printer friendly version

Real-world decision in retail

I recently attended a site walk in a local retail facility that is very popular amongst most South Africans. The owner/managed store has been around for 45 years and was lamenting stock shortages, pilferage and the genuine concern of employees not actually working when they came to work. The adages of unproductive people create leaks in your business like a boat with holes in was clear to me.

The owner’s major concern was that he could just not keep up anymore – his site had approximately 138 cameras and he simply said it was probably the most tiresome of events in trying to catch culprits, be it theft of time, product or ultimately damage to his reputation.

He had deployed a meaningful number of security guards ambling about in the isles. “Ultimately,” he said, “my store has become a mini chapter of the most concentrated security force.”

Apart from it being embarrassing for clients bumping into a security guard every time they took a tin of beans, it made them feel uncomfortable being under the barrage of constant surveillance, so much so that they just wanted to get out and forget about the whole experience.

Simplicity is paramount

After the two hours of going through every nook and cranny that concerned the owner my answer to the gentleman was relatively simple. The slogan ‘simplicity is the ultimate sophistication’ is exactly what technology is trying to achieve. We, as security service providers, in many cases have lost the essence of what it is we are trying to achieve. Yes, catching the culprit is obviously the end game, but the question is how do we make it effective, transparent and easier to do for the poor person trying to go through reams and reams of footage and paperwork to do so.

The introduction of high megapixel technology is a talk track that has emanated from most spheres of influence. We are grasping the material fact that pixel density is a mathematical measurable and the fact that we can now plot this to the degree that we can effectively minimise camera count and achieve the same success with much less has been an introduction for systems integrators that is relatively foreign.

The question always comes up: Johan, what do you mean I don’t need five cameras? Are you saying I can achieve the same with one? That is exactly the point. The moment we take the complexity of trying to monitor 137 cameras and we are able to maintain the same pixel density and create the environment with a third of the cameras, it becomes more manageable, more attractive and ultimately easier to control. We can talk of fuel station forecourts with the same conviction, we can achieve much more with much less.

Less of more, or more of less?

The argument goes that your multi-megapixel camera is ultimately going to cost so much more than the original five. That is the most likely argument as we all know that the commodity item called a camera is a very cheap item if we look at manufacturers in the East, but I would challenge this argument with one question. Would a client want a quicker install with less points of failure, or one with multiple points of failure that takes more time to install and maintain?

The answer is simple. We would rather afford the ‘quality’ product that has the ability to produce years of service. When looking at potential sites, consider panoramic cameras or multi-sensor cameras for the installation. You would be surprised at the reduction of installation time and the value of more pixels in these types of installations.

Share this article:

Further reading: