The case for Total Security ManagementBy Peter A. Buxbaum, AJOTEver since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the transportation sector has become the focus of much of the debate over homeland security. In both the public policy and business sector alike, the discussion has revolved around what supply-chain security precautions are necessary, to what extent they should be mandatory, and who should pay for them. The importance of the perceived vulnerability of the US transportation system is a tribute to its massive proportions. Transportation represents 11% of the US gross domestic product and accounts for as many as 10 million jobs in the United States. Eight million truckloads of freight, 1.5 million railcars, and 25,000 containers move through the system each day. The economic impact of a prolonged disruption would be measured in the billions of dollars, at least. Current developments in security management are reminiscent of the quality movement a few years ago. Then, US manufacturers were puzzled over the relatively inferior quality of their goods compared to the Japanese, when they felt they had perfectly competent quality control organizations. As it turned out, consigning the responsibility for quality to a quality control department actually had a negative impact on product quality. Quality control’s job was to catch manufacturing defects after the fact. What was really needed was the injection of a quality mentality into the manufacturing process itself. Following the theory of Total Quality Management expounded by Dr. W. Edwards Deming, companies figured out that quality had to become embedded in all business operations, and not isolated in a separate quality function. When quality control evolved from a function confined to a vertical silo into a business process that pervaded the organization, the quality of manufactured goods improved. Now comes a book that purports to teach companies how to bake security into their every operation. Securing Global Transportation Networks: A Total Security Management Approach (New York, McGraw Hill, 2006), by Luke Ritter, J. Michael Barrett, and Rosalyn Wilson, uses case studies from retailers like Home Depot and carriers like FedEx to expound a security management philosophy called Total Security Management. The authors contend that, like TQM, companies that embrace TSM will manage security as a core business function. They argue that by applying TSM, companies can cut costs, improve business processes, reduce theft, enhance asset management, increase brand equity, and improve preparedness and resiliency. Security can be turned from a net cost into a net benefit by following this plan. Companies need reasons to spend on security, however, because unlike the rationale for quality improvement, security spending can legitimately be viewed as a public rather than a private cost. These cost and efficacy concerns are where the authors of Securing Global Transportation Networks step into the discussion. They acknowledge that security initiatives can fall prey to what economists term the “tragedy of the commons,” in which no one is willing to pay for measures that will benefit others. The authors borrow liberally from TQM to construct TSM. They describe TSM as “the business practice of developing and implementing comprehensive risk management and security best practices for a firm’s entire value chain. This includes an evaluation of suppliers, distribution channels, and internal policies and procedures in terms of preparedness for disruptive events such as terrorism, political upheaval, natural disasters and accidents.” A complex taskTo be effective, the authors continue, “total security involves everyone throughout your value chain.” Security is not an isolated function under TSM, they admonish, nor is it limited to employees. Vendors, suppliers, contractors, and anyone else who participates in a company’s supply chain, must be part of the process. Total Security Management, then, transcends the comp