SRA
311:
In
Class
Exercise
and
Homework
#2


Lecture
5,
Tuesday,
01/27/09



(Note:
The
following
example
was
adapted
from
Philip
P.
Purpura’s
book
entitled
Security
and
Loss
Prevention:
An

Introduction,
5th
Edition,
pp.
208­209,
Example
8E)



A
major
multinational
corporation
based
in
the
United
States
has
contracted
with
your
team
to
perform

a
security
risk
assessment
of
their
corporate
headquarters
located
in
a
medium‐sized
US
city.

Of
concern
is

the
security
of
the
corporation’s
people,
assets,
image,
and
information.

Upon
conducting
a
security
survey

of
the
headquarters
building,
your
team
made
the
following
observations:



A. The
building
contains
an
underground
garage
with
minimal
controls
(i.e.,
an
access
gate
opened
by
an

employee
access
card).



B. The
front
of
the
building
is
on
Main
Street,
close
to
the
street,
and
any
vehicles
can
park
at
the
front
of
the

street.

The
three
other
sides
of
the
building
contain
parking
lots
close
to
the
building
and
accessible

through
an
access
gate
opened
by
an
employee
access
card.



C. The
rear
lobby
of
the
building
is
at
ground
level
and
at
the
ending
point
of
a
straight
road
of
one‐eighth

mile
long.



D. In
the
last
12
months,
two
employees
were
robbed
at
night
outside
the
building
in
the
parking
lots.



E. Corporate
offices,
functions,
assets,
and
utilities
are
clearly
marked
by
signs
inside
and
outside
the

building.



F. Air
intakes
for
the
building
are
at
ground
level
at
the
rear
of
the
building.



G. Although
employees
use
a
card
key
to
access
the
building,
tailgating
is
a
problem.



H. A
minimum
number
of
security
officers
on
the
premises
results
in
gaps
in
security
and
at
access
points
as

they
are
called
off‐post
to
obtain
mail
and
conduct
other
errands.



I. Executive
staff
have
their
names
on
designated
parking
spaces.



J. Two
garbage
dumpsters
are
located
up
against
the
rear
of
the
building.



K. The
rear
of
the
building
faces
nearby
hills
containing
a
variety
of
buildings.



1.
Based
on
these
observations,
use
the
divergent/convergent
thinking
approach
to
identify
a
complete

set
of
plausible
security
events.

The
resulting
events
should
each
be
independent
and
with
clear
definition.


Use
this
set
of
events
to
construct
a
MECE
set
of
possibilities
using
the
hypothesis
generator
technique.



2.
Repeat
this
activity
for
the
range
of
plausible
outcomes
of
concern
to
the
decision
maker.

When

complete,
generate
a
complete
set
of
scenarios
(event/outcome
pairs)
and
use
your
judgment
to
rule
out

those
scenarios
that
don’t
make
any
sense
or
are
impractical.

Finally,
apply
generalization
/
specialization

approaches
to
arrive
at
a
manageable
number
of
scenarios
for
further
analysis.



A
group
report
showing
your
work
and
final
set
of
scenarios
is
due
in
class
on
Thursday,
05
Feb
2009.


Each
individual
group
member
must
also
submit
a
separate
one‐page
write‐up
documenting
what
he
or

she
learned
in
this
exercise
and
any
observations,
comments,
or
thoughts
on
the
process.