That prevention is almost always cheaper than reaction is an old-time proverb in the security world. Responding to an event means that our business, property or personnel was already negatively affected. In sum, damage has occurred. But why many years of constant preparation and prevention, which naturally carries, sometimes significant cost can be considered still less expensive than occasionally or once in a lifetime responding to an event?
Both the macro and micro level of security is built on the assumption that prevention is cost efficient compared to a scenario which requires response.
Our modern global security rests on this belief, even though, since the end of the Cold War, heads of states refrain from using expressions such as Mutually Assured Destruction. MAD is about an expensive prevention vs. an even more costly response. MAD is in fact still the guarantee of world peace, should we consider the conflict between India and Pakistan, Israel and its neighbours, or the US/NATO-Russia relationship.
On micro level, whether we talk about our office, home, or personal security, investing in preventive measures still benefits us than spending on response. Insurance companies would not exist if this was not true, they simply would not have any client. In the business world, making the right decision without the proper intelligence could be disastrous. Would any rational decision-maker purchase a business without knowing what he/she gets for the money? Would you hire a finance director without proper vetting? Would you hire a babysitter and trust her with your infant’s life without checking her first?
Prevention costs time, energy and money, but when disaster strikes it can still be the easy way out. How can you compare expenses with human life, ruined business, burned down homes? You cannot – simply the latter ones exceed the first.
