In dealing with change, one of the common catchphrases is 'paradigm shift'. It is often used by consultants to impress people and sounds important and scientific. All it really refers to is the mindset, the ways of looking at things, and the approaches typically adopted by people.
This mindset is an important thing in determining the way things are likely to change, or not change. There is an interesting aspect of how electronic security is changing but how the mindset is not necessarily keeping up with this.
CCTV is a relatively new phenomenon. It is also one that is characterised by some of the newest and highly expensive technology being introduced in organisations. In fact, this technology is driving the whole direction of security. What it has resulted in is highly sophisticated equipment being manned by CCTV operators who have to learn new applications and surveillance techniques on an ongoing basis. I do not think that many people will dispute that one needs a high calibre of trained people to effectively use these systems that cost so much. Also, that training is an important part of getting people to deliver the right results in line with the capabilities of the systems.
I have had the fortunate experience to be involved with some companies that have recognised the importance of getting high calibre staff. De Beers, Sun International, Goldfields, Toyota and Liberty Life are just some examples of these. In fact, in many cases the more progressive installer companies are encouraging their clients to choose and train the CCTV control room operators carefully. Why? Because the better the people are, the better the systems work and the more pleased clients are with the technical installations. Because the systems are successful, clients in turn are prepared to spend more on expanding the technical systems and giving the installers more work. In most of these companies above, personnel who are placed in control room positions are internal company personnel and the move is seen as a positive career path opportunity within the security department. The types of attitudes described here are reflective of a positive mindshift across the industry.
In contrast, a traditional view of security worldwide is the old man with a greatcoat huddled around a fire protecting the premises of a company at night. In fact, you can occasionally still see the phenomenon. Physical guarding has changed and become more professional, but the industry still faces the challenges of unskilled labour, high turnover, and reliability associated with a large but lowly paid work force. In fact, these characteristics are very similar whether you have such guards in Johannesburg, London or New York. Now, guarding companies are increasingly moving into roles providing contract labour to CCTV control room operations. How has the mindset of providing such guards changed in line with the demands of the control room?
My conversations with traditional security guarding companies or their clients often involve issues around selection and training to meet the increased demands that such control rooms pose for such personnel. For me, putting guards in control rooms as CCTV operators has all the potential for disaster.
This is a fact that a few high profile control rooms have found to their cost, fortunately not in the critical spotlight of public opinion. Control room operators are not guards - they should be specialised and carefully chosen people trained in dealing with the technological, operational and skilled requirements associated with the job. With a few exceptions in my conversations, guarding companies typically comment that the expenses associated with more professional selection and training are too high. "We cannot afford that," they say to costs that any other department in a company would be happy to pay for selection and development. "This is the security industry," they say.
The guarding companies have a contract to fulfil and they work in an industry characterised by low margins. So, many operations continue to have low level manpower staffing their expensive and sophisticated CCTV and electronic security systems with limited success. Is this the guarding companies' fault? Part of the problem is that the mindset in this situation has not changed.
The guarding companies are caught in the trap of expectations of many clients. Labour is seen as an area of cost savings, and the managers of clients hire accordingly. It has always been this way in physical security and companies continue to compete on the basis of the lowest cost to the client. Unwilling to pay rates which will allow the guarding companies to use specialised selection procedures and professional training, clients settle for less. This attitude may exist in anybody from the GM to the human resource officer but can include the security manager. This in turn reinforces the continued supply of a limited and cheap level of manpower in the form of guards to clients. It is a vicious circle and ultimately the clients, guarding companies and operators themselves who come under so much pressure are the losers.
It does not have to be like this. Recently, the Cape Town municipality CCTV centre, for example, prescribed fairly stringent requirements for the selection of personnel within their tender for obtaining personnel. Some companies insist on providing certain minimum rates of pay for operators in order to get motivated personnel and reduce the temptation for collusion. Other companies lay down high standards for both the selection and training of manpower, and recognise up front that these costs will need to be incorporated into the budget proposal of companies who supply their CCTV personnel. I know of companies which have trained the personnel supplied to them at their own cost in order to ensure that they are getting the level of service they desire. One trend occurring that I would encourage is guarding companies form specialised CCTV sections that provide a higher calibre of carefully chosen and trained people who are costed out as such. I know that in cases where guarding companies do get the backing of clients to provide high-level manpower with appropriate levels of remuneration, they jump at such opportunities. It provides everybody with a win-win situation.
There are CCTV operators out there who are in difficult circumstances, with little training, trying as hard as they can to make a difference in conditions where they are not appreciated or empowered. Much of this relates to the mindset that is perpetuating this situation. I remember commenting in a column two years ago that some security managers were saying they have to accept anyone they are supplied with. That 'paradigm shift' you hear about - it has already started but it is still a real need and we need more of it in order to deliver an effective service.
Dr Craig Donald is an industrial psychologist and specialist in human factors in security and CCTV. He is the co-developer of the Surveillance and Monitoring Assessment Exercise (SAMAE) for the selection and placement of CCTV operators and presenter of the CCTV Surveillance Skills training course. He can be contacted on telephone: (011) 787 7811, fax: (011) 886 6815, or e-mail: [email protected]
© Technews Publishing (Pty) Ltd. | All Rights Reserved.
printer friendly version