Re-Evaluating Current Security Policies and Procedures
From time to time, it’s a good idea to ‘change it up’ and let some fresh air into the room. One trusted advisor’s insights may not match another’s to the letter and that’s the point of the ensuing discussion: analysis and revisions can yield enormous value to the organization.
With some variation of this logic in mind, one of the most prominent sports organizations in the U.S. decided it was time to evaluate the security policies and procedures they recommended that each of their member’s organizations employ to ensure the safety of its fans, staff and players as well as the protection of its mass-gathering facilities across the country. But instead of asking the company who authored the document to update it, the organization sought out Hillard Heintze – asking the firm to conduct an independent and objective assessment of the guidelines along with recommendations, where appropriate, on making them even better.
Strengths and Areas for Improvement
Hillard Heintze conducted an independent, high-level overview of the policies and procedures and crafted a formal Statement of Findings – supported by a 100-page detailed report – about (1) their effectiveness, accuracy and completeness; (2) where they do and do not align with industry best practices; and (3) the specific areas, capabilities and practices where a prioritized approach to changes and improvements should be considered and undertaken by the multi-member organization.
Implementing Best Practices
Armed with a fresh perspective and a detailed documentation of constructive advice comparing current practices with those in similar professional sports organizations, the client also gained something else: validation that the policies on the whole – once they’ve been improved – will represent an exceptionally strong and effective foundation of mandatory and recommended security directives to the organization’s members.
UNPLUGGED: The Project Manager’s Post-Engagement Perspective
“Supporting this client on this matter didn’t take a disproportionate amount of time. And consequently the fees we charged were very reasonable.
I have to commend this Director of Security for his progressive approach. Most organizations do the opposite; they build out capabilities according to the best insights available at the time, and then – in an effort to save costs – fail to keep up with a constantly changing portfolio of risks, threats and best practices.
Until something happens. And they realize that the threats they were reasonably well prepared to address have long been replaced by more significant factors – threats that have already inflicted consequences that were cost-effectively avoidable – if leadership foresight had prevailed.”