The paper "Twin Attack at Ritz Carlton and JW Marriot Jakarta" is an outstanding example of a management case study. In this century, the increased height of crime and terrorist attacks has attracted more attention to hotels security since they are more vulnerable. Hotels are considered as the soft target because, by their nature, they have very little access controls. Although the terrorist attack on the hotel started before September 11, aftermath, the security of guests’ has gained more significance as it is among the topmost contributor of hotel success (Clifton 2012, p. 37).
On 17, July 2009, the security threats-bombings at the JW Marriott and the Ritz-Carlton Jakarta that claimed several lives had an effect on the safety, security, and emergency policies of the hospitality industry. These two hotels are serious about the guest commitment, but the two events have designed the safety, security and emergency policies for both organizations. This twin attack at Ritz Carlton and JW Marriot Jakarta was a surprise to the members of the intelligence community, hotel industry, and the security. Collectively, the attacks reaffirmed that with no doubt the hospitality industry is facing threat from terrorist and extremist groups.
This paper explores how the two events have informed legislation and shaped safety, security and emergency procedure for the organization that is serious about the commitment to their guests. In the hospitality industry, especially hotel, safety and security are classified as the most important factors. It is a legal and moral duty for hotel management to ensure their employees and guests are safe. Ensuring safety not only guarantees guests safety but as well reduces legal liabilities to the hotel and improves the profitability of the firm.
For hotels that are seriously committed to their guest, their guest expects security measures to be adhered to (Pizam & Holcomb 2008, p. 252). Before the attack, both the JW Marriott and the Ritz Carlton hotel were operating at stringent security measures similar to those used in airport. There were several gates with tight security measures that prevented the vehicle that carried out the attack from getting in the hotels. Both hotels were assumed to have tight and strong security as even gate patrons went through the attacker's luggage with metal detectors.
According to some scholars, these measure prevented massive impacts of the bombs. No other hotel in the city was assumed to have such tight security measures (Jerard, Ashuti, & Feisel 2010, p. 13). On the other hand, despite such measures being in place, the attackers were able to accomplish their mission. The two events stressed the need to employ more security in the hotel industry. The hotels had to add more controls to its security measures to deal with the terror threat. Both hotels hardened their security measure by focusing on total physical protection and intelligence thorough cooperation with government agencies to lessen the risk of possible attacks.
They invested heavily in training security personnel and procuring surveillance equipment to ensure strong security measures are in place to monitor the hotel. More advanced security technologies such as a walk through metal detectors, handheld metal detectors, and handheld explosive vapor detectors (EVD) were put in place to assist security team (Jerard, Ashuti, & Feisel 2010, p. 14).