Contemporary Issues in Security Management

ContemporaryIssues in Security Management

Student’sname:

Identifya method of budgeting and differentiate its merits and deficiencies

Zero-basedbudgeting is a budgeting technique whereby each spending must bejustified for every budget cycle. In this case, when an organizationstarts a budget procedure, it has to begin from zero. Each departmentis required by the management to request for finances through adetailed plan depicting what each allotment of funds will be utilizedfor and what gains the firm will obtain from it. Zero-based budgetingrequires the company to estimate and validate their projected budgeteach period (Tilanus, 2012). Advantages of Zero-based budgetinginclude it results to efficient allotment of resources since it isbased on the needs and benefits. Also, it compels managers to developcost-effective approaches to enhance operations as well as boostingcommunication and coordination within the firm, as the employees worktogether to come up with a detailed budget plan. Additionally,zero-based budgeting determines and eradicates wasteful and outdatedoperations which translate to high productivity. Moreover it helpsthe organization to identify opportunities of outsourcing.

Onthe other hand, demerits of Zero-based budgeting includes thefollowing the process is time –consuming hence makes it difficultto identify the decision units and packages. This is because moremanagers are involved in the process thus introducing communicationchallenges. It adds up to the total costs of the organization in thattraining of the staff is mandatory for the process to be implementedsuccessfully. Also, difficulties may crop up in the determination ofappropriate performance procedures and prioritization measures(Tilanus, 2012).Additionally, inadequate information in some sectorsmakes ranking difficult.

Howto would defend the security department`s budget to upper management

Theworld of IT is transforming speedily such that the organizationsrequire the security department to perform a lot with a smallersecurity budget while at the same time expected to renovate theentire department. In return, the IT personnel needs to defend thesecurity department budget since as IT transforms, security variesand new perils emerge that they will be required to deal with. Hence,while supporting the budget, one needs to explain funds for thefollowing four aspects: Strong security standpoint, incident responsepreparations, C-level information security expert and lastly theconsultants to maintain data breach remediation. The budget shouldinclude the costs of having a reliable security standpoint as well asconsultants when required.

Dueto the advancement in technology, companies are at risk of crimessuch as cybercrime whereby malicious individuals are hacking thebusiness’s information. For this reason, the budget has to includecosts that defend the firm from these malicious acts to maintain itsreputation. Also, security budget is an analysis of comprehensivebill of resources that are required to execute the security program.These materials include individuals, equipment, training, maintenanceas well as cloud computing procedures like software. All theseelements fit into a category whereby it is either a capitalexpenditure or an operating expense such as individuals and theirwages. Additionally, in the process of defending to the topmanagement, security personnel needs to explain that the securitybegins with a baseline whereby there is a need to perform aninventory of all equipment, employees as well as the resources of theorganization which adds up to the security bills. Also, metrics haveto be applied to identify the number of events instigated against theorganization that was threats versus the various alerts and sensorsactions logged.

References

TilanusC. (2012) Quantitativemethods in budgeting,Springer Science &ampBusiness Media

Contemporary Issues in Security Management

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN SECURITY MANAGEMENT 1

Contemporary Issuesin Security Management

Instructor Name

Since the end of the civil war, the American government has beencontracting the private military corporations and private securitycompanies to undertake various security-related functions that weretraditionally reserved for the military. Notably, the PMCs and PSCshave proved to be efficient in providing various services togovernment officials in the war-torn countries such as Iraq. However,these companies have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted withcrucial government and military functions since they are largelylegally unaccountable and their loyalties lie with whoever isproviding more money.

The PMCs and PSCs are driven by profit, unlike the government forcesthat are motivated by the desire to serve their country. As such,whenever the PMCs and PSCs are confronted with a situation where theyhave to make a choice, they are more likely to take the option thatcomes with more money. If the PMCs and PSCs are entrusted withcrucial military and government functions, it is undeniable that theywill encounter confidential information that they are not supposed todisclose to any authorized person. However, these companies can tradesuch information with the enemies for profit. Besides, what if therelationship between these private security providers and thegovernment does not end well? If this happens, either the companiesor their employees may decide to trade the information in theirpossession with the enemy in exchange for money. Besides, thesecompanies can use this information to blackmail the government intoextending their contract or paying them a huge amount of money. Balla(2011) reports a case where an American Private military companynamed AEY secured a tender worth $298 million from Pentagon to supplythe American soldiers in Afghanistan with ammunitions. However, thecompany supplied faulty ammunitions that were more than 40 years-old(Balla, 2011). This is an example of how unscrupulous the PMCs andPSCs can get hence, they should not be trusted with criticalmilitary or government functions.

The PMCs and PSCs are largely legally unaccountable. It means thatpeople who work for these companies are not bound by the strictmilitary laws that forbid and punish certain malpractices. From theexperience of the PMCs and PMCs deployed in war-tone areas such asIraq, the personnel working for these companies have utter disrespectfor the law. One of the reasons these persons tend to disrespect thelaw is because there is no system of ensuring that their misconductsare punished(Stanger &amp Williams, 2011). Besides, it is usuallyhard for government investigators to get information from thesecompanies regarding the alleged disregard or abuse of the law bytheir employees leaving the courts with no evidence to prosecute thesuspects. On the other hand, the traditional government forces have away of punishing their errant officers who violate the military codeof ethics.

Besides, the PMCs and PSCs cannot be entrusted with the task ofhiring highly impeccable personnel to provide critical services tothe government and the military. According toStanger &amp Williams (2011), the domestic privatesecurity sector often employs inadequately screened and poorlytrained guard. As opposed to the private security provider, thegovernment entities conduct thorough background checks to ensure thatpeople with ill-motives do not get access to the country’s vitalinstallations. The poorly screened private security officers pose ahuge risk to the country because individuals such as terrorists caninfiltrate these companies with the sole reason of gaining access tothe critical military and government installations.

In conclusion, already the private military corporations and privatesecurity companies have demonstrated that although they are efficientin bridging the shortage of military personnel experienced by theministry of defense, they cannot be entrusted with vital military andgovernment installations. The use of these companies to providesecurity related services to critical governmental functions raisesmany security concerns. For example, they are motivated by profithence their allegiance is to the highest bidder. Besides, they oftendo not conduct a thorough screening when hiring their personnel.Lastly, it is hard to regulate these companies compared to thetraditional government forces that adhere to a strict military codeof ethics.

References

Balla, J.(2011). The Empowerment of Private Military Companies (PMCs) as aRisk for Illegal Weapons Trafficking in Albania.&nbspGlobalSecurity Studies,&nbsp2(3).

Stanger, A.,&amp Williams, M. E. (2011). Private military corporations: Benefitsand costs of outsourcing security.&nbspYaleJ. Int`l Aff.,&nbsp2,4.

Contemporary Issues in Security Management

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN SECURITY MANAGEMENT 1

Contemporary Issuesin Security Management

The United States has increasingly relied on private militarycorporations (PMCs) and private security companies (PSCs) toimplement its various security-related programs since the end of thecold war. According toStanger &amp William (2011), the ratio of U.S troops to privatecontractors in the first Gulf war was 50:1. However,this ratio has been decreasing steadily. For instance, during the2003 Irag war, the ratio was 10:1. This paper compares and contraststhe pros and cons of the use of PMCs and PSCs and their operations inconflict zones.

On the positive side, the rise of PMCs and PSCs has enabled the U.Sgovernment to bridge the shortage of personnel needed to providesecurity services in Iraq and other conflict zones. It is expensivefor the government to recruit, train and maintain enough soldiers toimplement all its domestic and international obligations. Accordingto Schreier &ampCaparini (2013), privatization and outsourcing helps inreducing public spending while increasing the efficiency of servicesdelivered. PMCs and PSCs ensure that the U.S government gets the bestvalue for each dollar it spends. The U.S Defense Science Board in1996 had projected that the DoD could be able to save $30 billionevery year through corroborating with the private security sector inthe provision of security services(Schreier &amp Caparini, 2013).

Apart from solving the issue of shortage of military personnel, theprivate security companies and the private military companies aremore flexible and more efficient compared to the regular armedforces. The PMC and PSC personnel are highly trained. The majorityof them are honorable military and law enforcement personnel. Assuch, they are able to deliver critical security services in anextremely hostile environment. Besides, it is relatively easy todeploy security persons working under the PMCs and PSCs compared tothe regular government soldiers due to the minimal consultationneeded. Additionally, the personnel employed by PMCs and PSCs servefor longer tours compared to the soldiers working under theDepartment of Defense(Stanger &amp William, 2011). Thus, the PMCs and PSCsare able to create continuity and enhance corporate knowledge of theenvironment.

Apart from the efficiency that comes with the deployment of PMCs andPSCs, the use of these companies ensures that the military is notdiverted from its core goal which is taking part in armed combat. Thedeployment of the military, particularly in non-combats operationsweakens its ability to address real security threats. Besides, theuse of PMCs and PSCs also save the government from the potentialpolitical cost related to sending its military to situations thathave little domestic support. In addition, the casualties sustainedby the military would have severe political consequences compared tothe injuries or deaths of the personnel working for PMCs and PMCs(Schreier &ampCaparini, 2013).

While deploying PMCs and PSCs has numerous benefits, there areseveral negative consequences associated with this move. First, thereis no way of proving the argument that the use of PMCs and PSCs iscost effective. According to Schreier&amp Caparini (2013), while the cost of hiring PMCsand PSCs contractors is extremely high during the war the amount paidto government soldiers is relatively constant throughout the year. Besides, the PSCs and PMCs are motivated by money as such it iscommon for most of them to overcharge their services.

Additionally, since the deployment of PMCs and PSCs in different warzone areas, there has been several cases of abuse of human rightsinvolving these companies. According toSchreier &amp Caparini (2013), with the advent of PMCsand PSCs, there exist a huge difference between professional armedpersonnel who perform their activities in formal allegiance to theircountry and private contractors who are motivated by money. Accordingto Stanger &ampWilliam (2011), PMCs and PSCs may be effective becausethey do not view themselves as bound to honor human rights as well asthe provisions of International Humanitarian Law.

Besides, as compared to the government forces, military contractorsare largely legally unaccountable. According toSchreier &amp Caparini (2013), personnel working forPMCs and PSCS are bound by the laws of the countries in which theyare deployed. However, in most countries where these companiesoperate in, their personnel enjoy immunity.

In conclusion, it is extremely hard for U.S Department of Defense totrain and deploy enough soldiers to offer various security- relatedservices to war-torn countries such as Iraq. It is this gap thatencouraged the rapid growth of the private security sector. The useof PMCs and PSCs has proved efficient in providing security-relatedservices in war-torn countries. This is because of the ability ofthese companies to mobilize their personnel very fast. On the otherhand, it is possible that these companies are efficient as a resultof their disrespect for the human rights. Additionally, in mostcases, these companies are legally unaccountable.

References

Schreier, F.,&amp Caparini, M. (2013).&nbspPrivatizingSecurity: Law, practice and governance of private military andsecurity companies&nbsp(p.4). Geneva: DCAF.

Stanger, A.,&amp Williams, M. E. (2011). Private military corporations: Benefitsand costs of outsourcing security.&nbspYaleJ. Int`l Aff.,&nbsp2,4.