One of the great challenges of the executive protection is to maintain a balance between operational effectiveness and the cost/benefit of its application. Private companies and large corporations continually seek to reduce costs; however, operating schemes often end up being mutilated and, therefore, ineffective.
We cannot save budget while increasing the risk to which the executive, whose security was entrusted to us, is exposed; but neither can we waste resources on operational schemes whose effectiveness is questionable.
The major problem of the executive protection The traditional approach, based on deterrence and reaction, was operationally and financially unsustainable. In general terms, to deter anything more than a common street assailant, in the traditional scheme, at least two armed escorts were required, which implied, apart from the main vehicle, an escort vehicle and two more drivers, one for the main unit and one for the patrol; four agents in total, minimum. If we calculate only the cost of the salaries, the weapons and the depreciation of the patrol, going by a relatively viable minimum price (not counting the value of the main vehicle), the annual cost of this scheme, roughly speaking, would exceed two million Mexican pesos (approximately 100,000 U.S. dollars), not counting Christmas bonuses, expenses for various equipment, uniforms, communications, training and education, registration of the elements before the respective authorities, the profits of the security company (if they were hired through one), severance payments and liquidations (if personnel turnover is generated), control center, GPS, etcetera.
We see that this is an extremely high cost, but if we add to this the fact that such a working system, based on reaction and deterrence, according to studies, is only 5 % effective in real conditions, it becomes clear that the cost/benefit of this scheme simply does not exist.
Fortunately, the executive protection The modern system, based on intelligence, counter-surveillance and early warning, is much more effective and economical, since, for the equivalent of the case mentioned above, only an executive driver and an early warning agent on a motorcycle would be needed, while the intelligence and periodic counter-surveillance tasks would be entrusted to specialized companies without generating fixed costs. The whole scheme would cost only half the amount budgeted in the traditional scheme mentioned above and, in addition, has the advantage of being able to deactivate possible attacks long before they occur, without exposing the executive to the risks involved in the reaction, providing, in turn, a discreet service that also takes care of the organization's image and reduces the executive's exposure to risk.
Some might say that it would still be cheaper to have only one driver escort; however, there is a broad consensus among experts that a single driver, no matter how skilled, cannot reduce risks to a desired level for this concept to be called executive protection. This was sadly demonstrated by the murder of Mexican businessman Martin Rodriguez in January of last year.
It is for this reason that the concept of executive protection The modern system, based on the early detection of threats and the reduction of the executive's exposure to risk, is operationally much more effective than the traditional system, much more economical and, also, safer for both the protected and the protectors.