no one will use it if it [...] is unnecessarily
difficult to work with
In some aspects of security, you can trade off inconvenience for cost, instead of trading off against security.
For example, imagine an office with a security gate, but it takes a few days for new employees to be issued with a working gate pass.
One way to reduce that inconvenience would be to trade off security, by having staff members buzz strangers in if they know the magic words "I just started, my pass hasn't arrived yet".
An alternative way would be to trade off cost, by having while-you-wait gate pass printing, and every gate having a guard who can check an online employee directory before buzzing someone in without a pass.
I feel a lot of people say "Security is a trade-off with convenience" when they actually mean "Security is a trade-off with convenience and spending, but we've already taken spending off the table"
There is another option here. Have security passes issued promptly. It's possible, I've worked at a bank where it took all of 5 minutes. (Not that I disagree with the general point, just the example)
I had a meeting at a major UK broadcaster in London the other day. Arriving at reception I had my photo taken, a visitor pass printed, and put in a pass with a guest RFID enabled card, and to top it all a voucher for a free cup of coffee from the canteen.
No reason that such a system can't be done for the first week or so, even if you don't want to have the facility to print permanent cards in every office.
That's what I meant by "having while-you-wait gate pass printing" :)
A guard can still be useful to let in people who've forgotten their pass or left it at their desk, or whose pass has broken, or who have come from a different office, or who've got their hands full carrying things; and to deal with people without passes like contractors, interviewees, and other visitors; and to tell off people who tailgate now there aren't any good reasons to do so.
You’re getting downvoted because of being flippant but you are right, by definition there exists a trade off between cost and any feature. It’s the least interesting trade off: if want more X it will cost more. There also is a trade off between any two features mediated by cost, if I spend more on X, then I can’t spend as much on Y. What are more interesting are inherent trade offs. Like the famous trade off between security and liberty seems to not just be mediated by cost.
For example, imagine an office with a security gate, but it takes a few days for new employees to be issued with a working gate pass.
One way to reduce that inconvenience would be to trade off security, by having staff members buzz strangers in if they know the magic words "I just started, my pass hasn't arrived yet".
An alternative way would be to trade off cost, by having while-you-wait gate pass printing, and every gate having a guard who can check an online employee directory before buzzing someone in without a pass.
I feel a lot of people say "Security is a trade-off with convenience" when they actually mean "Security is a trade-off with convenience and spending, but we've already taken spending off the table"