A college professor tasked a group of students to investigate and improve the jury deliberation process. The students interviewed several stakeholders and discovered that the shape of the table in the jury room had an impact. In courtrooms where there was a rectangular table, the juror sitting at the head of the table often dominated the conversation. As a result, some jurors did not share their view openly, and a verdict was reached quickly.

The students concluded it was those juries with round tables that came to the most accurate and just verdicts as all jurors participated openly and shared their views. The students were excited about their finding. They believed that they had discovered a way to improve the justice system; it was also an easy thing to change. Upon sharing their feedback with the judge, the judge ordered that all jury room tables be changed to rectangular tables. The students were shocked. Afterall, round tables lead to more robust decision making, not rectangular tables.

When the judge said that he wanted to improve the jury deliberation process, he meant that he wanted to reduce the time it takes a jury to reach a decision. The students understood improving the process to mean ensuring a more robust and fair process. The objectives of the task were thus not clear to all stakeholders upfront.

A security solution, program, or project cannot be everything to everyone in an organisation. It is imperative for the scope and objectives of any security initiative to be defined and communicated upfront. Failing to define the scope and objectives upfront could result in the perception that security initiatives are not adding value.