Unfortunately, workers aren’t getting the training they need and want. As I mentioned in my last post, 70% of employees say they don’t have mastery of the skills they need to do their jobs. In that post, I also talked about how too many management teams treat employee training as an exercise in box-checking rather than a mechanism to deliver meaningful results. As a result, employees become frustrated, fail to thrive, and ultimately quit. Then, the replacement hires undergo the same superficial, ineffective training, and the cycle continues.

We’ve defined the problem. Now, let’s focus on the solution.

Understanding Learning and Forgetting Curves

Most people are familiar with the concept of a learning curve. It’s a graphical representation of how performance progresses over time as a student learns and practices. Easy-to-master repetitive activities, like data entry, show fast initial gains that quickly level off. More complex tasks have wiggly learning curves, where students progress significantly, then taper off while skills sink in before the curve tics upward again. Management understands that learning curves differ by subject, and some training takes longer before workers reach acceptable proficiency.

Fewer people are familiar with the forgetting curve, but it’s even more important than the learning curve when desigining effective training programs.

The forgetting curve was developed by psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus, whose experiments over a century ago showed that human memory retention drops quickly and dramatically after learning new information. People forget 50% of what they’ve learned within an hour of training, 75% in six days, and 90% after a month. Therefore, useful training programs require reinforcement of previous lessons as new information is taught. Imagine the futility of trying to learn a foreign language if you only focused on new vocabulary during every class.

In addition, skill reinforcement requires practice and follow-up after the initial training concludes. You may have taken four years of high-school Spanish, but how much did you retain just a few years after graduation if you never spoke it? A one-time class, regardless of its length, will not be effective if the skills taught are not integrated into a worker’s routine and supplemented with refresher courses and new, updated material over time.

Types of On-Going Training

There are several proven approaches that advance learning outcomes. They include:

Physical Exercise: Physical repetition of tasks, building in complexity, reinforces muscle memory so that required actions can be executed more quickly and with less effort.

Successive Learning: Revisiting and practicing tactical skills and procedural protocols over spaced sessions is effective for developing complex skill sets that build upon each other.

Spaced Practice: Studies have shown that frequent short learning sessions are more effective than longer, less frequent sessions. Frequent sessions help transfer knowledge to long-term memory, resulting in superior recall and retention.

Security Industry Application

Ignoring the realities and consequences of the forgetting curve is perilous in the security industry. Employees who don’t remember what was taught may fail to identify, mitigate, or respond to a security threat as their job requires.  

For example, let’s look at video management systems (VMS). At the most basic level, security guards engage with a VMS while sitting at their post, watching a grid of rotating surveillance views. By all accounts, it’s a pretty dull job.

So, what happens when a severe threat arises, like protesters storming the building? The situational awareness derived from VMS is critical to coordinating the security team’s response. Can the guards quickly search for video clips based on specific parameters? Can they export video to share with law enforcement?

The guards may have learned how to use more sophisticated features of the VMS platform, but that was a while ago, and the steps have not been practiced since. Plus, the guards are now under pressure. Even if they recall some of what they learned, their navigation of the VMS menus will be slow, with some trial and error, rather than the seamless operation that comes with muscle memory. With threats coming from multiple directions, how do they make sense of the situation and prioritize action steps? They have little or no practice making crucial judgment calls in stressful emergencies. Imagine how much more confidently they could respond if theses skills had been reinforced through regular training.

Active shooter and de-escalation training also require practice, and reinforcement. You hope your team will rarely need these skill sets, but if they’re not practiced frequently, they’ll get rusty and fail to deliver when most needed. I could mention many other examples, but they all follow this same pattern. Without on-going training, security teams are ill-prepared to deal with crisis.

Training Resources

The most obvious person to train an employee is that employee’s manager, but managers don’t always have the learning and development knowledge and experience to do it effectively. Management training can help those in leadership positions to be better mentors to their subordinates, but teaching specific skills – in depth – may not be the best use of the manager’s time.

Fortunately, training is readily available through professional organizations like ASIS, SIA, PSA, ESA, and others. Certain licensed employees must earn continuing education credits to maintain their status, but all workers benefit when required to keep skills current – and offered educational resources to do so. Eligibility for such training is a perk of professional association membership.

Training is available elsewhere, too. Equipment manufacturers offer certification courses on their technologies. System integrators typically include customer training with the systems they install. Security consultants are staffed with industry experts who can provide customized training courses based on an organization’s specific needs and align that training with broader risk management initiatives.

In short, don’t let the grim statistics on the state of training deter your organization’s efforts to implement an effective L&D program. The reasons that training is often ineffective can be overcome by focusing on how employees learn and why they forget. With repetitive, reinforced learning and continuing education, your security team members will be equipped to perform optimally, even in adverse conditions, using the full range or resources at their disposal.

The post Unlocking Success in Security L&D Programs appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

In considering this technology, it’s important to evaluate the pros and cons of using it in an application. While the benefits may be clear, you should objectively review the pros and cons I explore in this article to help guide you in the decision-making process of using the technology.

Creating an environment that disorients and limits visibility of an adversary can be a significant deterrent and limit the negative outcome of a security incident. Consider these pros of security foggers:

Immediate Deterrence and Disorientation – When activated, fog generators quickly fill the protected area with thick fog, often within seconds. This sudden loss of visibility can scare intruders, causing them to flee immediately. The dense fog significantly hampers an intruder’s ability to navigate the space or identify targets, reducing the likelihood of theft or vandalism.

Rapid and Active Response – Fog generators are designed to activate swiftly once triggered. This can be from an automatic intrusion detection or from a manual trigger of a security device. This rapid response time is crucial in preventing the intruder from accomplishing their objective. While traditional alarms may only alert and possibly scare off intruders with sound, fog generators add a physical barrier, enhancing the overall effectiveness of the security system.

Non-Lethal and Safe – The fog produced is typically non-toxic and safe for humans and pets, ensuring that it doesn’t cause harm to innocent parties while still being effective against intruders. Unlike some other security measures, fog generators do not cause structural damage or leave lasting residues, making them suitable for protecting valuable assets without the risk of collateral damage.

Versatility and Coverage – Fog generators can be used in a range of environments, from small retail shops to large warehouses. They are adaptable to different spaces and security needs. Modern fog generators are capable of covering large areas quickly, making them effective even in expansive spaces.

Integration with Existing Systems – Fog generators can often be integrated with existing alarm, access, video surveillance systems, and other security measures, providing a comprehensive security solution without the need for a complete overhaul.

Psychological Impact – The psychological “fear-factor” effect of suddenly being enveloped in fog can be powerful. Intruders may panic, leading to hasty retreats and increased likelihood of apprehension by law enforcement.

As with any technology, it’s important to understand the potential downside. This will allow you to balance if the benefits outweigh the risks in its application. Consider these possible cons to the technology:

False or Delayed Activation – There is a risk of false alarms triggering the fog generator, which can result in unnecessary disruptions and the need for cleanup; even if no residue, exhausting the fog from the air requires specific effort. While there are ways to mitigate this by having remote alarm verification, this can add significant time into triggering the system, limiting its effectiveness.

Frequent Testing and Maintenance – To ensure reliability, any security technology, including fog generators, should have regular testing and maintenance. This can be prohibitive given how this technology works.

Limited Duration of Effect – Security foggers are a temporary measure. The fog is effective only for a limited time. Once it dissipates, normal visibility is restored, potentially allowing intruders to resume their activities if they manage to wait it out.

Life Safety and Health Concerns – These systems rapidly fill an environment with dense zero-visibility fog. In some scenarios, the sudden deployment of fog can create hazardous conditions for any occupants, making evacuation difficult. This technology may not be approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ); therefore, approval from the AHJ should be sought before installation.

Health Concerns – While generally safe, there can be concerns for individuals with respiratory issues or allergies. While the manufacturers of the technology indicate that it is safe, actual 3^rd party testing should be reviewed and disclosed to system owners prior to installation.

Training and Usage – Security personnel and staff need proper training to effectively handle and respond to fog generator activation. In reality, if this technology is activated it will be displacing to both employees and adversaries. So, a training protocol with regular reviews is critical to ensure the proper response and recovery of an activation.

False Sense of Security – Over-reliance on fog generators might lead to complacency in other areas of security, potentially creating vulnerabilities if the system fails or is bypassed.

Fog generators present a unique and effective addition to security systems, providing immediate deterrence and disorientation to intruders while being safe and non-lethal. Their rapid response, versatility, and ability to integrate with existing security measures make them an attractive option for various environments. However, they come with challenges, including the potential for false alarms, regulatory compliance, and costs associated with installation and maintenance. Proper training and regular maintenance are essential to maximize their effectiveness. Balancing these pros and cons can help determine whether fog generators are a suitable security measure for specific needs and environments.

This article originally appeared in the Ěý´Ç´ÚĚý. Paul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Clearing the Fog on Security Foggers appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

Learning to do new things at work makes employees feel a greater sense of purpose, more confident in their abilities, and more connected to their organization. Studies have proven that companies offering comprehensive training programs are 21% more profitable.[1] Those that provide continuous, formalized education have 56% higher employee retention.[2] Training is a win for everyone involved.

A special report from The Economist, “Learning and Earning,” argues that now, more than ever, adults must continue learning throughout their careers or risk getting left behind. Without on-going education, they are ill-prepared to adapt to today’s quickly evolving technologies and the resulting changes to their jobs. However, most companies and organizations fall short of providing the necessary, high-quality training to support this reality.[3]

 A 2019 Harvard Business Review study reported that 75% of managers surveyed were dissatisfied with their company’s Learning and Development (L&D) function, and 70% of employees said they don’t have mastery of the skills needed to do their jobs.[4] It’s not that companies aren’t spending money. Investment in training programs has been on the rise for several years. Globally in 2022, companies spent approximately $381 billion U.S. dollars on L&D. In the U.S. alone, it exceeded $100 billion for the first time.[5]

What gives?

I have some strong opinions on this topic and have plenty of experience as a student and instructor to base them on. During my career, I’ve been through NYPD Police Academy Recruit training, earned a Bachelor’s degree and Juris Doctorate, attended hundreds of hours of In-Service and Leadership Development courses, and thousands of hours of Professional Development Courses. I’ve also spent ample time on the other side of the classroom as an instructor for the NYPD, an adjunct at a local college, a certified Security Guard instructor, and elsewhere. I’ve seen and experienced what works and what doesn’t firsthand.

Ineffective training isn’t a problem that can be solved simply by throwing more money at it. The trouble begins with weak training goals. Sometimes, companies offer employee training simply to check a box and say, “we’ve done that.” In such instances, it’s not surprising that employees aren’t satisfied. The information presented receives no reinforcement and is quickly forgotten. Exposure does not equal learning.

The goal of training programs should be to help workers master and retain the knowledge and skills taught.

With this in mind, some topics can be effectively taught in a single session or multi-session one-time course. In the universe of security and life safety, one-and-done applies to simple, consistent, and linear processes. Students learn, “You do this, and then this, and then this.” How to use a defibrillator or administer CPR fits in this category. It’s helpful to get a refresher periodically, but in a bind, most people can remember simple, linear tasks that they consider important. For example, I’m guessing most of you reading this can recall how you learned to clear Resuscitation Annie’s airway, locate a certain spot on her chest, and begin compressions to the beat of “Stayin’ Alive” – even if it was a long time ago and you haven’t practiced since.

However, most security-related courses cover more complicated, nuanced subjects, where best practices change with technological advancements. These topics require incremental learning, practice, reinforcement, testing, and updates.

Take Active Shooter training. The Run, Hide, Fight protocols are not taught as a progression – to always run first, then hide, and then fight. Potential targets in an active shooter scenario need to learn how to quickly assess a situation and determine how to maximize the probability of saving lives under extreme pressure. They must practice regularly in different hypothetical scenarios to develop confident decision-making and muscle memory. They may also require proficiency using communication systems for collaboration with other team members and first responders, and security technology for tracking and restricting an assailant’s movement within the facility.

Another good example is leadership training. As security practitioners get promoted within their organization, they may land managerial roles requiring new skill sets. Suddenly, they are responsible for setting security policies, motivating team members, and building stakeholder consensus. Even “born” leaders can dramatically improve their job performance through learning and practice of key skills like communication, conflict resolution, team-building, and strategic decision making. Managers who perform poorly in these areas become responsible for dysfunctional workplace cultures and low team morale, ultimately leading to high employee turnover.

Adding to the challenges of security training is the fact that in many settings, individuals responsible for security-related tasks perform those functions on top of their primary jobs. For example, school office administrators often play critical roles when security threats arise. They may have been shown how to institute a lockdown, call up surveillance video, or issue emergency communications. However, given their many daily responsibilities, they are likely to forget how to execute these procedures from a one-time training.

Instruction for complex operations or skillsets is most successful when learning is separated into manageable chunks, programs continually reinforce and build upon acquired skills, and practice is woven into workers’ everyday routines. Developing and delivering this type of training may seem like a heavy lift, but failing to do so results in an unprepared workforce that represents its own type of security threat. In reality, companies can’t afford to NOT have proven, high-quality training programs in place.

What do the most effective security training programs look like and how can any company – including those with limited internal resources – provide them? Be sure to check back for my next blog post when we’ll explore some answers.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

The post Many Companies Have a Training/Learning Disconnect. Here’s Why. appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

As it is within Law Enforcement, low morale is also prevalent in the security industry, particularly among contracted security officers. They rate their job satisfaction in the bottom 7% of careers.[1] The cause-and-effect relationship between low employee morale and an inferior customer experience is well documented. Therefore, part of my job as a security consultant is to help clients create a positive corporate culture. Yes – our primary business is creating safe and secure environments, but even the best security technologies and programs will fail if they are supported by a disgruntled workforce.

Gallup reports that teams with low morale experience 18 to 43% higher turnover. [2] Glassdoor reports a strong statistical link between customer satisfaction and the well-being of the employees delivering those services. Its study concludes that happy workers lead to happy customers.[3] Research by Eagle Hill Consulting found that 64% of U.S. workers say their employee experience impacts their ability to serve customers, with low-morale workers half as likely to deliver quality outcomes.[4]

Security services management may complain about their workers’ lackluster performance, calling in sick, no-shows, and high rates of turnover, but the root of their problem is often not the fault of the employees. It’s dysfunctional management and the environment they’ve created that makes workers feel unappreciated, unempowered, and underpaid. The first two are things companies can easily fix. As for the third, employees are more than 10 times more likely to leave a job due to a toxic culture than salary.[5] If companies can make employees feel appreciated and empowered, they will save money by reducing workforce churn. This, in turn, could free up money to pay higher wages.

So, how do we fix low employee morale among security guards and others hourly workers in the security services sector? Here is a list of suggestions:

1. Train your supervisors on how to be effective leaders. The number one reason employees leave their jobs is because of their supervisor. The CEO of Gallup, Jim Clifton, says it best. “When you name the wrong person supervisor, nothing fixes that bad decision. Not compensation, not benefits – nothing.”[6]

Promoting from within has a positive impact on workers because they see that there are opportunities for advancement, but those benefits only accrue if you provide associated management training. The skills that make a successful “worker bee” vastly differ from those needed to manage the hive. Yet 82% of people promoted to supervisory roles do not receive any formal training, according to a 2023 study by the Chartered Management Institute.[7]

• Solicit feedback from employees. Encourage them to offer solutions – not just identify problems. Simply being heard immediately makes them feel more valued – even if acting on their suggestions takes time.
  
  
• Make sure supervisors are clear about expectations and don’t criticize their underlings’ every move, especially if there are no written guidelines defining roles and responsibilities. If your organization lacks such guidelines, create them and put them in writing!  

Everyone on your team, from the top down, should make it a habit to offer praise and recognition for jobs well done. When employees know their efforts are appreciated, they are more likely to repeat them. Small gestures go far!

• Make security guards feel like they are part of a team. Keep them informed about news or changes happening at the corporate level.

Companies that contract guard services will find that those officers are more dedicated when they feel like they are part of the organization where they are assigned to work. They appreciate inclusion in workplace events and value privileges like access to the company gym and break room.

• Empower guards so that they can feel pride in their job. Patrolling a predictable route or sitting behind a desk with no power to do anything gets old fast. Provide guards with technology to maintain better situational awareness and tools that alert them to suspicious behavior. When security officers can be strategic and proactive about how they perform their duties, they’ll find their jobs far more exciting and rewarding.

Many of these tactics can be employed by your in-house management team. Corporate culture doesn’t change overnight, but with dedicated efforts, progress will occur.

Hiring a consultant can be instrumental in moving the process along. An outsider’s perspective often pinpoints problems and strategizes solutions more objectively than managers who have skin in the game and egos that bruise. If that’s you, reach out. We may be security consultants, but solving morale issues is essential in running an effective security team. We’re here to help!

[1] .

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

The post Don’t Let Low Employee Morale Get You Down. Instead, Fix It! appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

These technologies, which enable the identification of individuals based on their facial features, have been heralded as a breakthrough in enhancing security and streamlining law enforcement operations; however, they have also raised profound concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and potential abuses. As a response to these concerns, numerous cities and countries have started banning or heavily regulating the use of facial recognition technologies in these domains.

This has a big impact on the security industry as we prepare to understand, market, and deploy these technologies. Your customers will have questions, and their integrator should be able to provide some answers. Thus, it is essential to explore the arguments for and against the banning of facial recognition technologies in security and law enforcement to deliver the most informed recommendation to an end-user.

While the proponents of facial recognition technologies emphasize their utility, opponents argue that the risks and drawbacks far outweigh the benefits, leading to a growing movement to ban or heavily regulate their use in security and law enforcement.

The Rise of Facial Recognition Technologies
Facial recognition technologies have evolved at an astonishing pace. These systems utilize computer algorithms and databases of facial images to identify and verify individuals by analyzing distinct facial features. The technology has numerous applications, ranging from unlocking smartphones to enhancing security measures in public spaces and assisting law enforcement agencies.

Advocates of facial recognition technologies argue that they significantly contribute to national security and public safety. They cite instances where these systems have successfully identified and apprehended criminals, located missing persons, and thwarted potential terrorist threats. The potential applications are immense, including the rapid identification of suspects, enhancing border security, and improving the speed and accuracy of validating a person that may have been placed on a watch list.

The Case for Banning Facial Recognition Technologies
While the proponents of facial recognition technologies emphasize their utility, opponents argue that the risks and drawbacks far outweigh the benefits, leading to a growing movement to ban or heavily regulate their use in security and law enforcement.

Privacy concerns: The primary argument against facial recognition technologies is the grave invasion of personal privacy. The constant surveillance and monitoring of individuals in public spaces, without their consent or knowledge, raises serious ethical and legal concerns. The widespread use of these technologies could turn public areas into surveillance states, infringing on citizens’ rights to privacy and anonymity.

Inaccuracy and bias: Opponents have said these systems have been shown to exhibit a significant degree of inaccuracy, particularly when it comes to recognizing individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. This inherent bias can lead to wrongful arrests and misidentifications, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities.

The potential for racial profiling and discrimination is a valid concern; however, tests of different facial recognition technologies have been conducted within the industry by IPVM.com that shows these systems can be successfully deployed but vary in their success by manufacturer.

Surveillance state: The deployment of facial recognition technologies has the potential to create a surveillance state, where individuals’ every move is tracked and recorded. This dystopian vision raises concerns about the erosion of personal freedoms and the establishment of a society where people are constantly watched and restricted in their actions.

Lack of accountability: In many cases, the use of facial recognition technologies lacks transparency and accountability. Law enforcement agencies and security firms may use these technologies without adequate oversight or regulations in place. This absence of checks and balances can lead to abuses of power and violations of civil liberties.

Security vulnerabilities: Facial recognition systems are not immune to security vulnerabilities. Hackers and cybercriminals could exploit these technologies to access sensitive information or manipulate data for malicious purposes. These vulnerabilities pose a significant risk to national security and individual privacy.

Bans and Regulations
In response to these concerns, several countries and cities have taken measures to regulate or prohibit the use of facial recognition technologies in various capacities. The website www.banfacialrecognition.com has a comprehensive list of U.S. locations where this technology is in use, under regulations, or banned.

European Union: The European Union has taken a proactive stance on protecting citizens’ privacy by implementing the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). GDPR places stringent regulations on the use of biometric data, including facial recognition technology. It requires explicit consent for data collection and mandates clear rules for its use.

San Francisco, California: In 2019, San Francisco became the first major city in the United States to ban the use of facial recognition technology by government agencies. The ban is aimed at preventing government surveillance and protecting civil liberties.

Massachusetts: Massachusetts followed suit with regulations aimed at protecting the privacy of its citizens. The state enacted a law that prohibits facial recognition technology for law enforcement purposes, except for cases involving serious criminal offenses.

Portland, Oregon: Portland passed a ban on the use of facial recognition technology by both public and private entities in 2020. The city cited concerns about civil rights and civil liberties as the driving force behind the ban.

The banning of facial recognition technologies in security and law enforcement is a complex issue that revolves around striking a balance between security and privacy. While these technologies hold significant promise in enhancing safety and aiding law enforcement, their potential for misuse, bias, and invasion of personal privacy has sparked a growing movement to restrict or prohibit their use. The global trend of implementing regulations and bans on facial recognition technology reflects the need to safeguard individual freedoms and civil liberties in an increasingly connected and surveilled world.

As you specify and endorse these systems for customers, I recommend consulting the Security Industry Association’s advocacy page on facial recognition technology.

What to Tell Your Customers
The future of facial recognition technology in security and law enforcement will likely involve continued debate and evolving regulations as governments and communities grapple with the challenge of preserving public safety while respecting fundamental rights. As technology advances and the societal landscape changes, finding a middle ground that respects both security concerns and individual privacy rights will remain a pressing issue for lawmakers, civil rights activists, and the general public.

As an industry we should note that the successful deployment and accuracy of these systems largely comes down to understanding the correct use-case, and designing the system to support the intended need. Too often, we rush to implement without considering proof of concept, not by the manufacturer, but within the context of the customers environment and application.

As you specify and endorse these systems for customers, I recommend consulting the Security Industry Association’s advocacy page on facial recognition technology (www.securityindustry.org/advocacy/policy-priorities/facial-recognition). The site includes research statistics that show positive support of facial recognition for public safety, air travel, workplace and other application areas. It also includes a full shareable document and a fact sheet exploring the values and the benefits of facial recognition that outlines each of SIA’s core principles regarding the responsible and effective use of facial recognition technology and makes recommendations for public- and private-sector applications of the technology, including by law enforcement. There are also success stories that integrators can use to validate the effectiveness of the technology.

Article Link –

This article originally appeared in the Ěý´Ç´ÚĚý. Paul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Tech Trends: Should Integrators Specify Facial Recognition? appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

The gold standard for decades in maintaining dedicated and reliable inbound and outbound communications has been the POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) line. It has been very typical to install POTS lines for duress alarms, intrusion detection systems, emergency intercoms, and dedicated voice lines for security operations and operations centers.

One of the great appeals for using POTS (besides being the only thing available) was that the POTS line provided both power and communications over a copper wire. The phones were powered by the telephone companies’ infrastructure, moving the points of failure outside of the users control, and onto the responsibility of the service provider. This type of system would provide for communications even if power was out. Amazingly, you could lose power and the phone would still work. Sure, it doesn’t sound impressive now, but in the 1970s it was.

As cellular technology became more dependable and widely available, many companies started to use this communications pathway as a backup or redundant method of communications; however, at the time, the technology was cost-prohibitive to deploy and use as a primary communication pathway, unless site specific conditions warranted its use in that capacity. Cellular technology has since become a viable option for both primary and backup communications of voice and data.

Now with more and more devices being IP-based, as well as the need to consolidate systems for voice and data communications, service providers are sunsetting the old and expensive-to-maintain POTS service – moving to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP).

The Rise of Voice over IP
VoIP is a technology that enables voice calls to be transmitted over the internet rather than traditional telephone lines. It utilizes packet-switched networks, converting voice signals into data packets for transmission.

This innovation has gained traction in recent years due to several compelling reasons:

1. VoIP offers substantial cost savings. Traditional landline services require dedicated infrastructure, which can be expensive to install and maintain. In contrast, VoIP utilizes existing internet connections, eliminating the need for separate telephone lines. This cost-effectiveness is especially attractive to small businesses and startups looking to streamline their operations, and it is commonplace for large enterprises.
2. VoIP provides an extensive array of features that surpass those of POTS. Call forwarding, voicemail transcription, video conferencing, and virtual phone numbers are just a few examples of the rich feature set offered by VoIP. These features enhance productivity, collaboration, and customer service capabilities, enabling businesses to operate more efficiently and competitively.
3. VoIP systems are highly scalable, allowing businesses to easily add or remove lines as per their requirements. This flexibility eliminates the limitations imposed by traditional phone systems and accommodates the ever-changing needs of modern enterprises. As companies expand or downsize, VoIP adapts accordingly, ensuring seamless communication without unnecessary costs or complications.

More Benefits of VoIP
The advantages of VoIP extend beyond cost savings and feature-rich functionalities. One of the most significant benefits is geographical flexibility. With VoIP, users can make and receive calls from anywhere with an internet connection. This eliminates the constraints of physical location, making it easier for businesses to establish virtual offices, remote work setups, and global presence. This allows for some unique applications in the security world as well.

Additionally, VoIP integrates well with other communication channels, such as email, instant messaging, and video conferencing platforms. This integration enhances overall communication efficiency, enabling seamless transitions between different modes of interaction. Whether it is integrating voice calls into customer relationship management (CRM) software or automating call routing, VoIP empowers businesses to streamline workflows and enhance customer experiences.

Furthermore, VoIP is compatible with various devices, including smartphones, tablets, and desktop computers. Users can access their VoIP services through dedicated apps or web-based interfaces, providing a unified communication experience across multiple devices. This flexibility ensures that individuals and businesses are always connected, regardless of the device they use or their physical location.

The Challenges of VoIP and Data Communications
IP-based technology does provide some challenges in maintaining communications pathways that are highly reliable with an uptime acceptable to support critical communications. While previous communications relied largely on the provider maintaining equipment and uptime availability, IP-based technology now requires that the provider and the customer maintain their systems so that they can be relied on for critical communications.

When migrating from a POTS-based method of communicating critical voice and data to a IP-based system, adding proper battery backup, redundant communication pathways, and proper network configurations to ensure network traffic priority is critical.

Article Link –

This article originally appeared in the Ěý´Ç´ÚĚý. Paul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Tech Trends: The Rise of VoIP appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

VIPs may be targets of stalkers, protesters, the paparazzi, and other bad actors seeking to do harm. Security teams need the tools to maintain situational awareness and facilitate command and control wherever heightened protection is called for. It’s a tall order.

Public events like parades, political rallies, sporting events, speeches, and performances, as well as private affairs, like the weddings and funerals of the rich and famous, occur in locations that are difficult to secure. Coverage must often span massive areas. Threats can come from any direction, including overhead and far beyond the event’s official perimeter.

Event security is focused on maintaining a secure environment for the public at large. Meanwhile, executive protection services must stand up separate command and controls dedicated to keeping their clients safe.

Deploying a dedicated command and control is expensive, as it must be equipped with much of the same technology as a permanent security operations center (SOC). Plus, it must provide reliable and redundant connectivity to all systems and devices utilized across the event site without the benefit of a permanent infrastructure.

Public sector dignitaries have protective details equipped to mount exhaustive security operations on their behalf. The U.S. Capitol Police, Secret Service, federal, and state agencies each have an abundance of resources, including a fleet of mobile command vehicles ready to deploy to protect dignitaries and politicians. The private sector does not. Unless such individuals face a specific threat against them, they typically must pay for their own security.

Fortunately, a new option has recently entered the security marketplace: mobile command as a service (MCaaS). Just as VIPs may invest in fractional jet ownership, MCaaS provides access to a fully equipped, state-of-the-art mobile command vehicle for a specified number of engagements per year.

When comparing services, here’s what stakeholders should consider.

What Technologies Are Included?
To approximate the command-and-control systems utilized by public sector dignitaries, an MCaaS solution should include an array of integrated security technologies from best-in-class manufacturers. Look for:

Video surveillance

Video analytics

Aerial drone surveillance

Drone detection

Gunfire detection

Perimeter protection

Real-time weather monitoring

Social media monitoring

Communication systems are equally important. A fully equipped mobile command should offer the following:

VoIP telephones

2-way radios

Cellular PTT radios

Satellite telephone, TV, and radio

Satellite and cellular data

Public address systems

The service should include the deployment of temporary cameras and other devices across the event site. Coverage should extend to broad perimeter monitoring, while placing an emphasis on areas where the client is most vulnerable, such as the green room, stage, and any walkways the client may traverse.

Live monitoring of social media is critical, as it may provide advance warning of potential threats. There should also be communication channels between event security and private security teams. If event security must contend with danger anywhere onsite, private security must have sufficient knowledge to evacuate its charge via the safest route possible

How Is It Deployed?
The “S” in mobile command as a service differentiates today’s new offerings from more traditional rental models. A quick Web search of mobile command rentals will result in rental trailers equipped with communication systems and a workstation for video surveillance monitoring.

MCaaS represents a much broader suite of technologies, plus it includes the expertise of security professionals to assist private details with systems engineering, training, and onsite deployment. They can also attend events, working side-by-side with members of the executive protection service. MCaaS provides high-profile executives, high-net-worth individuals, and celebrities with the same tools and technologies used to protect top-level public sector VIPs.

To ensure the availability of vehicles, MCaaS providers may cap the number of clients they enroll to maintain a suitable client/vehicle ratio. They may also offer services to a limited geographic area, minimizing travel time before an event. An overextended MCaaS provider may not be able to deliver services when needed, negating the value of the investment.

A Paradigm Shift
The security industry’s digital transformation has brought countless new technologies to the market. Unfortunately, they only help the customers that can afford them. Many technology manufacturers have migrated to a recurring revenue model to reduce upfront hardware costs, thus making their cutting-edge solutions accessible to a broader base. Customers benefit from always-current systems that require less maintenance, include free updates, and offer operational expenditure tax advantages.

MCaaS offers similar value propositions, albeit on a grander scale. VIPs, or the executive protection services that protect them, may have previously deemed a fully-equipped mobile command as beyond budget. MCaaS will level the playing field, bringing grade-A resources to the private sector. It’s a paradigm shift whose time has come.

Article Link –

Paul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Elevating Executive Security with Mobile Command as a Service appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

DIY security technology is being marketed everywhere – TV commercials, online advertisements, big box stores, home improvement stores, etc., and just about every big name (Amazon with Blink, Ring and Alexa Guard Plus, Google with Nest, Blackstone with Vivint, Netgear with Arlo, ADT with Blue, and independents like SimpliSafe, Cove and many others) have positioned themselves in the DIY security game.

You can find alarm systems, various detectors, cameras, smart locks, just about every traditional security endpoint now comes as a IoT device that can easily be added to a home network or installed and configured with a smartphone.

The DIY market has a lot going for it, providing some significant advantages over its more traditional security technology predecessors. Here are five:

1. Easy to install and configure: In many cases, device enrollment is as easy as downloading an app and scanning a QR code, and the user is operational. Let’s face it, this is not the case in the commercial world, where knowledge of the device, the platform its operating on, and the networking system that connects the edge devices are all a part of the configuration process.

2. Quality and reliability: The output quality is comparable to commercial grade (noting some significant drawbacks with the DIY systems) and the reliability – while not to the level of its commercial grade comparable devices – is good enough for most consumers.

3. Low cost and barrier to entry: From cameras under $25 to smart locks hovering around $250, costs for this technology comparative to the commercial market are significantly lower. Many systems offer a trial or feature limited version of service that make the barrier to entry also very low – enabling consumers to try it out without making a big commitment. This is also very cleverly designed to draw them into a service plan.

4. Built-in RMR: The holy grail of the residential security market, these products have significant Recurring Monthly Revenue (RMR), making this a gold rush to grab market share.

5. Public safety impact: Many service providers have programs to support local law enforcement efforts with camera feeds. While this is a great tool for crime fighting, it is also a concern for privacy advocates in the over use of private-sector security technology for public sector use, and in the mass collection of data on the populous by big tech.

How Integrators Can Take Advantage

The pace has been set, the DIY installation of IoT security edge devices is here to stay. With its rapid growth and benefits that clearly make this an advantageous business venture for manufacturers, is the commercial market in danger of losing market share to innovations in DIY applications?

I believe the answer is yes, as least for small to mid-sized applications. The truth is that VSaaS and ACaaS companies are moving in this direction already, making the installation of security edge devices like cameras, sensors, and access points easier than ever to install and configure.

That said, I see some significant gaps that DIY manufacturers are not in a position to address, and it is where these gaps exist that commercial security integrators can provide a value-add to the emerging residential and commercial DIY market.

While DIY manufacturers are banking on the DIYer, the integration industry should be looking at the obvious holes it creates in both the residential and commercial marketplace. For us as an industry to adapt and embrace advances in technology, we need to find the areas where we can bring value to the user in the process of planning, designing, deploying, and managing this technology. Here are three key areas:

Advanced applications – These aaS and DIY systems are limited in their enterprise-level applications – especially when a customer needs high availability in critical facilities and applications, advanced configurations, integrations, and features from third-party manufacturers. Integrators and consultants need to know how to properly advise clients when they are considering what appears to be an easier solution. What are they losing with the “easier” solution? What are the holes of the “easy” solution?

Design and installation – Sure, any novice can put a camera up to watch the door, but what about resolution, pixels on target, frame rate, back light considerations, retention periods, etc., for video surveillance applications? Consider door hardware, egress requirements, credentialing technologies, etc., for access control. What about appropriate sensor selection and use, local code compliance, communications redundancy, etc., with alarm systems? These are all areas where the security professional is able to surpass a novice in designing and deploying a commercial or enterprise class system.

Specialized expertise – At the end of the day, even the most crafty DIYers have other responsibilities. Taking the time to review, select, purchase, install, and configure DIY systems is still extra work. Integrators have an opportunity to pick up this void in the market by offering residential and small business packages that are turnkey and also provide RMR.

Security technology professionals need to be ready to identify and respond to the changes in the market with viable solutions. By studying this and other market trends, you can see where the emerging technology is going and where it will influence the rest of the industry.

Article Link –

This article originally appeared in the Ěý´Ç´ÚĚý. Paul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Tech Trends: Is Commercial Sector DIY a Threat? appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

Why is the security industry so fearful of intrepidly moving forward and embracing these new technologies to enhance the overall effectiveness of their – or their customers’ – protection programs?

Common Barriers to Entry

In working with many end-users over the years, I have seen numerous, consistent, and repeating barriers to entry in adopting and embracing emerging technology. Often these barriers to entry are largely centered on leaving a comfort zone of the known for the unknown.

Let’s explore four of the key barriers to entry for end-users considering new and emerging technology:

Cutting edge vs. bleeding edge: Being an early adopter can be appealing – you are first in line to grab up the latest technology. Unfortunately, many times as new technology is first rolled out, it comes with a host of complexities in getting it to operate as intended. This is where the cutting edge turns into the bleeding edge – when the new technology causes the user, integrator and everyone involved in the rollout of the technology a painful go at getting it right.

In the meantime, someone needs to answer to the person in the organization who is paying the bills as to why this technology is not performing as expected – making the venture of becoming an early adopter painful, expensive, and potentially embarrassing.

How do you avoid this type of blunder in being an early adopter? You could, of course, wait until the manufacturer of the technology has taken their lumps from other early adopters. A better practice would be to think ahead of the curve using a lab environment to bench test any new technology before it gets introduced to you or your customer’s systems in an active capacity.

Have a rollback strategy vetted to ensure you have a path to return to a previous system configuration should your technology rollout go wrong. These best practices are valid for both emerging technology or simply adding new technology to your organization.

Leadership buy-in: Often, if leadership cannot see the direct correlation to saving time or money, it is a harder sell to get new and emerging technology embraced and funded. Sometimes the reverse is true, where leadership is introduced to a shiny new thing, and they want it – now!

Because of the urgency, it is everyone else’s task to make it happen.

How do you make the business case for a new technology? It is all in the numbers. In evaluating technology, most all technology is designed to do something better, faster, smarter, etc., and that gets expressed by two key factors: time and money. When making the case for new technology, detailing the short- and long-term savings in capital and operational expenses, as well as the human capital savings for adding technology, should enable end-users to express the return on investment. This is the key selling factor to obtaining leadership buy-in, and it is something integrators should be helping their clients to achieve.

Regulatory factors: Having new technology that can solve a problem for a regulated industry may have the customers lined up at an integrator’s door with interest, but they may be hesitant to make the purchase until the “powers that be” chime in with direction or approval.

For example, in the airport vertical, many new technologies that can work well in the airport environment take considerable time for the solution to be evaluated by the FAA and the National Safe Skies Alliance. Most airports will wait for this evaluation before it is is willing to dedicate the funding required to implement the solution.

In the regulated environment, there is not much workaround to this process; thus, it is best to set new and emerging technology up for early review. In some cases, the customer can serve as a test bed if they are willing.

Skepticism: The product always looks good on the trade show floor, but will it perform in the real world? Salespeople are great at pitching the promise, but battle-hardened security professionals know that big promises can come with big disappointments.

Unfortunately, those disappointments can tarnish good reputations. For that reason, seasoned security professionals are far more likely to shy away from technology that has not been vetted by peers and endorsed by other reputable firms and manufacturers.

To avoid the “cold shoulder” when introducing new and emerging technology to customers, it is best to know your facts about the product. Explain how it has been proven in the marketplace and what guarantees the manufacturer and supplier are willing to make behind its successful deployment. If you are truly confident in how the technology will perform, base your payment structure on the technology’s successful deployment and performance.

Take the risk off the customer. If the technology does not perform, remove it at no cost. If it works successfully, the customer pays a 10% premium – a win/win.

Keep Pedaling

Overall, removing the barriers to entry on new and emerging technology falls on the manufacturer. The end-user wants to know they will not end up spending money on something that does not perform, has a costly and frustrating implementation, and creates a generally embarrassing situation professionally that needs to be explained to leadership.

In the meantime, manufacturers should keep bringing those solutions to market and integrators and consultants should be making the case for their successful implementation.

Article Link –

This article originally appeared in the Ěý´Ç´ÚĚý.ĚýPaul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Tech Trends: Overcoming Barriers to Entry appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.

If you are considering this as a provider or an end-user, you will need to look beyond the sales pitch to see the true value – and the drawbacks – of this technology trend.

At first pass, the “aaS” model can be very annoying to me as a consumer. I used to go into a store or browse online at the software available and buy it outright. If I elected to upgrade to a newer version in the future I could, but my hand was seldom forced, and the power was all mine.

Now, you are hard-pressed to find a software platform that is not offered in some type of subscription or SaaS model, and this trend is moving from the software world to hardware, systems and services. It is like you cannot “buy” anymore, only rent, but is this all bad?

The Pros and Cons
Understanding some of the pros and cons of this trend can help you understand its value, both to yourself individually and to an overall organization. While there are many aspects of the “aaS” sales model, here are five considerations you should evaluate prior to making the commitment – keeping in mind that one person’s pro may be another person’s con. Thus, consider these points under your own application and circumstances.

1. Limits expensive server hardware: When using platforms like Ava Security, Brivo, OpenEye, IronYun, etc. certain configurations of these services can be cloud-based. This can reduce or eliminate the need for on-premises servers, which are costly and have a limited lifespan.

If your customer is considering a traditional deployment of security technology, they need to consider that the servers installed on premises will come at a high cost and will need to be replaced in 5-8 years. They will also need to consider that they will likely need a Software Service Agreement (SSA) and a preventive maintenance contract to keep the system updated with patches, fixes and version releases. With an “aaS” model, all of this is included.

2. CapEx vs OpEx: While evaluating “aaS” options, take into consideration how the customer will buy the technology. Many construction projects have deeper CapEx budgets to allow for the initial procurement and installation of expensive security technology; however, buying “aaS” typically gets expensed through OpEx budgets and is a recurring monthly or annual expense – which can be more highly scrutinized. Having a thorough understanding of how “aaS” is funded and working out the details with the end-user’s finance department is critical to resolving push-back regardless of what solution is up for consideration.
3. Critical facilities, SOCs and uptime requirements: For facilities that operate in a critical capacity and have an on-site SOC, GSOC, or other real-time point of aggregating security information, close attention to “aaS” features are mandatory. Most “aaS” offerings have some or all features that are entirely dependent on outbound network connectivity; therefore, if the network fails, the security operation loses the ability to access and use the “aaS” product.

When evaluating “aaS,” ask your customer very pointed and hard questions about what services operate and if there are critical services that will not work in the event that outbound network connectivity is severed.

4. Bandwidth and network: The “aaS” sales pitch is typically a good one when it is well-perfected and delivered, but there are some downsides to consider, and integrators will need the end-user’s IT department or a non-biased third party like a consultant to help navigate the sales pitch and dig into the tech requirements of the network.

Having 10, 50, 100, or 1000 cameras at a facility that are going to a cloud-based “aaS” will have big implications on network architecture and bandwidth. Be sure this is fully understood before making a commitment to the “aaS” technology.

5. Proprietary equipment: Some “aaS” platforms openly accept cameras and edge technology from multiple manufacturers; others have cameras that can be used on other systems should you elect to stop using those systems in the future. That said, be warned that this is not the case for all “aaS” providers; in fact, some providers’ cameras are as good as a brick should your customer stop using the “aaS” platform. This could be a costly and embarrassing mistake.

Best Practices
Here are key takeaways for considering any type of “aaS” model for software, systems, or services:

Thoroughly understand what your customer’s needs are before calling “aaS” companies in to do a sales pitch. Not having this will distract you with sales presentation sparkles, bells, and whistles that may be great features, but can deviate from the core performance objectives required to serve the business.

Understand the points of failure in “aaS” models and be willing to accept the risks they present. Knowing exactly where the points of failure are enables the integrator and end-user to build operational processes to stopgap the vulnerability should a failure occur.

Know the total cost of ownership (TCO) of both the “aaS” and traditional deployment of the software, systems, and services you are evaluating.

Don’t go it alone. Bring in IT, Finance, and other key stakeholders of the business to help evaluate the solution from their areas of expertise.

Paul F. Benne is a 35-year veteran in the protective services industry. He is President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ LLC, a security consulting and design firm in based in New York City. Connect with him at www.linkedin.com/in/paulbenne or visit www.sentinelconsulting.us.

Article Link – https://www.securityinfowatch.com/integrators/article/21278024/tech-trends-security-tech-for-nonsecurity-stakeholders

This article originally appeared in the November 2022 issue of Security Business magazine. Paul F Benne is the President of ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ and has over 35 years in the protective service industry.

The post Tech Trends: Everything as a Service appeared first on ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´.