Tweet
I wonder how many have read the article "compiled" by Bill Zalud in the November issue of Security Magazine entitled "Security Officers as a Business Strategy" (pp 79-83). I have no previous experience of "compilation" as a means of creating a magazine article (as opposed to a monograph), but I suppose the fact that the article was "compiled", rather than "written by" by Mr. Zalud, is supposed to immunize him from criticism for publishing something that isn't worth the paper it's written on. I certainly don't blame him for what appears to be a certain reluctance to take full credit for this piece of...whatever.
The article purports to examine, among other questions, the pros and cons of "contract" versus "in-house" security. Turning immediately to the last page to note the "sources" from which the article was "compiled", we might be excused for objecting that the sources were all representatives of contract security firms - AlliedBarton (King of Prussia, PA), Day & Zimmerman (Philadelphia, PA), and Vigilos (Seattle, WA). Also quoted in the article but not listed at the end is a representative from Garda. I don't know why he's not a "source", but apparently he hasn't risen to those dizzying heights.
Being "compiled" does not mean that Mr. Zalud did not write any part of the article - presumably he wrote the text that "glues together" the comments of the "contributors". Nevertheless, as the piece is written in a format that only loosely attributes text to contributors, it is indeed very difficult to know who says what. Mr. Zalud seems to be the conductor who keeps the Bias Express on schedule, hitting all of the "stations" right on time.
The article is so slanted toward contracting, and so rife with unsupported and questionable assertions about the benefits of contracting, that it is not worthy of this or any periodical except those published by Marvel Comics. Indeed, it is nothing but an advertisement for contract services overlaid by a paper-thin veneer of "objectivity" in the form of raising, and then promptly knocking down, some of the very real problems and legitimate objections that many professionals in our industry have regarding contract security services. The "sources" apparently knew very well that they couldn't simply ignore these problems in the article, so they did the next best thing and trivialized them. For his part, Mr. Zalud simply stands by in silence while the truth is being mugged.
Example: "In addition, switching to contract security does not mean losing your well-established security force. Contract companies generally retain as many of the qualified existing staff members as the client desires."
Really? Who knew? If I had a $thousand lying around looking for something to do, I'd hold a contest and solicit essays from members of this forum in reply to everything that is wrong with the above-noted nonsense (I considered using an earthier term, derived from the equine community, rather than "nonsense" but thought better of it).
For starters, there is no evidence of the baseline truth of this statement, and I suspect there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Second, there is no mention made of the fact that in most cases the new vendor will usually attempt to "absorb" your proprietary officers at lower pay and with fewer benefits than they have been receiving (if any at all), and because of this the vendor will often fail to absorb them. Your officers will simply move on to other comparable positions if available, and in some cases they will leave the industry altogether. Those who DO accept the vendor's terms for want of a better alternative are often bitter and resentful at finding themselves in reduced financial circumstances while being asked to perform the same work they had performed previously.
Example: "In most cases, the cost of an outsourced security program is comparable to a company's in-house budget. However, the expertise, training resources and experience a contract security firm provides is an invaluable benefit."
<Cough!>....Unfortunately, I don't have the second $thousand to host this contest for member essays, either, which is too bad because it would be a doozy.
...and it gets worse as the article goes on to "examine" the "armed versus unarmed question". At some point, it just becomes too much. Well before reaching the final line of the article, the reader will find that reference to excrement - either equine or bovine - becomes virtually unavoidable. We are only human after all, Mr. Zalud, and faithful readers of your magazine deserve better than this. Much better.
The article purports to examine, among other questions, the pros and cons of "contract" versus "in-house" security. Turning immediately to the last page to note the "sources" from which the article was "compiled", we might be excused for objecting that the sources were all representatives of contract security firms - AlliedBarton (King of Prussia, PA), Day & Zimmerman (Philadelphia, PA), and Vigilos (Seattle, WA). Also quoted in the article but not listed at the end is a representative from Garda. I don't know why he's not a "source", but apparently he hasn't risen to those dizzying heights.
Being "compiled" does not mean that Mr. Zalud did not write any part of the article - presumably he wrote the text that "glues together" the comments of the "contributors". Nevertheless, as the piece is written in a format that only loosely attributes text to contributors, it is indeed very difficult to know who says what. Mr. Zalud seems to be the conductor who keeps the Bias Express on schedule, hitting all of the "stations" right on time.
The article is so slanted toward contracting, and so rife with unsupported and questionable assertions about the benefits of contracting, that it is not worthy of this or any periodical except those published by Marvel Comics. Indeed, it is nothing but an advertisement for contract services overlaid by a paper-thin veneer of "objectivity" in the form of raising, and then promptly knocking down, some of the very real problems and legitimate objections that many professionals in our industry have regarding contract security services. The "sources" apparently knew very well that they couldn't simply ignore these problems in the article, so they did the next best thing and trivialized them. For his part, Mr. Zalud simply stands by in silence while the truth is being mugged.
Example: "In addition, switching to contract security does not mean losing your well-established security force. Contract companies generally retain as many of the qualified existing staff members as the client desires."
Really? Who knew? If I had a $thousand lying around looking for something to do, I'd hold a contest and solicit essays from members of this forum in reply to everything that is wrong with the above-noted nonsense (I considered using an earthier term, derived from the equine community, rather than "nonsense" but thought better of it).
For starters, there is no evidence of the baseline truth of this statement, and I suspect there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Second, there is no mention made of the fact that in most cases the new vendor will usually attempt to "absorb" your proprietary officers at lower pay and with fewer benefits than they have been receiving (if any at all), and because of this the vendor will often fail to absorb them. Your officers will simply move on to other comparable positions if available, and in some cases they will leave the industry altogether. Those who DO accept the vendor's terms for want of a better alternative are often bitter and resentful at finding themselves in reduced financial circumstances while being asked to perform the same work they had performed previously.
Example: "In most cases, the cost of an outsourced security program is comparable to a company's in-house budget. However, the expertise, training resources and experience a contract security firm provides is an invaluable benefit."
<Cough!>....Unfortunately, I don't have the second $thousand to host this contest for member essays, either, which is too bad because it would be a doozy.
...and it gets worse as the article goes on to "examine" the "armed versus unarmed question". At some point, it just becomes too much. Well before reaching the final line of the article, the reader will find that reference to excrement - either equine or bovine - becomes virtually unavoidable. We are only human after all, Mr. Zalud, and faithful readers of your magazine deserve better than this. Much better.
Comment