Essays on Systems Approach to Physical Security Coursework

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Systems Approach to Physical Security" is an outstanding example of management coursework.   Security as a specialized body has been the topic of numerous debates in academic spheres. Driving this discussion is works drawn from different realms. The domains emphasize that a profession and professionals are described according to the rank of their affirmed unit of knowledge, settings of education associated with skills drawn from these entities of knowledge and the public’ s faith emanating from such standards. Until now, the profession of security occupation is yet to develop a real body of knowledge.

This literature review provides an argument towards a fundamental method to the security of assets comprises of a systems method that derives on concepts comprising‘ Defence in Depth, ’ Security in Depthin addition to Protection in Depth. Physical Security Whereas security as a concept has been described differently, despite its context, there exists a wish for a setting where people, states, and institutions are at liberty to carry themselves as they would love, and in line with social contract conceptualizations. Nevertheless, this is not often the scenario. Dangers to such freedoms of activities always exist.

According to a proposition by Brooks and Coole (2011) the concept of security, despite its perspective ought to be risk-based and threat-influenced, whereby protective measures are warranted based on risk and context. The proposition is reinforced by Nalla and Morash (2002) and Standards Australia HB (2006) researches. Nalla and Morash (2002) contend that with no imminent danger to an asset, there exists no aim for security. This culminates to what is referred to as mutual occupational threads in security (Coole & Brooks, 2011). In line with the present literature, the common threads in security encompass several points.

That there is a danger to secured property, perceived or real (Awwad-Rafferty& O’ Shea, 2009), a wish on the practitioner’ s portion to guard assets against malicious and the deliberate human interference through several reactions (Coole & Brooks, 2011), and a functional context of the pre-eminent approach to protecting an asset by ensuring access to it is moderated (Borodzicz & Gibson, 2006). The fourth thread is that access to an asset is well controlled via various approaches used within the systems approach. This would encompass both logical and physical approaches (Fisher & Green, 2003). Bearing in mind these mutual threads and main subjects, the article authored by AISPTF (2008) recommended that security experts have a role of ensuring that their guidance is solidly grounded in best practice principles and established theory.

Coole and Brooks (2011) second to this approach. In order to absorb the proposition articulated by Manunta (1999), the security professionals must guarantee the use of mutual interpretation when giving expert advice towards the guarding of property. It is difficult to achieve consistency in security advice because of the same idea of security and in specific, management of security, which involves a wide variety of skills and activities spread in a wide variety of related concerns (Brooks, 2007).  

References

Atlas, R, I. (2008). 21st Century security and CPTED: Designing for critical infrastructure protection and crime prevention. Boca Raton: CRS Press.

Australian Interim Security Professional’s Task Force (2008). Advancing security professionals: Discussion paper. Retrieved from August 2011: http://www.isacaadelaide.org/pd/Discusion_paper_Future_Security_Professionals_March08.pdf

Borodzicz, E., & Gibson, S. D. (2006). Corporate security education: towards meeting the challenge.Security Journal,19, 180-195.

Brooks, D. J. (2007). Defining security through the presentation of security knowledge categories. Perth: Western Australia. Edith Cowan University, International centre for Security and Risk Sciences.

Cameron, K., Quinn, R., DeGraff, J., &Thakor, A. (2005). ‘The competing values framework: creating value through purpose, practices, and people. Ann Arbor: Addison-Wesley.

Childers, R. G. (2011). Being One's Own Boss: How Does Risk Fit In?.American Economist, 56(1), 48.

Coole, M., P. (2010). The theory of entropic security decay: the gradual degradation in effectiveness of commissioned security systems. A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Computing, Health and Science Edith Cowan University. Retrieved from:

Coole, M., P., & Brooks, D., J. (2011). Mapping the organizational relations within physical security’s body of knowledge: A management heuristic of sound theory and best practice. Proceedings from the fourth Australian security and intelligence conference. Perth. Western Australia. Retrieved from:

Fisher, R. J., & Green, G. (2004). Introduction to Security (7the.d.). Boston: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Garcia, M. L. (2001). The design and evaluation of physical protection systems. Boston: ButterworthHeinemann.

Howell, D, C. (2008). Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Wadsworth: California.

Jang, S, S., Kwak, S, W., Yoo, H., Kim, J., S., & Ki Yoon, W. (2009). Development of a vulnerability assessment code for a physical protection system: Systematic analysis of physical protection effectiveness (SAPE).Nuclear Engineering and Technology. 41, 5-18.

Manual, F. (2001). Physical security. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 1-317.

Manunta, G. (1999). What is security? Security Journal.12, 57-66.

Maslow, A., H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd end). New York: Harper & Row.

McCrie, R.D. (2004). The history of expertise in security management practice and litigation. Security Journal 17 (3): 11-19.

Nalla, M., &Morash, M. (2002). Assessing the scope of corporate security: Common practices and relationships with other business functions. Security Journal.15, 7-19.

Nunes-Vaz, R,M Lord, S., &Ciuk, J. (2011). A more rigorous framework for security-in-depth. Journal of Applied Security Research, 6 (3), 372-393.

O’Shea, L., S, &Rula, A. (2009). Design and security in the built environment. Fairchild Books, INC. New York.

Police, R. C. M. (2004). Protection, detection and response. Physical security guide, Technical Security Branch, 1-20.

Reynald, D., M. (2011). Factors associated with guardianship of places: Assessing the relative importance of the spatio-physical and sociodemographic contexts in generating opportunities for capable guardianship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48, 110-197.

SANS Institute. (2002). A Scalable Systems approach for Critical Infrastructure Security. Retrieved from: http://energy.sandia.gov/wp/wp-content/gallery/uploads/020877.pdf

Smith, C. L. (2003). Understanding concepts in the defence in depth strategy, School of Engineering and Mathematics. Australia: Edith Cowan University.

Spender, J. C. (2009). Organizational capital: concept, measure or heuristic.Organizational Capital: Modelling, Measuring and Contextualising, 5-23.

Standards Australia. (2006). Security risk management. Sydney: Standards Australia International Ltd.

Talbot, J., &Jakeman, M. (2009). Security risk management body of knowledge: (SRMBOK).New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Turiel, A. (2011). IPv6: New technology, new threats. Network Security,2011(8), 13-15.

Verizon. (2012). 2012 Data breach investigations report:Aus: Verizon Business.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us