One of the basic facility or ability of a system seems to be it’s ability to provide security to their human asset. These human assets could be in the form of employees, contractors or students to mention a few possibilities. When the security of this asset is compromised, it could be understood as a loophole within the system that could allow a breach in the system that surrounds the asset. This loophole could also be understood with an example of a jacket worn by an individual having a large perforation that does not protect the individual from the cold of the surrounding winter environment. Now, pointing finger at external sources like the weather or the time when the individual is out in the cold could be a futile activity, as the actual issue of focus seems to be the jacket and maybe the individual’s inability to buy/repair/REALIZE the hole in the jacket.
One of the issues in hand could be how do we realize that there is a hole in the jacket? This might be one of the primary tasks. Every institution might have their ways to secure their environment. All processes and signs could have a shelf life. They might become ineffective after a specific time frame or even after a specific incident that might be within the facility or anywhere outside. It could be said that a system requires a check for it’s effectiveness, as the parameters are always developed by individuals. The effectiveness of a process could be considered secure until the individual responsible for developing the process might be relevant. For example, if we make a castle with a pack of playing cards and the bottom most card falls, the whole castle becomes unstable.
Do we check regularly, but what do we check for? Also, what parameters could we consider while making checks. Every system has signs and stickers on their entrance with restrictions. Is it possible that the signs might be effective in some places while they just might be ignored in other systems. The biggest question or task might be the ability of a system to develop a systematic plan towards a safe value-based culture that stands for an equilibrium promoting a balance within the environment of the system and its surroundings.
Secondly, it feels difficult to understand how a teenager could reach a level of emotional distress where they could even consider an act of picking up a gun and further take it to a level of shooting others. There are so many teenagers around us. Is it so difficult to understand the emotional state of a teenager within a system that is focused specifically for their development having so many resources around them to access. Is something stopping them from accessing these resources? Have they lost hope in the process of taking support to improve their emotional well-being. It seems possible to flip the coin and say that whenever an individual comes in contact with a discipline related issue, they are themselves calling to the system for help. The question is how do we help them?
Third issue seems to be the ability of an individual to access weapons. It could be impossible to restrict every distressed individual from gun access in any community. So, do we keep living with the fact that individuals might be looking at guns as a way to release their emotional distress and do nothing about the accessibility of weapons in our society. If the environment that provides an individual with the ability to think maturely towards a weapon fails, what could be considered an appropriate solution for the task can be a good decision to implement.
It is said that an organization can be compared to a machine or organism. There could be many more analogies to it. It might be the organization’s management that promote the environment they foresee for their system. The task could be to formalize a way to develop an environment that restricts any loophole capable of interfering with the system’s capability to secure their assets and identify the part within the machine or organism that requires repair, medicine or oiling to ensure their safe, efficient and secure operation.