A RECENT statement by Mr. Clinton Urling, president of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI) which purported that security expenditures has, of late, been a burden on the business community, has not gone down well with some members of the security industry.

Mr. Urling’s statement comes at a time when the local business community and the wider society at large have been experiencing increased incidence of criminal victimisation.
Under closer consideration, Mr. Urling’s statement is found to have been taken out of context, and it has been construed by some to mean that security companies have blighted the business community, rather, Mr. Urling was simply voicing the business community’s dissatisfaction and frustration with deteriorating security at both macro and micro levels; and was referring to the state of security across the local business environment, which, in my professional judgment was well placed.
When defined as an environment, security is the state of an environment, which guarantees freedom from threat, intimidation and anxiety. When defined in operational terms, security refers to all arrangements put in place to sustain the environment described above.
A congenial and enabling environment is a prerequisite for the successful conduct of business; hence, it would have been remiss of Mr. Urling in his capacity as president of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry, to ignore the conspicuous increase in crime. An essential part of any defence, against incurring losses due to crime, is an awareness of the existence of the threat.
According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, crime has been identified as one of the major obstacles to development: Security it noted, is a vital element of business, thus, security is not just an intrinsic aspect of development but also an essential precondition for sustainable development.
In defence of the private security industry, it should be unequivocally stated that many of its problems are not of its own making. Many clients of contract security companies often request, as a precondition for retention, that their security providers furnish them with services which violates the principles and fundamental tenants of security management; and which are in clear violation of extant security legislation, and could have serious legal implications for security companies later on.
Nevertheless, most security service- providing companies of today were formed through the simplistic business model of manpower trading. The local private security industry is a labour intensive one, which has not utilised management practices to the fullest while responding to the basic needs of their clientele.
Evidently, both government and private security consumers must share blame for the present quality of security provided. For its part, the Government of Guyana has downgraded the security of the country’s Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) therefore, it should occasion no surprise when the ‘security watchmen’ on many vital installations do not know their roles; the name of the adjacent street or where to locate the nearest police station.
Security is one of the most neglected and poorly managed aspects of business operations. If leadership does not seek out the best quality advice available to them, they will likely not make the best decisions. Many private security consumers lack adequate security oversight, or quality control mechanisms, to properly monitor the activities of contract security companies.
Today, security is one of the fastest growing industries worldwide: but in order for security to add value by mitigating risks, there ought to be an urgent reappraisal of security processes by all stakeholders. The business community will have to get used to the reality that security is a management function and a cost associated with the conduct of business; and the fact that security awareness must start at the top.
At the other end of the spectrum, security supervisors, directors, chief security officers, and managers, or by whatever name called, must acknowledge that they presently receive salaries which are often higher than many of their counterparts in other industries, many of whom are often better qualified;they too, will have to educate themselves to rise to the new security challenge.
It has been argued that security is more of an art than a science. While that belief is generally true, the business of security is not an art. The security department is a business unit, not unlike other business units within a company that must justify their existence. The higher security moves up the ladder, the more challenges the security manager will face and the more business acumen will be required. A commonly accepted business paradigm is ‘what cannot be measured cannot be managed’.

Therefore, in light of this new development, organisations should accept no less from their security managers than they normally would any other management functionary.