The White Heat in Security

Rapid technological change has crowded into every corner of human life, and has already made a not insignificant impact on the security industry. Thirty two years ago, when the National Supervisory Council for Intruder Alarms – the National Security Inspectorate's (NSI) forerunner – first began its operations, there was a handful of companies installing intruder alarms (amounting to just a few thousand certificated systems per year). Now, the story is very different.

In 2003, around 150,000 police-calling intruder alarms were installed and there was an unknown number of CCTV and access control systems which didn't (and still don't) require a Unique Reference Number, not to mention the multitude of 'bells only' or DIY installations of all technologies.

That technology can augment or even replace a human security presence is now accepted as de rigeur. In many ways, it's an index of the need for security, just as it measures the availability and cost of the technological alternative.

Until recently, we've tended to treat these different technologies separately. There are established Codes of Practice – typically NACOSS Gold Codes of Practice – rules and British Standards united in different ways to make up separate inspection schemes. On a voluntary basis, security companies have applied to extend the scope of their operations into certain areas of CCTV and access control if they perceive that this will offer them a commercial advantage. The corollary of all this is, of course, that companies could still install these other technologies without the proof of an independent oversight. Over time, this has drifted into yet more complexity.

One important issue here is the use of standard terminology. Customers don't wish to learn the terms and descriptions which roll off the tongue of specialist professionals. Nor should they have to. Some customers believe that security covers a pretty wide field, and surely a security system is all that they need? It is we who are guilty of defining 'systems' in such a way that it's not immediately apparent to the customer that the definition doesn't – by way of example – include guarding.

In management speak, 'systems' can include many soft or hard components, and as such our rather narrow definitions aren't always easily translated. Just recently, a client complained to the NSI that he hadn't been told CCTV wasn't an 'intruder alarm'. He wanted a CCTV system to warn of an intruder entering the premises, so why did we use language to distinguish the two areas in such a way that they might be confused? Good point – and a particularly apt one if the company offering the CCTV system were not 'in scope' for that technology.

The terminology itself is also becoming more complex and confusing. 'Access control' hardly rolls off the tongue. Try adding it to a list of other scopes under a logo and the value of communication is quickly overcome by too much detail.

There is a juncture at which all this has to stop for a radical overhaul, though, and at the NSI we've reached that point now so far as electronic security systems are concerned.

If a company installs an intruder alarm, CCTV or access control system, it will do so to the established and tested Codes of Practice and/or British Standards supplemented by a specialised quality management process (which, for NACOSS Gold companies, wi

Cutting out ambiguities
From 4 April onwards, there'll be no more separation of electronic systems scopes into compartments. If a company installs an intruder alarm, CCTV or access control system, it will do so to the established and tested Codes of Practice and/or British Standards supplemented by a specialised quality management process (which, for NACOSS Gold companies, will amount to an industry-specific ISO 9001:2000).

Importantly, there'll be no ambiguity in presenting credentials to the customer. If it's a recognised service within the sector then it'll be carried out to approved standards. And, to make matters even more simple, as there'll only be one scope there will not be any need for a customer to check whether the company has extended its operation. Nor any need to contract separate companies to carry out certificated installations. Those companies offering all three technologies will be able to do so on a level playing field, subject to a standardised audit sampling by NSI inspectors.

I'll not pretend that this was a particularly easy idea to introduce on an initial basis. Of course there was some resistance, and it occasionally arose from unexpected quarters.

One installer of all three 'scopes' told me he was unhappy with the change because it removed a differential which he'd been proud to offer his customers. In the round, his situation had been improved by the elimination of potentially unfair competition which, he concurred, was ultimately to his advantage.

'Extension of scope'
For the NSI there are some downsides. In order to make this process fair, we're eliminating the charges for 'extension of scope' in the optimistic expectation that an increase in certificate revenue will compensate for the loss. A gamble we feel to be worth taking.

All that said, there's another opportunity presented within this change which lies at the heart of its conception. Rather than live in a restrictive world of scopes and extensions, lagging naturally behind the technology itself, there's now huge flexibility on how further technologies might be incorporated into the model. One emerging technology – of which there are many – is that of Electronic Article Surveillance. Security tags can now be attached to articles as small and low value as Mars bars.

Indeed, the latest article surveillance technology has been miniaturised so that it can be placed within the fibres of a garment. Soon, every item we use will be trackable and, therefore, manageable.