The Difference between Acceptable and Exceptional TAPA Security Management Systems
The basic difference between an acceptable and an exceptional TAPA security management system is about 5 percent more effort invested in the design, implementation, maintenance and control of a TAPA security management system.
The first objective of any company that desires to achieve TAPA certification is the initial security system design, documentation, implementation and review of the system, training of personnel and drivers, and maintenance and monitoring of the security system to ensure that it meets the minimum standards according to the TAPA requirements.
Remember: The TAPA standard is considered a minimum level of security.
After certification there are plenty of continual improvement opportunities to advance your TAPA security management system from the acceptable to the exceptional without any extravagant expenditures.
There are certainly improvements that can be implemented to administer your TAPA security system that do not involve any additional costs. Processes can be strengthened and evidence of compliance better documented. Internal and external training, the optimization of camera use, purchase of clear trash bags as opposed to blue, and other changes to the documented procedures will help ensure that the TAPA security program continues to mature and provide increased security benefits to the certified company.
The Danger of Literal Interpretations
TAPA certified companies need to continually evaluate their security system to ensure that it is effective in the achievement of its stated security goals.
Minor security system optimization may greatly contribute to reducing the possibility or likelihood of real world security threats.
The most important suggestion is to think outside the box and don’t implement and limit security features based on literal interpretations of the TAPA audit checklist.
Unfortunately, the requirements change every three years with the update and revision of the standards.
In the past, anti-ram posts or an alternative physical barrier was required for ground level ramp doors. The 2020 version of the FSR says, “For ground level accessible windows or dock doors, the annual risk assessment must evaluate the need for anti-ram barriers”.
Is the evaluation of the need for anti-ram barriers the intent of the requirement?
Or is the intent of the requirement that companies install anti-ram barriers… or other type physical barriers behind the ramp door that will hinder entrance to the warehouse by driving a vehicle into the ground level ramp door?
One solution is to install a simple metal bar across the ground level dock door when closed. Another is to park forklifts or other vehicles behind the closed ground level dock door.
In this case, the risk assessment will identify the risk and document the mitigation measures implemented in lieu of the more expensive anti-ram barriers.