Case Study Charles Dillon has just been hired by Resources Unlimited, a moderately critical manufacturing facility that produces various military products. To familiarize himself with the facility layout and its physical safeguards, Dillon takes note of several security deficiencies: collapsed mesh at several points in the outer perimeter fence; burnt out security lights; and an inoperable CCTV system. Dillon reports the issue to his boss, the chief operating officer (COO). The COO is not overly concerned but assures Dillon he will discuss the issue with the chief financial officer (CFO) to see if funds can be acquired to correct the deficiencies outlined by Dillon. A week later, the COO informs Dillon that the CFO said the matter was nothing to be concerned about. Both the COO and the CFO agreed the deficiencies had existed a long time before Dillon had been hired, and nothing negative had happened. Dillon was not happy with the decision, and to avoid being the scapegoat should the deficiencies result in a serious security breach, he sent a memo to the COO and the CFO to “routinely inform them of problems with a potential for loss.” The COO chewed out Dillon for not being a “team player” and added that the CFO was not happy as well. While reading the company’s security policy, Dillon was pleased to see in the policy a requirement for the CSO to conduct a thorough security inspection at least once annually or when circumstances dictated the need for such an inspection. The inspection report had to be routed to the executive team, which included the COO, CFO and the chief executive officer (CEO), who happened to be the owner of the company. Dillon conducted the inspection along with an outside consultant with expertise in physical security. In addition to the deficiencies already discovered, Dillon and the consultant found a prior refusal by the CFO to provide funds for the purchase of needed security equipment, such as walkie-talkies, and supplies for administering first aid; a defective fire alarm system; a tool crib that allowed plant workers to remove any tool they wanted without accountability; and the absence, during non-working hours, of locking devices on entry points to the company’s manufacturing plant, a condition that provided opportunities for theft of products and tools and sabotage of critical machinery. The consultant pointed out an interesting condition: a path formed by feet led from the rear of the plant, traversed through a collapsed portion of the perimeter fence, and ended in the employee parking lot. Dillon obtained from security files and files of the plant manager a steady increase in the number of items and materials disappearing from the plant. The missing property consisted mainly of hand tools and copper wiring. Over a period of five years, the value of the loss had tripled. Dillon composed an inspection report that called for the acquisition of physical security safeguards that even the consultant thought w.

1. Case Study
Charles Dillon has just been hired by Resources Unlimited, a
moderately critical manufacturing facility that produces various
military products. To familiarize himself with the facility layout
and its physical safeguards, Dillon takes note of several security
deficiencies: collapsed mesh at several points in the outer
perimeter fence; burnt out security lights; and an inoperable
CCTV system.
Dillon reports the issue to his boss, the chief operating officer
(COO). The COO is not overly concerned but assures Dillon he
will discuss the issue with the chief financial officer (CFO) to
see if funds can be acquired to correct the deficiencies outlined
by Dillon.
A week later, the COO informs Dillon that the CFO said the
matter was nothing to be concerned about. Both the COO and
the CFO agreed the deficiencies had existed a long time before
Dillon had been hired, and nothing negative had happened.
Dillon was not happy with the decision, and to avoid being the
scapegoat should the deficiencies result in a serious security
breach, he sent a memo to the COO and the CFO to “routinely
inform them of problems with a potential for loss.” The COO
chewed out Dillon for not being a “team player” and added that
the CFO was not happy as well.
While reading the company’s security policy, Dillon was
pleased to see in the policy a requirement for the CSO to
conduct a thorough security inspection at least once annually or
when circumstances dictated the need for such an inspection.
The inspection report had to be routed to the executive team,
which included the COO, CFO and the chief executive officer
(CEO), who happened to be the owner of the company.

2. Dillon conducted the inspection along with an outside
consultant with expertise in physical security. In addition to the
deficiencies already discovered, Dillon and the consultant found
a prior refusal by the CFO to provide funds for the purchase of
needed security equipment, such as walkie-talkies, and supplies
for administering first aid; a defective fire alarm system; a tool
crib that allowed plant workers to remove any tool they wanted
without accountability; and the absence, during non-working
hours, of locking devices on entry points to the company’s
manufacturing plant, a condition that provided opportunities for
theft of products and tools and sabotage of critical machinery.
The consultant pointed out an interesting condition: a path
formed by feet led from the rear of the plant, traversed through
a collapsed portion of the perimeter fence, and ended in the
employee parking lot. Dillon obtained from security files and
files of the plant manager a steady increase in the number of
items and materials disappearing from the plant. The missing
property consisted mainly of hand tools and copper wiring. Over
a period of five years, the value of the loss had tripled.
Dillon composed an inspection report that called for the
acquisition of physical security safeguards that even the
consultant thought was overkill. The safeguards Dillon
recommended included an entirely new perimeter fence; new
security light poles and lamps along the entire fence line and in
the employee parking lot; a new CCTV system; an electronic
access control system; a fire detection and suppression system;
above-ground and below-ground sensors on both sides of the
perimeter fence; two golf carts for exterior patrolling; an
employee to control tools leaving the tool crib; six more guards;
and a formal guard training program.
When the inspection report reached the CEO, Dillon was invited
to a meeting with the CEO, the COO and the CFO. The COO
denigrated the recommendations because he believed they would

3. negatively impact productivity. The CFO said the cost of
implementing the recommendations would negatively impact the
bottom line.
The CEO, however, was more concerned with the losses. He
suspected that Dillon was trying to make a point and that some
of the recommended safeguards was needed but much of it not
needed. The CEO was also upset that the COO was unaware of
losses at the plant and that the CFO was approving tool
purchases without considering why the purchases were
necessary. The CEO concluded the meeting by saying he would
seriously consider the report and make a decision.
To the student: Did Dillon make a mistake by overstating what
was really needed to correct the deficiencies? What do you
think will happen to Dillon and/or his job? What do you think
the CEO will do? Why did Dillon bring in an outside expert to
assist the inspection?