RiskUKAugust2017

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Advertisement Feature Reaping the Benefits of Full Security Integration The widespread use of truly integrated systems is one of the most important developments in the security sector for decades. With a heavy reliance on software, using open systems has gone from being a desirable selling point to a necessity in only a few years, writes John Davies John Davies: Managing Director of TDSi As well as the obvious security advantages, there’s potentially a whole new world of opportunities for operators thanks to the arrival of the Internet of Things (IoT), but at the same time there are additional factors that need to be considered which may not have been an issue in the past. It might seem obvious at first glance, but this is a valid question: ‘Why does the security industry and its customers need full integration?’ Put simply, if all the components within the security and wider IT network have the ability to interact, they can offer so much more than their individual capabilities. This is certainly something that has transformed the way in which organisations think about their security systems and how they work in the wider context of their business systems. From passive, yet rather elaborate electronic doors/locks and basic CCTV over the past few decades, we now have Artificial Intelligence and connected surveillance systems with an in-built analytics capability which not only match, but in practice usually outperform a human operator fulfilling the same role. Reducing costs, broadening choice Another key factor in the popularity of integrated networks is cost. Producing compatible systems makes it both simpler and cheaper for customers to choose, purchase and use the most efficient components for their needs. Equally, for manufacturers and suppliers it’s more cost-effective to produce standardised products. The IoT is going a long way towards driving demand and the security industry has sensibly taken this on board, catering heavily for these market forces. Within the security industry itself there have also been interesting and helpful developments. The International Electrotechnical Commission recently adopted ONVIF Profile A and C as the de facto new international standard for access control which will offer a truly universal benchmark for security software and hardware integration. Naturally, full integration also provides greater choice, offering the ability to ‘mix and match’ different components to find the most suitable and bespoke solution. On the face of it, it may seem that older legacy systems will struggle to cope with this, but actually the flexibility of a fully-integrated approach means that isn’t necessarily the case. Modern integrated open protocol systems are often able to ‘bridge the gap’ in a way that proprietary systems would simply have failed to do in the past. It’s also somewhat ironic that developments in the latest technology may actually make it possible for some older systems to continue being used beyond their expected lifespan. Mining and analysing data With integrated systems, the benefits go beyond just the security provision. If an intelligent system can learn the behaviours and trends of people and property within its remit, it can then predict patterns and, from this, help to increase efficiencies across the whole organisation and its facilities. By mining the data from security systems, it’s possible to form a detailed picture of any controlled area and the activity going on within it. This is a powerful tool for any organisation, affording an instant snapshot of people movement or the use of resources while also monitoring for security threats. A good example of such data analysis in practice is the widespread integration of security with IT infrastructure, power, lighting, heating and ventilation systems. As CCTV and intruder detection systems can equally check the real-time occupancy of a designated area, these sensors can advise when the correct individuals are attempting to log-in to the network. Equally so, when environmental systems are not required, these solutions can intelligently lower energy consumption (where possible) and ensure secured access to the host organisation’s IT network. This ability to assess a given situation renders security components the ideal ‘eyes and ears’ of more intelligent automated systems. Such technology is now being used to assess and report on people traffic in busy office spaces. Security and detection systems can ascertain who’s entering the space and where they need to go and then direct them to the most appropriate route for their destination (be that a lift, a ‘hot desk’ or a meeting room). Going forward, security providers and operators will need to be even more aware of how their whole organisation works (right down to a granular level) when it comes to systems integration. This may seem somewhat daunting, but with the right planning and respect for their needs and benefits, the development and evolution of fully-integrated systems is set to continue being a key driving force for the security industry, in turn offering many more benefits than disadvantages.
The Security Institute’s View The first consideration needs to be what the organisation believes violence looks like. Over the years, panels of international experts have attempted on several occasions to create a unified definition of violence, all of them failing to reach a consensus. The Health and Safety Executive has espoused a definition that bears consideration, not least because this may be the standard by which an organisation is held to account in court. However, this definition falls well short of what an organisation needs to consider. It’s recommended that businesses work to develop their own definition which then becomes enshrined in their policies and processes. If we consider that the roots of the word ‘violence’ come from the Latin words ‘vis’ (force) and ‘latus’ (to carry), we’re eventually led to the word ‘violans’. Since the modern words ‘violence’ and ‘violation’ share the same root, we should consider that any act that’s a violation of a person (including acts against their body, dignity, autonomy and rights to the consequences of their actions) should be considered as violence. Without a clear and formal definition of what violence within an organisation means, there’s no foundation for incident reporting or risk measurement activity. An incident of violence within a workplace has a wide range of effects. ‘Conventional’ physical violence has the obvious effect of harms to staff that range from physical harm to those affected through to emotional harm to them and others not directly involved, reduced employee commitment, reduced customer satisfaction, reduced productivity, increased conflict, absenteeism, staff attrition and recruitment costs and therefore increased training costs in addition to cultural harm. All of this is in addition to potential civil claims, criminal prosecutions and reputational harm that may arise. Shocking incidents of physical violence are not commonplace, yet gain far more attention than the day-to-day, lower-level negative workplace behaviours ultimately more corrosive to organisations. An incident of physical violence may harm one person, while a poor culture can harm hundreds or even thousands. When that number is multiplied by factors such as stress-related illness and absence, reduced productivity, the loss of human capital, replacement recruitment and training costs and settlements at tribunals, an idea of what violence can cost a business begins to emerge. Strategic level The scale of these risks clearly makes violence an organisational risk to be managed at a Violence Risk Management Violence in the workplace has been the subject of discussion for over 20 years, with concerns arising in sectors as diverse as healthcare, education, aviation, prisons and retail. As a result, it has arguably become one of the most researched areas of crime risk. Despite all of this attention, it seems that we’re no closer to an overall solution. Richard Diston argues that it may be time to adopt a fresh perspective on this issue strategic level rather than it being viewed as an operational risk. That said, most organisations still have little clarity on who’s actually responsible at Board level. Violence is commonly seen as an issue for security, Health and Safety or – in the cases of ‘horizontal’ (eg staff on staff) violence – Human Resources. Given that violence is a specialist risk area, none of these departments are usually equipped to respond proactively in the prevention of such incidents. There’s an argument to be put forward that a formal risk management approach might be more effective. Referring to the ISO 31000 risk management standard, the first step is to establish the context of risk. If we apply this process directly to the matter of violence, we start to understand the importance of defining what violence means to an organisation. Due to the level of subjectivity involved, it’s worth considering the current models that are in place to help contextualise violence. Perhaps the most common typology in use was created by the Californian Occupational Safety and Health Administration and later amended by Vaughan Bowie. This model identifies four types of violence based on the Richard Diston MSc MSyI: Director and Principal Consultant at Ark Services (www.ark-services.co.uk) 47 www.risk-uk.com
Page 1 and 2: August 2017 www.risk-uk.com Securit
Page 3 and 4: August 2017 Contents 44 Meet The Se
Page 5 and 6: Editorial Comment Many applications
Page 7 and 8: News Update “Clarification on reg
Page 9 and 10: News Analysis: Counter-Terrorism Pr
Page 11 and 12: News Special: BSIA Security Personn
Page 14 and 15: ISO 22316: Preparing for Brexit The
Page 16 and 17: All Things Being Equal recommends t
Page 18 and 19: Institute of Risk Management Are yo
Page 20 and 21: BSIA Briefing References 1 https://
Page 22 and 23: Physical and IT Security Convergenc
Page 24 and 25: State of Mind: Developing ‘Risk C
Page 26 and 27: On The Mark: Safeguarding Your Comp
Page 28 and 29: Touched By A Physical Presence Phys
Page 30 and 31: Net2 Entry Touch Smart, Simple Door
Page 32 and 33: FIRE SAFETY New Qualifications for
Page 34 and 35: FIRE SAFETY False Fire Alarm Manage
Page 36 and 37: FIRE SAFETY Fire Alarms and Detecti
Page 38 and 39: FIRE SAFETY Audible and Visual Prot
Page 40 and 41: FIRE SAFETY Following the Grenfell
Page 42 and 43: FIRE SAFETY Emergency Lighting Stan
Page 44 and 45: Meet The Security Company This is t
Page 48 and 49: The Security Institute’s View rel
Page 50 and 51: Resilience Revisited: Turning Our A
Page 53 and 54: FIA Technical Briefing Fire Prevent
Page 55 and 56: FRONTIER PITTS Protecting Your Worl
Page 57 and 58: Security Services: Best Practice Ca
Page 59 and 60: A New Model for Guarding Cardinal's
Page 61 and 62: Cyber Security: Risk Management for
Page 63 and 64: Training and Career Development equ
Page 65 and 66: Risk in Action St George in the Eas
Page 67 and 68: Technology in Focus Vista unveils V
Page 69 and 70: Appointments Helen Ball Helen Ball
Page 71 and 72: BENCHMARK Smart Solutions BENCHMARK
Page 73 and 74: CCTV CCTV Rapid Deployment Digital
Page 75: SECURITY ANTI-CLIMB SOLUTIONS & SEC

RiskUKAugust2017

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?