Three Thefts, One Guard, and a Principal Who Wants Someone Punished
Over six weeks, three separate thefts have been reported at a government higher secondary school in a district town: about 40 m of copper earthing strip from the pump house, two ceiling fans from a classroom, and cash from the accounts clerk's drawer. The total loss is modest, but staff confidence is falling and the principal wants the night guard 'punished and replaced'. The school has one main gate, a boundary wall with two unfenced gaps behind the toilet block, a single night guard on a 12-hour shift with no relief, six CCTV cameras of which three have been non-functional since the monsoon, and no key register - the pump house padlock key is held informally by three different people. The annual security budget is INR 60,000, already half spent on the guard's contract. The district education office has asked for a written note explaining what will change. You are the security in-charge.
1. Break the three incidents into the control failures they actually point to, and state which single change would touch the most incidents. Show your reasoning, not a list of controls.
Read the worked answer
Work backwards from what the thief had to do, not from what was taken.
- Copper earthing strip, pump house. Needs entry to a locked structure, 20-30 minutes of uninterrupted work, and a route out through or over the boundary. Points to key accountability plus perimeter and exit control. Three informal keyholders mean the padlock proves nothing about who was there.
- Two ceiling fans. Needs entry to a room and carriage of a bulky object to the boundary. Points to the two unfenced gaps behind the toilet block and to the absence of any exit check - a fan is not pocketable.
- Cash from the clerk's drawer. Needs a few seconds inside the office during working hours. This is a cash-custody and internal-control problem, not a perimeter problem. A guard at the gate cannot prevent it, and no gate control will.
So two of the three are failures of who may be where; one is a failure of cash custody. The single change touching most incidents is restoring key control - one register, one custodian, rekeyed padlocks - because it costs almost nothing, it is auditable, and it converts the pump house from 'accessible to three people' to 'traceable to one'. It does nothing for the drawer, and pretending otherwise is exactly how a guard gets blamed for a management failure.
2. Rank the three most defensible interventions for roughly INR 30,000 and say what you would deliberately not spend on.
Read the worked answer
Order by the deny-detect-respond sequence, because detection without a response is theatre.
- Key register, single custodian, rekeyed padlocks (about INR 3,000). Highest risk reduction per rupee in the whole note; it is preventive, permanent and auditable.
- Close the two boundary gaps with brick or chain-link and a thorn hedge (about INR 10,000-12,000). This denies the exit route the fan thief almost certainly used.
- Repair only the cameras covering the rear gap and the pump house door (one technician visit plus a DVR drive). Full restoration of all three dead cameras can wait, because a camera on a gap anyone can walk around is decoration.
Deliberately not spending on: replacing the guard (costs money, changes no control); more cameras before the gaps are closed; a biometric system for six staff. Pair the repaired camera with a rule that the guard's hourly round includes the rear gap and is signed in a log, otherwise the camera only records a crime after it happens.
3. The principal wants the night guard replaced. Advise, in writing, what you recommend.
Read the worked answer
Separate the man's performance from the system he was put in.
- There are no written post orders, no round log and no key register, so the guard has never been held to a stated standard. Replacing him transfers the same undefined job to a stranger.
- The shift itself produces failure. Twelve hours solo, no relief, no supervisor visit, three dead cameras: attention decay is the predictable result, not a character flaw.
- But neglect may also be real - sleeping, absence, or letting people in. Only a round log or an unannounced check can establish that; suspicion cannot.
Recommend a 30-day performance plan: written post orders signed by the guard, an hourly round with a checkpoint at the rear gap and pump house, a fortnightly unannounced supervisor visit at 02:00, a relief guard for the meal break. If compliance still fails, then act on documented grounds. Record the reasoned decision to the district office so the note shows judgement rather than blame.