account the operations of the facility, or more problematically, they develop solutions that can never be implemented.

Third, building managers and owners must realize that much of the intelligence updates they receive may be useless and untimely. The best a facility can expect is a “best guess” of what might happen. We all want the most accurate, timely and detailed information; however, if this information exists, it may not be released to the public.

Fourth, security officials must start thinking outside the box. For building managers and owners, that means looking at the area surrounding the facility. More often than not, the issues to be contended with are after-effects. For example, a major transportation hub may be the target of a terrorist group. Having a facility near the hub can necessitate a detailed plan to deal with the pedestrian issues that will result if the transportation hub were attacked.

Finally, a facility needs to determine its level of “acceptable risk” and incorporate it into the planning process. As deep as any facilities' pockets are, no one has a limitless supply of funds.

When all is said and done, the best a manager can do is stay as informed as possible and perform an accurate, effective and all-encompassing risk assessment.

FOR THE RECORD

About the author

Sal Lifrieri is president and CEO of Protective Countermeasures and Consulting Inc., New York, a full-service security firm specializing in threat and vulnerability assessments. Formerly, he was director of security and intelligence operations for New York City's Office of Emergency Management and a former executive vice president of Diversified Security Solutions.

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