Daily we make use of analogies when explaining security and the Security Risk Assessment as this seems to aid in understanding. One such successful analogy is comparing this to the unique and complex game of 3 Man Chess or Triad chess. Traditionally chess involves a player having to defend his pawns from attack from one singular opponent. If logic and strategy are correctly applied and you are able to predict the moves of the other player, you will win the game. But when playing 3 Man Chess, the chances that a strike will be unexpected are all the greater because there is more than one unknown against you now. The third participant adds a new dimension to this already complicated game as several new unanticipated and open-ended intricacies are now possible.
This can be directly compared to dealing with the criminal who makes a volatile adversary, especially when he is determined and prepared. Furthermore he is actively involved in the crime game and will not be passive in his action. As crime is an unknown territory to us as ‘normal’ citizens, our ability to forecast our opponents’ next move is hindered and rage, mental instability, alcohol or military planning on the behalf of such individuals or groups, but to name a few determining factors, makes it even more likely that our predictions will not be accurate and therefore, our defenses ineffective. Without the correct insight our attempts at crime prevention will prove inane and in the case of the groups that have planned their attacked, all possible defense will be prepared for and counterattacked upon accordingly.
Most security systems fail in their purpose as there are simply not enough contingencies built into the original design to handle all these new variables. The element of surprise and the lack of effective planning by those the criminals intend to target; are used by them to their utmost advantage. This can very often be blamed directly on the Security Risk Assessment that has been conducted incorrectly. The findings and conclusion of the assessment can be inaccurate when the assessor has not carefully considered all extenuating factors or a point system was used and the outcome is actually more subjective as risk cannot be predefined into a low-to-high rating.
In this sense, the independent Security Risk Consultant is a “chess guru”. Years of experience and the ability to conduct reverse crime engineering when examining all the variables and influential factors of a property, provide the assessor the means to accurately determine and consequently the deflection of the variety of moves his opponents may make next, and into the future, even if there is now more than one challenger involved in this high stake game of crime.
Written by Andre Mundell