The FSO / SMO Relationship



By: Jeffrey W. Bennett, SAPPC, SFPC, ISOC, ISP  

Today, we delve into an often overlooked yet crucial aspect of corporate security programs: the dynamics between the Senior Management Official (SMO) and the Facility Security Officer (FSO). This topic is an extremely important part of the FSO's professional development. This relationship is vital for maintaining not just basic security compliance but achieving greater recognition and trust from agencies like the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). As presented, there is a substantial opportunity for organizations to enhance their security posture by nurturing this professional relationship.

Understanding the Roles

The FSO is tasked with executing a cleared facility's security program, ensuring policies, procedures, and programs are in place to manage and protect classified information. Conversely, the SMO, a key management person, oversees the broader security compliance and isn't just a figurehead; they're integral to the organization’s security program. Due to the absence of formal training for SMOs, they often depend on FSOs to guide them in understanding their responsibilities better.

Challenges in the SMO-FSO Relationship

One of the primary challenges discussed is the potential lack of a structured relationship between the SMO and FSO. Whether due to organizational growth or unclear role definitions, this gap can impede the organization’s ability to protect classified information effectively. In larger organizations, the communication line is often unnecessarily complicated, with multiple layers between an FSO and SMO, weakening the security framework.

Improving the SMO-FSO Dynamic

  1. Direct Communication: Ensure there is a direct communication line between the FSO and SMO. This reduces miscommunication and fosters trust and accountability, directly impacting the organization's security posture.
  2. Training and Accountability: Even without formal training programs for SMOs, organizations must ensure that these officials understand their roles. FSOs play a pivotal role in providing on-the-job training and sharing resources like NIST compliance guides.
  3. Inclusive Organizational Structure: Reevaluate the organizational chart to ensure that FSOs and IPSOs are not isolated from key management personnel. Their inclusion in strategic discussions not only empowers these officers but also reinforces the importance of security at all organizational levels.
  4. Engagement in Security Measures: Active participation of the SMO in security reviews and self-inspection processes can drastically improve outcomes. Their involvement should extend beyond oversight to active participation in crafting policies, engaging in threat management, and aligning with DCSA's expectations.

Conclusion

As companies aim to strengthen their security compliance, the synergy between the SMO and FSO becomes pivotal. By ensuring proactive engagement and enhancing communication pathways, organizations can transform a compliant security program into an exemplary one. This strategic focus will not only meet the contractual obligations but can also lead to commendable ratings when reviewed by agencies like DCSA.

Stay tuned for our next insight-filled podcast, where we’ll be joined by a subject matter expert to explore practical strategies that can bridge gaps in organizational structures and strengthen SMO-FSO relationships even further. Until then, consider revisiting your organization's current setup and identifying how these recommendations might be implemented to elevate your security practices.

For questions about NISPOM organization structure, KMP, SMO or FSO relationships, visit https://www.thriveanalysis.com/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Appointing the Threat Program Senior Official (ITPSO)

Image
This article continues the series covering the Self-Inspection Handbook For NISP Contractors and guidance found in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) Incorporating Change 2 .   Since the NISPOM update adds to requirements, there is now a sixth element to the “Elements of Inspection” that are common to ALL cleared companies participating in the National Industrial Security Program (NISP).   As mentioned in the first article in the series, all should be incorporated into your customized self-inspection check list: (A) Facility Security Clearance (FCL), (B) Access Authorizations, (C) Security Education, (D) FOCI, (E) Classification, and (Y) Insider Threat . Question: Has the company appointed a U.S. citizen employee, who is a senior official, as a key management personnel (KMP) who will serve as the Insider Threat Program Senior Official (ITPSO)? NISPOM Reference: 1-202b, 1-202c, 2-104   1-202b. The contractor ...
Read more

How Contractors Get Facility Security Clearances

Having a Facility Clearance (FCL) makes a business attractive, but that desire does not provide the needed justification for obtaining a security clearance. The FCL is strictly contract based and demonstrates an enterprise’s trustworthiness. A company is eligible for a facility security clearance after the award of a classified contract. The FCL is a result of a lengthy investigation and the subsequent government’s determination that a company is eligible to have access to classified information. A company can bid on a classified contract without possessing a facility clearance, but is sponsored for a clearance after the contract is awarded. The interested company cannot simply request its own FCL, but must be sponsored by the Government Contracting Activity (GCA) or a prime contractor. Once the need to conduct classified work is determined, the next requirements are administrative. The company has to submit proof that they are structured and a legal entity under the laws of th...
Read more

Protecting CUI on work Computers

Image
It’s a common practice to allow employees to use enterprise computers outside of the enterprise. This has become more common where employees are increasingly working at home. Though a common practice, these occurrences are not always best practices. Anytime an employee leaves work with a company computer, the expectation is that all information is vulnerable. Malware, ransom ware “supply chain attacks”, hacking and other threats are prevalent. In many cases this can be controlled through applying NIST standards and strong cybersecurity measures. This article will focus on limiting use of loaned laptops and not on technical cybersecurity application. The organization should assign a strong risk assessment based on use prior to assigning company computers for at home use. This risk assessment should limit the information to be provided and for specific purposes. For example, if a user works on a specific project, then the laptop might only contain information for that specific use. The l...
Read more