Request for Proposal Paper and Presentation Essay .
Request for Proposal Paper and Presentation .
Instructions:
Please read the attach instructions it must be two full page essay not included the references ,the references page must be another separate page
Solution.
Request for Proposal Paper and Presentation
Strengths
The institution has a robust security strategy that entails a comprehensive physical security system. The strategy integrates the different components of an effective physical security system that focus on the detection, delay, and response to any security breach or concern. According to Fennelly and Perry (2014), a comprehensive security system offers different layers of security that allow efficient detection and delay giving the security team and law enforcement time to respond to the situation. The educational institution has established and implemented such a security system that ensures the security of the students and staff, information systems, and property. The identification and analysis of the different strengths of the educational institution reveal areas that do not require improvement during the security system’s upgrade.
The institution has intelligent perimeter protection with effective security equipment that limit unwanted access to the compound. The perimeter, which includes good fencing, lighting, security personnel and cameras ensures the protection of the institution and property. The fencing does not require upgrading since it is high enough made of chain link and nine gauge wire. Additionally, the fence is knuckled and twisted at the bottom and on top respectively and its support posts are made of concrete with a considerable depth of more than 36 inches. Further, the perimeter includes well-constructed gates with sufficient security personnel that regulates entrance, records visitors, and limits the possibility of intruders (Fennelly, 2012). The security personnel at the gate forms a part of the comprehensive visitor management system. Therefore, the institution’s perimeter protection system is one of the strong advantages of its physical security system and does not need upgrading.
The perimeter of the institution consists of surveillance cameras, efficient lighting, and an open area between the fence and the buildings. These enhance security by promoting the detection, delay, and response in case of intrusion. The security cameras ensure the identification of suspicious persons and aid investigations after an incidence of intrusion or crime. While this is the case, efficient lighting and the open space between the fence/gate and the building improve delay and ensure effective response by security personnel or law enforcers. These components of the security system do not require improvement. The cameras are only critically important for aiding post-incidence analysis and investigation while lighting and spacing are sufficiently implemented (Micheloni, Foresti, & Snidaro, 2005).
The design of the organization depicts architectural and structural integrity, aspects that promote security and limit the possibility of intrusion, theft, or access to information by unauthorized persons. The integrity of the fence, gates, windows, and doors ensures that the educational institution faces minimal chance of burglary or break in from intruders. The doors have authentic and quality locks while areas with limited access have alarms. The quality padlocks can withstand attacks and enhance delay while the alarms improve detection and delay in case of attacks (Perry & Fennelly, 2016). The different security components mentioned above do not require upgrade since they are all in perfect working condition and are constantly analyzed by security experts to ensure efficiency.
Another strength that the institution holds in terms of its security system is its effective implementation of access control. The institution controls access to the school, its property, and students. It has an effectively implemented system for ensuring efficiency in controlling access. The system limits the loss of property and information and ensures the safety of students and staff. According to Fennelly and Perry (2014), access control is one of the most critical components of physical security and remains fundamental in protecting property and boosting safety within an institution. The institution has an effective monitoring system that limits access of particular areas allowing only authorized personnel. The security management team ensures control of access to the institution at the gate by recording visitors’ information. Moreover, the monitoring system comprises of card readers, visitor badges, and limited access to classes, offices, and other areas that hold critical information and property. Classes and offices are locked when not in use and security camera, motion sensors, security personnel, and alarm systems limit access to all prohibited areas during the night.
In the
development of a security system, the consideration of cost-effectiveness and
efficiency is fundamental. These factors must be considered in the upgrading
process. The strengths are identified from the consideration of the efficiency
of the various protective systems. Their efficiency and possibility of handling
security concerns show that there is no need for upgrading the areas. Financing
a project that is efficient enough would be a waste of capital that can be
invested in upgrading the weak areas. Directing the money towards the
development of areas of weakness will ensure improved efficiency of the system.
This will ensure effectiveness in dealing with security risks and managing them
efficiently. The efficiency of the system will reduce risks of attacks, theft, intrusion,
and loss of property and information. Most importantly, it will enhance the
safety of students and staff.
References
Fennelly, L. J. (2012). Effective physical security. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Fennelly, L. J., & Perry, M. A. (2014). The handbook for school safety and security : best practices and procedures. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Micheloni, C., Foresti, G. L., & Snidaro, L. (2005). A network of co-operative cameras for visual surveillance. IEE Proceedings – Vision, Image & Signal Processing, 152 (2), , 205-212.
Perry, M. A., & Fennelly, L. J. (2016). Physical security : 150 things you should know. Kidlington, United Kingdom: Butterworth-Heinemann – Elsevier.